Originally posted by JimBrennan: It also goes directly to the heart of the real problem with Bordeaux's aggressive pricing. When even Bordeaux's minor chateaus are being sold for 2x their normal price, clearly one has to question the conventional (and often repeated) wisdom about the value Bordeaux offers once you get beyond the classed growths and their peers in Pessac, Pomerol, and St Emilion...
One might contend that the exorbitant price increases in the top 15 or so has a spillover that drives a rising tide across the board. One would hope that the journalist side of the wine industry would be a bit more critical...
While bashing the French is a favorite pastime in some circles, you seem to forget or do not know, that in 2001 the US dollar began to slide against the Euro. To generalize, if you bought a $100 bottle of French wine then, it would now cost you $150 now and the French never raised their prices. What you see as "agressive" pricing also reflects the decreasing value of your $ purchasing power for foreign made commodities. Perhaps your complaint should be directed to those who have managed our monetary policy?
"When I drink, I think; and when I think, I drink." Francois Rabelais
www.tanglenet.com
TN posted on Cellartracker
Posts: 3050 | Location: Oakland, CA | Registered: May 21, 2002
Rock On! Tanglenet Many of the Chateaus have kept their prices low to fight the nose diving dollar. Unfortunately many Negotiants bought low and sold high from the Chateaus in 2005
I fully concur tanglenet. Furthermore, while the top growths are doing very well, most of the Petit Chateaux and some cru bourgeois are going bankrupt.
Attacking Bordeaux as a whole for the prices of the 1st growths is akin to judging American culinary talent and cuisine based on eating at McDonalds.
*********************** "I have drunk not to the clouding of my reason, but just so much that I can still surely distinguish the syllables with my tongue." Athenaeus
Posts: 3377 | Location: montreal | Registered: Feb 21, 2004
James, some questions about Chateau de Reignac. It appears that they have two wines (not counting the Balthus). One goes by the chateau name (i.e. referred to as Chateau de Reignac), while the other is simply referred to as Reignac.
Is the Reignac their premiere wine and the Chateau de Reignac considered their secondary wine? Which did you review, and have you, or do you plan to review the other? Thanks.
Originally posted by tanglenet: While bashing the French is a favorite pastime in some circles, you seem to forget or do not know, that in 2001 the US dollar began to slide against the Euro. To generalize, if you bought a $100 bottle of French wine then, it would now cost you $150 now and the French never raised their prices. What you see as "agressive" pricing also reflects the decreasing value of your $ purchasing power for foreign made commodities. Perhaps your complaint should be directed to those who have managed our monetary policy?
Nope. I haven't forgotten anything. And let's move away from the high-end luxury wines whose pricing is clearly well-beyond the value of what's in the bottle.
James and other critics like to focus on the idea that there are lots of good wines that are good values at reasonable prices. I'm simply contending that when these good values start getting marked-up to 2x, they aren't such good values anymore.
So let's start with an example that compares 2004 with 2005, for example...
Puygueraud 2004 was offered on futures for about $12/bottle in 2005 at Zachys. It's on the shelves at Zachys for $16 today.
Puygueraud 2005 was offered for about $16/bottle in 2006 at Zachys. It's now available for $26.
I dunno, but I think the move from $12 in 2004 (let's compare against the price of the prior vintage) to $26 today (or $30!) is significantly greater than the decline of the dollar from around .82 cents to the Euro in June '04 to .65 cents today ($12 = about 9.84E then, today you'd need about $15.15).
I think we should expect consumer advocacy in the form of questioning whether a rather basic bordeaux is worth paying 2.5 times what the prior year went for (and whose price was representative of other years). But I guess that's just me, and the rest of y'all are just peachy with and agree the claim that $30/bottle is a good deal for what is essentially a cru bourgeois that cost only $12 three-and-half short years ago...?
Moreover, I don't get the red herring of comparing the cost of Napa wines to Bordeaux. Overpriced is overpriced, and that doesn't get into the issue of comparing acreage and land prices.
I'm not claiming that the Chateau are necessarily sticking it to us, but someone is sure taking a significant cut...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimBrennan,
Don't shoot the messenger. I don't set the prices in the shop my friend. Puygueraud is still an excellent wine in my opinion at around $30. But your point of it first being offered at $16 as en primeur proves that it made sense to buy early. You could have bought many 2005s for a lot less as futures. Anyway, perhaps you don't understand the system very well. Sorry.
James or someone- Has there ever been a vintage in the last 20 years where the prices upon release went down or stayed stable compared to en primeur? Let me rephrase: Was there ever a vintage where it turned out to be a bad deal to buy en primeur? In recent vintages it has seemed like the best opportunity to get best pricing. Some climb faster than others, but en primeur purchases seem smart.
Posts: 3174 | Location: Alexandria, VA, USA | Registered: Oct 29, 2003
James, perhaps you didn't understand what I previously wrote... I'll say it again slowly:
I bought Puygueraud '05 a month and a half ago for $15 from Macarthurs.
It may be a good wine at any price, but I don't think it's a value at $30/bottle.
Personally I see the job of a wine journalist/critic as more than saying whether a wine is yummy or not. I recognize that not all agree on that point, but I'm incredulous that you would state this wine is a value at $30/bottle.
A more pro-consumer response might be to say that $30 is a bit exorbitant for this wine, and either suggest other wines that haven't been inflated or suggest that they could buy and ship from other places for less per bottle (about $25/per).
PS - Thanks, but I understand the system quite well.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimBrennan,
James or someone- Has there ever been a vintage in the last 20 years where the prices upon release went down or stayed stable compared to en primeur? Let me rephrase: Was there ever a vintage where it turned out to be a bad deal to buy en primeur? In recent vintages it has seemed like the best opportunity to get best pricing. Some climb faster than others, but en primeur purchases seem smart.
1997, and I would guess 2006 will be too.
Posts: 1400 | Location: Jersey City | Registered: Feb 22, 2006
Remember that any increases less than about 10% between the initial futures and release actually represents a bad futures purchase (time value of money). Many more vintages fall into that barrel outside of the top 15 or 25 wines.
Let me say one more than in fairness to James... based on the prices when you initially rated this (I believe that was slightly after my purchase), it was a good buy then ($20?). But your highly-visible positive rating has apparently driven some aggressive pricing. The wine is certainly no less good from a rating perspective, but my point is that you're not committed to supporting the wine as a value when it reaches a price where it no longer is one (think $30!)...
People I have spoke to in the business say that the high quality 2005 wines are moving very well, so Puygueraud is going to keep moving up in price no doubt because a lot of people are looking for it and buying it. It was a great value at one point, and maybe not so much now. I get the feeling that there are going to be a lot of people late to the party and then upset at high prices.
Originally posted by JimBrennan: Remember that any increases less than about 10% between the initial futures and release actually represents a bad futures purchase (time value of money). Many more vintages fall into that barrel outside of the top 15 or 25 wines.
Let me say one more than in fairness to James... based on the prices when you initially rated this (I believe that was slightly after my purchase), it was a good buy then ($20?). But your highly-visible positive rating has apparently driven some aggressive pricing. The wine is certainly no less good from a rating perspective, but my point is that you're not committed to supporting the wine as a value when it reaches a price where it no longer is one (think $30!)...
What is the price point of other (similar, i.e. from an aging/drinkability perspective) wines that James has rated 92?
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Let's not also forget that buying futures is often a way just to ensure getting highly sought or less common producers that are very difficult to find at regular retail, whether highly marked up or not. Many retailers order a fixed amount of each producer, and if it sells out as futures, it never hits their store shelves. Plus, even if more is ordered, it will almost always be at a higher price as later traunches are, which is why you are paying more. Wine and gasoline have some similarities in the way retailers price. Some raise prices immediately as they price off reorder cost and make extra profit on their older inventory. Others hold prices until the inventory sells out and then increase when the new inventory comes in.
"Wine is bottled poetry." - Robert Louis Stevenson
Originally posted by JimBrennan: James, perhaps you didn't understand what I previously wrote... I'll say it again slowly:
I bought Puygueraud '05 a month and a half ago for $15 from Macarthurs.
It may be a good wine at any price, but I don't think it's a value at $30/bottle.
Personally I see the job of a wine journalist/critic as more than saying whether a wine is yummy or not. I recognize that not all agree on that point, but I'm incredulous that you would state this wine is a value at $30/bottle.
A more pro-consumer response might be to say that $30 is a bit exorbitant for this wine, and either suggest other wines that haven't been inflated or suggest that they could buy and ship from other places for less per bottle (about $25/per).
PS - Thanks, but I understand the system quite well.
What you don't seem to understand is that pricing history means nothing. Who cares that a wine sold for $16 a couple of months ago? All you need to decide is this: Is a 92 point Bordeaux good value at $30? A lot of people would say "yes". If you say no, then that's your choice.
Posts: 750 | Location: Palm Beach, Florida | Registered: May 05, 2005
Originally posted by JimBrennan: James, perhaps you didn't understand what I previously wrote... I'll say it again slowly:
I bought Puygueraud '05 a month and a half ago for $15 from Macarthurs.
It may be a good wine at any price, but I don't think it's a value at $30/bottle.
Personally I see the job of a wine journalist/critic as more than saying whether a wine is yummy or not. I recognize that not all agree on that point, but I'm incredulous that you would state this wine is a value at $30/bottle.
A more pro-consumer response might be to say that $30 is a bit exorbitant for this wine, and either suggest other wines that haven't been inflated or suggest that they could buy and ship from other places for less per bottle (about $25/per).
PS - Thanks, but I understand the system quite well.
What you don't seem to understand is that pricing history means nothing. Who cares that a wine sold for $16 a couple of months ago? All you need to decide is this: Is a 92 point Bordeaux good value at $30? A lot of people would say "yes". If you say no, then that's your choice.
"The 8th grade was the best four years of my life".
Posts: 77 | Location: Charlotte, North Carolina | Registered: Dec 31, 2007
Just bought the Pichon-Lalande for curiosity. I found it disappointing measured by this vintage’s great reputation. Maybe the lower classified wines are the most interesting Bordeaux wines in 2005 in terms of quality/price ratio?
JimBrennan: Have you tasted the Puygueraud 2005? I think at $30 a bottle it is still a value considering I gave it a 92-points rating. That's my only point. Obviously, you know a lot about the Bordeaux market and have nothing more to learn...
It seems strange to me that the 2005 Bordeaux's are pushed by the experts as being good values 'at all costs' whereas in a recent article it is claimed the Burgundy's from 2005 are good but expensive. To me >30$ for a Cru Bourgeois is not a good value, never ever will it be, no matter how many points on a piece of paper that wine has got. And dont blame the Dollar, here in Europe the price increase is huge as well. As far as i'm concerned i am switching more and more to Burgundy for value top wines. It seems to me the Burgundy's price raise has been much more moderate than the Bordeaux in the last, say 20, years.
Taking one single wine called Puyguesomething as an argument to justify the price increase of a whole vintage is not serious.
ML - I think James' point is, looking solely at wine quality (not labels), a 92 point Bordeaux is worth $30 to him. It would be to most people, if it was a 92 to to their own palate. He has tasted the wine and that is his personal rating. I would be reluctant to buy a wine for $30 that traditionally sold for $15. I would only consider doing that if I tasted it myself and I shopped and knew that it was the market price ($30 is well above market where I am). I also would feel much more comfortable buying a wine like Aiguilhe for $30 (which I did) that also got a 92 from JS, that I paid the same $30 for in 00 and 03. I bought Puygueraud at $15, but would not have bought it at $30. At the same time, James' point is valid in that the prices are rising on certain wines to reflect the quality the market percieves (heavily influenced by JS and RP) of that wine. I also agree with James in that there IS value in 05 Bordeaux as I am able to buy 92-93 point wines for LESS than in previous vintages, but on a lower eschelon of labels than before. If you are looking at what most 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Growths cost, then it is a very expensive vintage that is generally overpriced (at least in US$) relative to the quality. I have passed on many of my regular chateau like Branaire, Lagrange, Sociando Mallet, Leoville Poyferre, and Pontet Canet for that reason. For those, I will buy older vintages if I need more, and I will look for price declines as the economy weakens. For those that must have certain chateau, this is a frustrating vintage, but, there are many values if you take what the market is giving.
James - thanks for continuing to post your insights. I appreciate that you take the time to be here more than any other critic (WS or otherwise) I have seen.
"Wine is bottled poetry." - Robert Louis Stevenson
Originally posted by MoselleLuxemburg: ...To me >30$ for a Cru Bourgeois is not a good value, never ever will it be, no matter how many points on a piece of paper that wine has got...As far as i'm concerned i am switching more and more to Burgundy for value top wines...Taking one single wine called Puyguesomething as an argument to justify the price increase of a whole vintage is not serious.
This is a series of jokes, correct?
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Originally posted by MoselleLuxemburg: ...To me >30$ for a Cru Bourgeois is not a good value, never ever will it be, no matter how many points on a piece of paper that wine has got...As far as i'm concerned i am switching more and more to Burgundy for value top wines...Taking one single wine called Puyguesomething as an argument to justify the price increase of a whole vintage is not serious.
This is a series of jokes, correct?
Frankly, it doesn't make me laugh. If i based buying decisions on rating-points only, i could find hundreds of 90 point wines outside of the Bordeaux Region, well below 30$.
Slainte Mhath!
Posts: 725 | Location: Luxemburg | Registered: Nov 15, 2007
Originally posted by MoselleLuxemburg: ...To me >30$ for a Cru Bourgeois is not a good value, never ever will it be, no matter how many points on a piece of paper that wine has got...As far as i'm concerned i am switching more and more to Burgundy for value top wines...Taking one single wine called Puyguesomething as an argument to justify the price increase of a whole vintage is not serious.
This is a series of jokes, correct?
Frankly, it doesn't make me laugh. If i based buying decisions on rating-points only, i could find hundreds of 90 point wines outside of the Bordeaux Region, well below 30$.
Well thats really not what you posted. According to the logic of your post, if a Cru Bourgeois was universally rated 100 points and cost $30.01, it would not be a good value, it would never ever be a good value. Are you serious?
And you noted that you are switching to Burgundy for value top wines...I am not a big fan of Burgundy reds and don't know a lot about them/their price points, but on several occasions I have seen others here comment that top Burgundy reds are far less of a bargain than top Bordeaux (perhaps the comments that I read were completely inaccurate, and I concede that).
Your last comment implies that Puygueraud was used as an argument to justify the price increase of the whole vintage. Actually you said that such an argument 'is not serious', with which I agree, but I don't see anyone suggesting that such an argument has any merit, I just see you suggesting that such an argument has no merit. I think that using the fact that I just took a sip of my triple grande nonfat extra-hot latte to argue that the price increase in 2005 Bordeaux is justified is not serious. Do you agree?
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Is some of this bad communication a problem with English as a second language? Puygueraud was a specific example. But it most certainly does not justify horrific price increases in 2005 Bordeaux both by chateaux and wine merchants. I have written this before. So there is no need to elaborate any more. Burgundy remains one of the worst values in France, not only due to significant price increases over the years but the incredible inconsistency in quality among producers. This said, Burgundy producers some of the most extraordinary wines on earth, when you find a great bottle. But let's talk about 2005 Bordeaux in this thread!
