Originally posted by JimBrennan: ...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). ...
When you say from $12 to $26, that's a bit misleading since $12 is a futures price from 2003/4 and $26 is current 2007 market price. To be more "apples to apples", lets just take the futures prices from the chateau using your numbers: $12 in 2004 and $16 in 2005.
Using your numbers still, $12 converts to $15.14 ($12 x (0.82/0.65)) accounting for the drop in the US$. That's 86 cents shy of the $16 2005 price. If you consider that 2005 is a better vintage, then $16 is actually pretty good.
So when you say in one of your earlier post "It also goes directly to the heart of the real problem with Bordeaux's aggressive pricing.", it seems that based on your example, the "heart of the real problem" lies not with the Bordeaux, but with the free market forces that determines today's prices.
Originally posted by James Suckling: 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...
To your first question, yes. As noted, I purchased a quantity about 2 months ago after having a bottle. It's a good bottle of wine, no doubt, particularly for its peer group, and a value in the $15-24 range. However, I'd chase other wines for $30/bottle.
As to the remainder, well, now you're just being thin-skinned...
PS - Speaking of peer groups, can you tell me what was the makeup of the peer group Puygueraud was evaluated within?
Originally posted by Stevey: When you say from $12 to $26, that's a bit misleading since $12 is a futures price from 2003/4 and $26 is current 2007 market price. To be more "apples to apples", lets just take the futures prices from the chateau using your numbers: $12 in 2004 and $16 in 2005.
Using your numbers still, $12 converts to $15.14 ($12 x (0.82/0.65)) accounting for the drop in the US$. That's 86 cents shy of the $16 2005 price. If you consider that 2005 is a better vintage, then $16 is actually pretty good.
I agree. $16 isn't a bad price although, if you really want to get technical about it, you'll see that the precipitous drop in the dollar vs the Euro didn't occur until more recently. Both '04 and '05 futures were offered when the USD was worth around 0.80 Euros. So, the markup from $12 to $15 ($16 at some also) already adds a premium for the quality of the vintage (or at least that's my opinion).
Where alot of the added cost is probably coming from is importers who are rebuying from Europe with a weakened dollar... but still, $30 is hefty premium IMO. Your mileage may vary, but for $30 and above I prefer to find values amongst classed growths from '01, '02, and '04.
Jim: Your exchange rate figures are way off. It's never been 80 cents to the Euro. I have lived in Europe for 23 years and keep track of that on a daily basis. When you get your facts right let's talk again...but thanks for your comments and Happy Easter.
Jim, you have read what I have written incorrectly.
I've been saying that 1 USD was worth .82 Euro in June '05 and .80 Euro in June '06. You'll find that this is accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Dollar_versus_euro I think you may have confused me as saying that the Euro was worth .80 USD, which certainly would be incorrect.
Originally posted by MoselleLuxemburg: ...To me >30$ 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 $30.01, it would not be a good value, it would never ever be a good value. Are you serious?
And you noted that you are switching to Burgundy for value top wines...I am not a big fan of Burgundy reds and don't know a lot about them/their price points, but on several occasions I have seen others here comment that top Burgundy reds are far less of a bargain than top Bordeaux (perhaps the comments that I read were completely inaccurate, and I concede that).
Your last comment implies that Puygueraud was used as an argument to justify the price increase of the whole vintage. Actually you said that such an argument 'is not serious', with which I agree, but I don't see anyone suggesting that such an argument has any merit, I just see you suggesting that such an argument has no merit. I think that using the fact that I just took a sip of my triple grande nonfat extra-hot latte to argue that the price increase in 2005 Bordeaux is justified is not serious. Do you agree?
Sorry for any misunderstanding (and pain) my bad English might have caused. When browsing through this discussion i noted that, as far as value is concerned, it turns around a handfull of wines. (Call it Puygueraud, Caronne Ste Gemme, ...)
Would a Cru Bourgeois at 31$, rated 100 points, be a good value ? Of course, but then i'd say the Classification as Cru Bourgeois is wrong. Many Cru Bourgeois deliver technically perfect wines and in 2005 this obviously results in >90 points. I still feel that most Cru Bourgeois do not express the character of their Appellation like most Cru Classés would (or should) do. (That's my personal opinion) I consider them as tchnically well made 'Cabernet-Merlots' that compete with Cabernet-Merlot wines around the world. That's why i'd probably prefer a Montes-Alpha Cabernet at 15$ to a Caronne Ste Gemme at 30$ and that's why i cannot consider 30$ for a Cru Bourgeois a good value.
Sorry for mentioning Burgundy in this Bordeaux thread. I found the Bordeaux prices raising more quickly since 1985, but then one might argue that the Burgundys where overpriced in 1985.
Happy Easter
Slainte Mhath!
Posts: 727 | Location: Luxemburg | Registered: Nov 15, 2007
Originally posted by JimBrennan: Jim, you have read what I have written incorrectly.
I've been saying that 1 USD was worth .82 Euro in June '05 and .80 Euro in June '06. You'll find that this is accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Dollar_versus_euro I think you may have confused me as saying that the Euro was worth .80 USD, which certainly would be incorrect.
So, can we talk about peer groups now?
You might want to proof read your statements before publishing them. You inaccurately stated the value of a euro many times.
Jqmunro, I've looked back... I can see one or two places where the language choice was dodgy, but the context should clarify it... for example:
quote:
... decline of the dollar from around .82 cents to the Euro in June '05 to .65 cents today ($12 = about 9.84E then, today you'd need about $15.15).
I can see how the wording might imply otherwise to some here, but clearly not the math ($12 USD = 9.84 Euro then vs $15.15 USD = 9.84 Euro today). Later I mention the dollar was worth .8 EUR, which also seems accurate.
The score of any wine is based strictly upon its its impact on our senses. That wine's impact on the pocketbook is judged on an entirely separate set of criteria; who made it, what vintage, reputation, label design, classification, prior evaluations, etc. None of these criteria have any impact on the wine's taste and score.
Of Love and Wine: Always to spark the flame, but never to douse the fire
Posts: 177 | Location: The OC | Registered: Aug 23, 2006
Originally posted by JimBrennan: Jim, you have read what I have written incorrectly.
I've been saying that 1 USD was worth .82 Euro in June '05 and .80 Euro in June '06. You'll find that this is accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Dollar_versus_euro I think you may have confused me as saying that the Euro was worth .80 USD, which certainly would be incorrect.
So, can we talk about peer groups now?
For future reference, don't use wikipedia for a reliable source. Anyone can change anything that site says if they SAY they are a professional in the field, if even that. Yeah wiki's a joke.
Posts: 155 | Location: Newcastle, WA | Registered: Mar 12, 2008
Originally posted by JimBrennan: I take this thread as anecdotal proof that you can lead a horse to water, but you clearly can't force him to drink...
unless he's thirty or you put a gun to his head.
*********************** "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
Originally posted by Frank in KS: 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.
James, please see my questions above about Chateau de Reignac. It appears they got lost in the shuffle with all the debates about value.
Thanks.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frank in KS,
I finally got the call that the first of my '05 futures were ready to pick up from the LCBO, so this morning I picked up a half a case of '05 Ch. Talbot.
Originally posted by Slan: I finally got the call that the first of my '05 futures were ready to pick up from the LCBO, so this morning I picked up a half a case of '05 Ch. Talbot.
Still waiting on a bunch more orders, though.
me too, although I haven't picked it up yet I got the notice that it was ready for delivery - 2005 Ch Puygueraud
Originally posted by Slan: I finally got the call that the first of my '05 futures were ready to pick up from the LCBO, so this morning I picked up a half a case of '05 Ch. Talbot.
Still waiting on a bunch more orders, though.
me too, although I haven't picked it up yet I got the notice that it was ready for delivery - 2005 Ch Puygueraud
I also got a schedule of when the wines will be available and saw that some will not be in until September.
Posts: 119 | Location: Toronto, ON | Registered: Nov 25, 2007
Originally posted by Tag01: I also got a schedule of when the wines will be available and saw that some will not be in until September.
Good! I want to make sure I see Parker's next set of tasting notes before I make any final decisions on what to keep/cancel. Also, last time I had wine delivered in the middle of the summer from the LCBO, 3 out of 4 bottles were cooked (2 1996 Leo Poy, 2 1996 Pichon Baron, 3 probably cooked, the other also not so great)
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
... and I feel your pain!
