WineSpectator.com    Wine Spectator Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Wine Conversations    Screaming Eagle removed mailing list members for flipping
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Screaming Eagle removed mailing list members for flipping
 Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
The availability would change the game.
 
Posts: 8506 | Registered: May 28, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by spo:
The availability would change the game.

It absolutely would change the game... One person would attempt to buy up all the bottles to monopolize the market... To do so would require a hefty premium over the current $750/bottle.


The Dude abides.
 
Posts: 2346 | Location: San Francisco and Taipei | Registered: Jun 03, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thats it. I'm cracking a Screagle tonight.

Big Grin
 
Posts: 852 | Location: Arizona | Registered: Aug 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
PH- if you were an up-and-coming artist, who has made significant inroads at well-established galleries, and seen the value of your artwork increase 100x over what you were charging just 3 years ago, yet there was a "loyal" customer who has been supporting you by buying your work for many years, and you have therefore offered him a reduced price on new pieces, only to find out that the "loyal" supporter was turning around and flipping your pieces on the secondary market and earning a huge profit, would you be under ANY obligation to offer for sale any future pieces to said collector? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Would said collector have any actionable legal claims to future pieces based on their previous purchase history? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Even as a sole-proprietor, you are still a business entity. What makes what Screaming Eagle is doing any different?


The Dude abides.
 
Posts: 2346 | Location: San Francisco and Taipei | Registered: Jun 03, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
TPE, that's not comparable. The people flipping aren't getting it at a reduced price. They are paying the same as everyone else, what the winery is asking. If screagle wants to stop flipping just do what Harlan did. It kills the buzz around your brand and your wait list but you stop flipping.
 
Posts: 4154 | Location: Jupiter, Fl | Registered: Mar 11, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by LBJ2012FinalsMVPisclutch:
TPE, that's not comparable. The people flipping aren't getting it at a reduced price. They are paying the same as everyone else, what the winery is asking. If screagle wants to stop flipping just do what Harlan did. It kills the buzz around your brand and your wait list but you stop flipping.

Actually, they ARE getting it at a reduced price strictly from their prior loyalty! The ACTUAL price on the secondary market is 4 figures. They would not be able to buy the wine at the offer price of $750/bottle if not for their prior loyalty, so they're in fact getting the wine at a reduced price, and therefore the comparison is appropriate.


The Dude abides.
 
Posts: 2346 | Location: San Francisco and Taipei | Registered: Jun 03, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Some of you just don't seem to get it. Look at the reverse of your argument. SE has been selling you wine for several years. The price they sell versus the market rate doesn't actually matter. You decide not to buy for whatever reason. The reason doesn't really matter. They decide to use the legal system to force or compel you to buy it.

For Chissake, listen to yourselves. They aren't legally compelled to sell you anything. Their reason for it is not a factor.


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:
quote:
Originally posted by LBJ2012FinalsMVPisclutch:
TPE, that's not comparable. The people flipping aren't getting it at a reduced price. They are paying the same as everyone else, what the winery is asking. If screagle wants to stop flipping just do what Harlan did. It kills the buzz around your brand and your wait list but you stop flipping.

Actually, they ARE getting it at a reduced price strictly from their prior loyalty! The ACTUAL price on the secondary market is 4 figures. They would not be able to buy the wine at the offer price of $750/bottle if not for their prior loyalty, so they're in fact getting the wine at a reduced price, and therefore the comparison is appropriate.


No, it's not ppropriate at all. If everyone is offered the same price it's not a reduced price. It's the price. It's not a special deal for one person. It's what they sell their wine for. If they have priced poorly, it's on them.

GA, I agree SE can do what they want. I just think TPE's arguments are horse muffins.
 
Posts: 4154 | Location: Jupiter, Fl | Registered: Mar 11, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TPEwinedrinker:
PH- if you were an up-and-coming artist, who has made significant inroads at well-established galleries, and seen the value of your artwork increase 100x over what you were charging just 3 years ago, yet there was a "loyal" customer who has been supporting you by buying your work for many years, and you have therefore offered him a reduced price on new pieces, only to find out that the "loyal" supporter was turning around and flipping your pieces on the secondary market and earning a huge profit, would you be under ANY obligation to offer for sale any future pieces to said collector? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Would said collector have any actionable legal claims to future pieces based on their previous purchase history? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Even as a sole-proprietor, you are still a business entity. What makes what Screaming Eagle is doing any different?


The analogy isn't comparable. SE's "generous" pricing of $750 is as much as they feel the market will bear on initial offering. Period. When they think the market will bear a higher release price, they'll raise their prices. Again.

PH
 
Posts: 14640 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The question that still remains for me is this:

A business makes you this proposal. Give us your name and contact information, and after waiting for many years we will begin to offer you our product. If you continue to purchase our products each year, at a minimum level that we stipulate, we will continue to offer you product in quantities commensurate with your prior purchases.

The consumer purchases product at the specified levels for fifteen years. Suddenly, although the customer has not violated any of the specified formulae to continue to receive product, the company cuts them off.

Has the company breached an implied contract?

PH
 
Posts: 14640 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
The question that still remains for me is this:

A business makes you this proposal. Give us your name and contact information, and after waiting for many years we will begin to offer you our product. If you continue to purchase our products each year, at a minimum level that we stipulate, we will continue to offer you product in quantities commensurate with your prior purchases.

The consumer purchases product at the specified levels for fifteen years. Suddenly, although the customer has not violated any of the specified formulae to continue to receive product, the company cuts them off.

Has the company breached an implied contract?

PH
No. Are you required to buy?


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I don't think that's the issue, GA. The question is does this pattern of offer and purchase over fifteen years constitute an implied contract? I think it might.

PH
 
Posts: 14640 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
The question that still remains for me is this:

A business makes you this proposal. Give us your name and contact information, and after waiting for many years we will begin to offer you our product. If you continue to purchase our products each year, at a minimum level that we stipulate, we will continue to offer you product in quantities commensurate with your prior purchases.

The consumer purchases product at the specified levels for fifteen years. Suddenly, although the customer has not violated any of the specified formulae to continue to receive product, the company cuts them off.

Has the company breached an implied contract?

PH


There is no implied contract. There is nothing that says if you continue to buy at a minimum level we will continue to offer you and provide a certain allocation. There is no obligation to buy...there is no obligation to sell.

I'm not even sure how people can even think there might be..
 
Posts: 45 | Registered: Apr 27, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
I don't think that's the issue, GA. The question is does this pattern of offer and purchase over fifteen years constitute an implied contract? I think it might.

PH
This may be hard to believe, and sometimes isn't actually true, but there is implied fairness in the law. You know, that freaking statue with the blindfold and the balance scale.

There is no implied contract to sell to you just as there is no implied contract for you to buy.

I know you've been thrown out of multiple establishments. When you've protested, they undoubtedly pointed to that pesky sign.

"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Cool

Unless the reason to refuse service is in relation to you being some sort of protected class under law, they indeed have the right to refuse.


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Just for the record, I believe SE's practice of tossing people from the list is a stupid business model.

They are what they are due to flippers, more than they are from what's in the bottle.


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polymer:
There is nothing that says if you continue to buy at a minimum level we will continue to offer you and provide a certain allocation.


Well, in a way there is. I am not familiar with the specifics of SE's formula, but my understanding of most highly allocated wine sold by list is that they do tell you that if you don't buy <fill in the blank with whatever terms the company specifies> that you will be dropped.

Add to this a history, what...17 years of never dropping any member who fulfilled the company's criteria. Not one. And then continuing to offer wines based on prior purchases to every individual who continued to buy. Every one.

PH
 
Posts: 14640 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
The question that still remains for me is this:

A business makes you this proposal. Give us your name and contact information, and after waiting for many years we will begin to offer you our product. If you continue to purchase our products each year, at a minimum level that we stipulate, we will continue to offer you product in quantities commensurate with your prior purchases.

The consumer purchases product at the specified levels for fifteen years. Suddenly, although the customer has not violated any of the specified formulae to continue to receive product, the company cuts them off.

Has the company breached an implied contract?

PH


No.


“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”—Winston Churchill”
 
Posts: 3470 | Location: Vermont | Registered: Sep 10, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
I don't think that's the issue, GA. The question is does this pattern of offer and purchase over fifteen years constitute an implied contract? I think it might.

PH

It does not.


“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”—Winston Churchill”
 
Posts: 3470 | Location: Vermont | Registered: Sep 10, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
reason to refuse service is in relation to you being some sort of protected class under law, they indeed have the right to refuse.


I don't know if capitalists are a protected class or not Wink but it seems to me that refusing service to someone on the basis that they're engaging in capitalistic behaviour is discriminatory.

And totally agree with you on SE benefiting tremendously from the secondary market for their wine.

PH
 
Posts: 14640 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
reason to refuse service is in relation to you being some sort of protected class under law, they indeed have the right to refuse.


I don't know if capitalists are a protected class or not Wink but it seems to me that refusing service to someone on the basis that they're engaging in capitalistic behaviour is discriminatory.

And totally agree with you on SE benefiting tremendously from the secondary market for their wine.

PH
Discrimination is a concept under the law much like harassment. What you are describing is neither.


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vt2It:
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
I don't think that's the issue, GA. The question is does this pattern of offer and purchase over fifteen years constitute an implied contract? I think it might.

PH

It does not.


Based on what?

My understanding that a contract, implied in fact, arises in situations where circumstances and history imply that an agreement between parties has been reached, even if not expressly. How does this scenario not fit that definition?

PH
 
Posts: 14640 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO BUY IT!

Whew. I feel better.


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
You cannot flip Colgin for a profit in most cases. Or Harlan unless they get a 100 point score. I'd be surprised if you could flip Bryant as well. There were hundreds of bottles of Scarecrow for sale on the web for cost last release.

Saxum is available but always above mailing list prices. Don't know about the others.

The only wines that can be flipped almost every time are SE and SQN. That's it.

<possibly Schrader too>


This is about as accurate as it gets.

To paint a clearer picture...Harlan loses about 20% when it leaves the cellar door.

Colgin about 30%.

Of course, 99 and 100 point scores are an exception these days.


Daniel Posner
www.grapesthewineco.com-
"But is anyone speaking for consumers' best interest? One liquor store owner, Daniel Posner of Grapes the Wine Company..."-Wine Spectator
"One of the most important retailers in the country"-Wall Street Journal, November 2010
"(T)hese are the kind of posts we've come to expect from NY Retailer."-Board-O
"You're not here to help us. You're here to help yourself..."-Board-O
"You a liar and your motives here are clear to all. Let me repeat- you are a liar."-Board-O
 
Posts: 696 | Location: New York | Registered: May 06, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm guessing that Bill Harlan and Ann Colgin are sitting on an assload of unsold wine right now.

I'm wondering just how deep their pockets are. I know they don't want to lower their prices due to the perception that it will cheapen their brand, but unless they do, I don't know how long they can operate at what I suspect is an extremely slim profit margin.

When they were selling their wine for a price below the secondary market it flew out the doors like doves at a wedding. Other people's greed made these brands what they are. I think their own greed may just ruin their brand.


--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."

Marcel Ayme`
 
Posts: 10227 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Could Screaming Eagle be clamping down on flipping now in anticipation that the secondary market price could fall below the release price
eventually?
That runs counter to the prevalent sentiment that SE does not want its customers to benefit from arbitrage profits. Given that the wine is already priced beyond the drinking range of much of its list, they can't reasonably expect all buyers to be consuming the wine themselves.
They could stop arbitrage by raising the release price IF they thought it would hold.
 
Posts: 2228 | Registered: Jul 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6  
 

WineSpectator.com    Wine Spectator Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Wine Conversations    Screaming Eagle removed mailing list members for flipping

© Wine Spectator 2013