Skip to main content

Reply to "Vaynerchuck or Parker?"

quote:
I am a strong advocate of only buying wines that you have tried and know you will enjoy. But it's not easy, or possible to do this in many instances due to finances.


In this scenairio, I would potentially comment that if you can't afford to try it, you can't afford to buy it. And, this is not meant to be an attack.

I make it a point to try virtually everything in my cellar. Granted, there are somethings I can't try before I buy. For example, a highly sought after wine at a good price that if I wait even one day to try it, it's gone from the marketplace. In this scenairio....I buy, try, and if I don't think it's worth it's price tag....off to auction it goes.

I have no desire to cellar potentially uninspiring wine. It's not cost effective. Although, in some cases I guess it could be negligible. I suppose if you had 2000 Lafite in the cellar and 20 years later, you didn't like it, you'd still have a hefty profit to take at auction on the remaining bottles.

I also don't agree with the folks who say...well, even if you try it when it's young, you have no idea what it will eventually be like, so what's the point? If that is so, then why is there a growing number of critics every year speculating on the latest vintage available? Granted, there are no for sures, but once you've tasted enough wine, it's not hard to evaluate the raw materials and decide whether or not the wine is interesting enough to cellar. Point and case....at La Paulee over the weekend, it was no surprise that Armand Rousseau's 2005's were so highly talked about. Were they ready to drink? No. But, the raw materials were nothing short of stunning, and the hundreds of people trying it were all able to see that.
×
×
×
×