So I find a wine whose price I see as reasonable. Though it won't be ready
to drink for a few mores years or so, I go out and buy one of those portable
wine cellars from Sam's Club (holds 24 bottles). Then I buy 6 bottles of
wine for $300 each, thinking they will go up in value (some places are
already listing at $450 or more, and the lowest auction I seen these go for
was $340). Am I taking a very big risk? How do I know if these have been
stored properly? (I'm getting tired of the stock market)!! And if they go up
in value, I can sell four for $450 each and drink two, thus getting some
great wine for "free." Is this a good plan?

I confess that this query reminded me slightly of another posted here April
1, "Subject: Some modest questions."

Max

Sorry if I asked something that was covered already. Unfortunately, my
server does not go back to April. The earliest entry is July 1 (and I've
only found this group two days ago). I can understand if people don't want
to answer the same questions again and again. Thanks for mentioning the
previous subject at least. I will google it and see if my answer can be
found there.

But if anyone would like to answer it here as well, I would be much
appreciative. Thanks in advance.

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> I confess that this query reminded me slightly of another posted here
April
> 1, "Subject: Some modest questions."
>
> Max
>
>

Sorry if I asked something that was covered already. Unfortunately, my
server does not go back to April. The earliest entry is July 1 (and I've
only found this group two days ago). I can understand if people don't want
to answer the same questions again and again. Thanks for mentioning the
previous subject at least. I will google it and see if my answer can be
found there.

But if anyone would like to answer it here as well, I would be much
appreciative. Thanks in advance.

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> I confess that this query reminded me slightly of another posted here
April
> 1, "Subject: Some modest questions."
>
> Max
>
>

>I buy 6 bottles of
>wine for $300 each, thinking they will go up in value (some places are
>already listing at $450 or more, and the lowest auction I seen these go for
>was $340). Am I taking a very big risk? How do I know if these have been
>stored properly? (I'm getting tired of the stock market)!! And if they go up
>in value, I can sell four for $450 each and drink two, thus getting some
>great wine for "free." Is this a good plan?
>
>
>

I personally would never advise anyone to "invest" in wine. Buy what you plan
on drinking. For you to make a profit,
1) You need to figure in the costs of holding the wine- the cabinet, the
electricity, the lost money-opportunity cost.
2) You better hope a major critic doesn't downgrade the wine.
3) Hope that next few vintages of whatever type of wine you have are mediocre -
a string of "super-vintages" coming into the pipeline can significantly soften
market. Despite being excellent vintages, most 1996 Piemontes and 1998 Southern
Rhones haven't really appreciated much since release.
4) Account for seller's costs - commissions, ads, shipping,etc. Personally,
even with assurance of good provenance, I don't buy from private seller unless
they're probably 20+% less than lowest winesearcher.com (pro version!) retail.
5) In US there's also issues with legalities, depending on your state.
6) A lot of external factors (exchange rate, economy, etc) make investing in
wine as risky as the stock market (though less liquid).

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:32:48 GMT, "Vincent" >
wrote:

>So I find a wine whose price I see as reasonable. Though it won't be ready
>to drink for a few mores years or so, I go out and buy one of those portable
>wine cellars from Sam's Club (holds 24 bottles). Then I buy 6 bottles of
>wine for $300 each, thinking they will go up in value (some places are
>already listing at $450 or more, and the lowest auction I seen these go for
>was $340). Am I taking a very big risk? How do I know if these have been
>stored properly? (I'm getting tired of the stock market)!! And if they go up
>in value, I can sell four for $450 each and drink two, thus getting some
>great wine for "free." Is this a good plan?
>

Sounds like a plan, but not necessarily a "good" one. First, there is
the economy of scale issue. Dealing with 24 bottles total in six
bottle lots means you've got $7200 tied up for a long time and then
are dependent upon finding someone seeking exactly that producer and
vintage for the appreciated price. Unlikely.

Better to build a cellar for a thousand bottles, buy stuff that you
taste in case lots. Then drink it when you feel like.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Max, I googled for the subject you mentioned, honestly hoping to find an
answer (or sincere advice) to my questions. Instead, I found the post was
yours, and did not seem too sincere (ah yes, April Fool's Day). Up until
now, I have found that people here were quite helpful (very helpful, as a
matter of fact). If my questions seem "foolish" to you, I would rather you
replied so honestly, maybe advising me why I'm being foolish.

Anyway, your sarcasm does seem to tickle a few funny bones. If I'm a
*typical* newbie, and you find fault with that, then maybe this is not the
right place for me. I can't afford to be a yuppie, though I probably would
be if my income matched my taste. Just trying to benefit from the
experiences of others who are willing to share, so that I don't make some
obvious mistakes.

V


"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> I confess that this query reminded me slightly of another posted here
April
> 1, "Subject: Some modest questions."
>
> Max
>
>

Max, I googled for the subject you mentioned, honestly hoping to find an
answer (or sincere advice) to my questions. Instead, I found the post was
yours, and did not seem too sincere (ah yes, April Fool's Day). Up until
now, I have found that people here were quite helpful (very helpful, as a
matter of fact). If my questions seem "foolish" to you, I would rather you
replied so honestly, maybe advising me why I'm being foolish.

Anyway, your sarcasm does seem to tickle a few funny bones. If I'm a
*typical* newbie, and you find fault with that, then maybe this is not the
right place for me. I can't afford to be a yuppie, though I probably would
be if my income matched my taste. Just trying to benefit from the
experiences of others who are willing to share, so that I don't make some
obvious mistakes.

V


"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> I confess that this query reminded me slightly of another posted here
April
> 1, "Subject: Some modest questions."
>
> Max
>
>

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> >I buy 6 bottles of
> >wine for $300 each, thinking they will go up in value (some places are
> >already listing at $450 or more, and the lowest auction I seen these go
for
> >was $340). Am I taking a very big risk? How do I know if these have been
> >stored properly? (I'm getting tired of the stock market)!! And if they go
up
> >in value, I can sell four for $450 each and drink two, thus getting some
> >great wine for "free." Is this a good plan?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I personally would never advise anyone to "invest" in wine. Buy what you
plan
> on drinking. For you to make a profit,
> 1) You need to figure in the costs of holding the wine- the cabinet, the
> electricity, the lost money-opportunity cost.
> 2) You better hope a major critic doesn't downgrade the wine.
> 3) Hope that next few vintages of whatever type of wine you have are
mediocre -
> a string of "super-vintages" coming into the pipeline can significantly
soften
> market. Despite being excellent vintages, most 1996 Piemontes and 1998
Southern
> Rhones haven't really appreciated much since release.
> 4) Account for seller's costs - commissions, ads, shipping,etc.
Personally,
> even with assurance of good provenance, I don't buy from private seller
unless
> they're probably 20+% less than lowest winesearcher.com (pro version!)
retail.
> 5) In US there's also issues with legalities, depending on your state.
> 6) A lot of external factors (exchange rate, economy, etc) make investing
in
> wine as risky as the stock market (though less liquid).

The only way to profitably "invest" in wines is to get on California mailing
lists (e.g., Screaming Eagle) where the buy price is substantially less than
the secondary market. Any other approach (except perhaps futures or
long-haul investments) will probably result in a loss for the reasons stated
above.

Of course, if you put your money in wine, at least you have a product you
can use (and drown your sorrows with).

Also, in my opinion, NEVER buy old wines. Yes, they might be good, but
there's no way you can be sure. Only buy new releases that are properly
shipped and stored.



>
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

Vincent wrote:

> Max, I googled for the subject you mentioned, honestly hoping to find an
> answer (or sincere advice) to my questions. Instead, I found the post was
> yours, and did not seem too sincere (ah yes, April Fool's Day). Up until
> now, I have found that people here were quite helpful (very helpful, as a
> matter of fact). If my questions seem "foolish" to you, I would rather you
> replied so honestly, maybe advising me why I'm being foolish.

Vincent,
You'll have to forgive Max's humor, but you must understand that wine
"investors" are viewed by most wine lovers as a pox on humanity. We buy wine
to enjoy, and those who use it as an investment make it more expensive for us
to enjoy something that we love. I don't begrudge wineries, importers or
retailers their profit margins because they all provide valuable services or
products but I bear no love at all for some leech who wants to sell my
favorite wine at inflated price in the aftermarket and in so doing buys up
all the stock before I can get my hands on any. Get it?

Having said that, it's still a very risky investment. Like any commodity
trading, prices can fluctuate wildly and it's as easy (perhaps easier) to
lose money as it is to make it. Also keep in mind that you're dealing with
a perishable commodity, so your ability to profit will depend on your
providing impeccable provenance. You'll also have to watch auction prices
like a hawk, since you'll have to sell at auction as most states forbid the
sale of alcohol by individuals.

There are economists in this group who could give you a much more detailed
analysis of the pitfalls, but the bottom line is you'd be most likely better
off with a more traditional investment unless you're already a savvy
commodities trader. You'll also have more friends in this group. ;-)

Mark Lipton

"Vincent" in . ..
> ... If my questions seem "foolish" to you, I would rather
> you replied so honestly, maybe advising me ...

I didn't mean that. Just that the query reminded me of some I had in mind
on April 1. They casually ask deep and elaborate questions. Some of them
ask for the moon. Sort of like a tongue-in-cheek "academic examination"
that circulated in the US 15 or 20 years ago with questions like "Describe
the history of the Papacy from inception to the today. Be concise but
complete. You have 10 minutes. ."



Rather than investing $300 per bottle recommended by others, why not (for
example) first spend a few years investing in $20 bottles and getting to
know them? As Dale Williams noted, buying on price speculation exposes you
to real risks. There is a serious chance that the planned payoff won't
develop.



But investing in your own palate is a sure thing. Learning ins and outs of
wines not only builds your ability to predict what you and others will like
(which a published critic may or may not do), it frees you from the
marketplace impact of such critics. I count as some of my best purchases
over the years wines that matured very well but were inexpensive and not
especially fashionable when on the market. Certainly, they would have been
poorer values if recommended in a publication (then everyone would rush for
them and they'd be either higher-priced or absent). Such is the false
promise of "numerical" wine buying.



This assumes that your point is eventually to enjoy the wine you do open.
(Today that does not always seem to be the case. I see people who formulate
every comment, seemingly every perception, in terms of opinions of this or
that expert. Yes, -- would like this wine. / That wine is no good, --- gave
it only a 79. / Life is too short to drink wines rated under 90 points.)
Will these people ever develop palates of their own? What would they do
with a truly outstanding wine lacking a label or rating?



I spent Saturday with very good friends, two of whom are an academic couple
in the US Midwest. They are not really "wine geeks" but shared an exuberant
open-minded passion for good wines for over 20 years and learned some things
in the process. They spoke Saturday of a colleague who is enthusiastic
about wine and participates on Web-site forums but relies, I gather, heavily
on authorities in describing and assessing wines. Is this kind of thing a
stepping-stone to developing one's own understanding of wine (as its
practitioners argue), or a hindrance? (I actually do not know, that's not a
rhetorical question.)



I also have to add that I don't presume that everyone is after the same
things in wine, or develops their palates in the same way. Some fairly
permanent principles do seem to stand out, in writing about wine expertise
from various eras, and I wonder if they are getting neglected in the recent
US reliance on numerical ratings.



In April-May 1987 on this wine forum (well before it moved from
rec.food.drink) we had a long thread on the "wine-anxiety phenomenon." (The
natural hesitation of people to put their tastes forward for strangers to
see, and how to bring this out, as it is one of the most positive things a
wine enthusiast can contribute, in a friendly environment.) Message ID
> et sequelae. Thread lasted a couple of weeks,
many different perspectives, I still have a file of paper copies of it,
useful background material for wine tastings. At that time, "numerical"
ratings were still somewhat novel and did not constitute much of a factor
competing with expression of personal taste. (People in the US did not yet
often refer to wines as "rated an 86" or whatever). Today, as I mentioned
two paragraphs back, they may constitute additional competition.



Max

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:26:24 -0700, "Max Hauser"
> wrote:

>"Vincent" in . ..
>> ... If my questions seem "foolish" to you, I would rather
>> you replied so honestly, maybe advising me ...
>
>I didn't mean that. Just that the query reminded me of some I had in mind
>on April 1. They casually ask deep and elaborate questions. Some of them
>ask for the moon. Sort of like a tongue-in-cheek "academic examination"
>that circulated in the US 15 or 20 years ago with questions like "Describe
>the history of the Papacy from inception to the today. Be concise but
>complete. You have 10 minutes. ."
>
>
>
>Rather than investing $300 per bottle recommended by others, why not (for
>example) first spend a few years investing in $20 bottles and getting to
>know them? As Dale Williams noted, buying on price speculation exposes you
>to real risks. There is a serious chance that the planned payoff won't
>develop.

From my perspective Max, you have nailed it. I prefer to drink my
chosen wines, than harbour delusions of wealth from investing.

Please note, the secondary market in Australia is the basis of
opinions from hereon.

However, *wry smile*, nothing feels better than to pick a wine from a
show. You love, it. You pay the $20 bottle price (a few cases of
course), and enjoy drinking/learning in it's development over X years.
Some wag says to me, "If only I could find a 98 XXXXX....I'd pay fifty
quid for it.."..... Well.. sale is done, as it simply subsidises more
experiments. I do admit to 'stockpiling' random affordable wines,
that I have chosen from shows, or have been 'worded up' on, lay them a
couple of years, and enjoy them, or they CAN offer a comfortable
earner. More likely a well chosen 'one of' $20 btl can be sold
within 5 years for $50 than a $300 btl with the ability to sell for
$750. Thus, entry is easy, affordable, and educational. :>)

The moral of the story is, if your 'investment' potential is not
realised, but your choice is based on your own taste, well, you drink
the spoils I guess. You haven't outlayed a king's ransom for the
opportunity and pleasure.

>Max
>
Regards Matt. S
(Swooper)

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> "Vincent" in . ..
> > ... If my questions seem "foolish" to you, I would rather
> > you replied so honestly, maybe advising me ...
>
> I didn't mean that. Just that the query reminded me of some I had in mind
> on April 1. They casually ask deep and elaborate questions. Some of them
> ask for the moon. Sort of like a tongue-in-cheek "academic examination"
> that circulated in the US 15 or 20 years ago with questions like "Describe
> the history of the Papacy from inception to the today. Be concise but
> complete. You have 10 minutes. ."

I understand. When I get into things, I'm often eager to learn all the ins
and outs as quickly as possible. But what you are saying is that experience
is the only way to really learn. Since we are all different, no one opinion
will suffice for everybody's taste (and I'm yet to discover mine).

> Rather than investing $300 per bottle recommended by others, why not (for
> example) first spend a few years investing in $20 bottles and getting to
> know them? As Dale Williams noted, buying on price speculation exposes
you
> to real risks. There is a serious chance that the planned payoff won't
> develop.

Again, that makes a lot of sense. I've been drinking wine for many years,
some I've enjoyed better than others, obviously, but my recent discovery of
a particular Bordeaux (Chateau La Lagune, 1975) has ignited a passion in me
that makes me want to pursue my new interest. Of course, Bordeaux's are not
the cheapest ones in the world to experiment with, and my income,
unfortunately, does not match my taste. Those less-expensive Bordeaux's (the
$20 bottles) that I have seen say they won't be "ready" to drink until 2015
or something like that.

Therefore, I've concluded (maybe erroneously) that I most likely will enjoy
a 99 rated Bordeaux (WS). That may be silly. I don't like all 4-star movies
better than all two-star movies, but given 20 random movies of each rating,
I would generally enjoy more 4-star movies than 2-star movies. So given
that, when I see a $300 bottle of wine (auction price that gets no bids)
selling in wine strores for $450 to $500, and in restaurants for $695 to
$895, and they say it won't be drinkable 'til 2005, with 15-20+ years to
enjoy, I'm thinking it has to be a winner. On the other hand, I do have to
wonder why it gets no bids.

How would I find some good $20 "drinkable" Bordeaux's? Would you have any
recomendations (or even where to look)? Even going up to $40 would include
my favorite (albeit the only one I had) mentioned above if I buy it from a
wine store (I seen it for $39 after paying $115 at a restaurant).

> But investing in your own palate is a sure thing. Learning ins and outs
of
> wines not only builds your ability to predict what you and others will
like
> (which a published critic may or may not do), it frees you from the
> marketplace impact of such critics. I count as some of my best purchases
> over the years wines that matured very well but were inexpensive and not
> especially fashionable when on the market. Certainly, they would have
been
> poorer values if recommended in a publication (then everyone would rush
for
> them and they'd be either higher-priced or absent). Such is the false
> promise of "numerical" wine buying.

I have already discovered that on a smaller scale (see last paragraph).

> This assumes that your point is eventually to enjoy the wine you do open.
> (Today that does not always seem to be the case. I see people who
formulate
> every comment, seemingly every perception, in terms of opinions of this or
> that expert. Yes, -- would like this wine. / That wine is no good, ---
gave
> it only a 79. / Life is too short to drink wines rated under 90 points.)
> Will these people ever develop palates of their own? What would they do
> with a truly outstanding wine lacking a label or rating?

In my case, I think I care about the ratings only when I don't know the
wine. If I already like it, the rating doesn't matter. In fact, I wish it
were rated lower so that market conditions would bring down its price. Some
of the cheapest great wine I had, was at restaurants in Northeast Italy. The
house wine was wonderful, stuff we can't buy here in most cases, as they
were from local wineries too small to export (and averaging the same price
per bottle as we in Chicago would pay for a glass). Once you become
confident in something (as we quickly learned to put our trust in the house
selections), labels or ratings really made no difference. But when asked to
shell out $115 (or $300) for something you know very little about, you look
for all the "expertise" you can find, hence my myriad of questions.

> I spent Saturday with very good friends, two of whom are an academic
couple
> in the US Midwest. They are not really "wine geeks" but shared an
exuberant
> open-minded passion for good wines for over 20 years and learned some
things
> in the process. They spoke Saturday of a colleague who is enthusiastic
> about wine and participates on Web-site forums but relies, I gather,
heavily
> on authorities in describing and assessing wines. Is this kind of thing a
> stepping-stone to developing one's own understanding of wine (as its
> practitioners argue), or a hindrance? (I actually do not know, that's not
a
> rhetorical question.)

US Midwest! I'm from Chicago, so if you know of any stores where I might
try, please let me know. Using a movie analogy again to address the point
you just made, I'm a big fan of Roger Ebert, and one of my favorite movies
of all time is a film called Days of Heaven. I seen this film after reading
an Ebert review (4 stars plus comments he made). While his review may have
sparked an interest in me, it was the film itself evoked the passion. If it
weren't for that review, chances are I never would have seen the film. Of
course, if I only limited myself to seeing Ebert 4-star films (which I don't
always agree with), then I wound say it's a hinderance.

> I also have to add that I don't presume that everyone is after the same
> things in wine, or develops their palates in the same way. Some fairly
> permanent principles do seem to stand out, in writing about wine expertise
> from various eras, and I wonder if they are getting neglected in the
recent
> US reliance on numerical ratings.

Based on descriptions given of wines you do like, are you able to judge
whether another similarly described wine would be to your liking? In other
words, if I find one I like that's nose is described as "berries, vanilla,
and oak," might there be a good chance that I might like another with the
same flavors (as opposed to "tar, tobacco, and leather")?

> In April-May 1987 on this wine forum (well before it moved from
> rec.food.drink) we had a long thread on the "wine-anxiety phenomenon."
(The
> natural hesitation of people to put their tastes forward for strangers to
> see, and how to bring this out, as it is one of the most positive things a
> wine enthusiast can contribute, in a friendly environment.) Message ID
> > et sequelae. Thread lasted a couple of weeks,
> many different perspectives, I still have a file of paper copies of it,
> useful background material for wine tastings. At that time, "numerical"
> ratings were still somewhat novel and did not constitute much of a factor
> competing with expression of personal taste. (People in the US did not
yet
> often refer to wines as "rated an 86" or whatever). Today, as I mentioned
> two paragraphs back, they may constitute additional competition.

In that respect, I do see how ratings can end up hurting. A Spanish white
wine we used to enjoy, Vega Sindoa Chardonnay, costing anywhere from $9 -
$12 per bottle is no longer available from the store we used to buy it.
Rating somewhere in the mid-80's (depending on vintage), the store stopped
selling it a few years after they started putting the ratings on the shelf.
Now they don't have anything less than 90 (or $9 - $12 either). And the
92-rated Spanish Chardonnay's that we paid $17.99 for, is not as enjoyable
as "old-86."

Thank you very much for your reply (and for listening).

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...

> Vincent,
> You'll have to forgive Max's humor, but you must understand that wine
> "investors" are viewed by most wine lovers as a pox on humanity. We buy
wine
> to enjoy, and those who use it as an investment make it more expensive for
us
> to enjoy something that we love. I don't begrudge wineries, importers or
> retailers their profit margins because they all provide valuable services
or
> products but I bear no love at all for some leech who wants to sell my
> favorite wine at inflated price in the aftermarket and in so doing buys up
> all the stock before I can get my hands on any. Get it?

Thanks, Mark! Well, if you knew my income, you'd all laugh. There's no way
I'm going to corner the wine market and drive up prices. But I suppose if
everybody took that approach (and some do), then that would drive up the
prices of the good stuff. Just like years ago, getting front-row seats at a
baseball game was quite possible. If ticket holders couldn't make it, they'd
turn their tickets in. Now they sell them to resellers (legal scalpers), who
sell them for well over 1000%.

> Having said that, it's still a very risky investment. Like any commodity
> trading, prices can fluctuate wildly and it's as easy (perhaps easier) to
> lose money as it is to make it. Also keep in mind that you're dealing
with
> a perishable commodity, so your ability to profit will depend on your
> providing impeccable provenance. You'll also have to watch auction prices
> like a hawk, since you'll have to sell at auction as most states forbid
the
> sale of alcohol by individuals.

> There are economists in this group who could give you a much more detailed
> analysis of the pitfalls, but the bottom line is you'd be most likely
better
> off with a more traditional investment unless you're already a savvy
> commodities trader. You'll also have more friends in this group. ;-)

Enjoying wine is the main reason I'm here. The investing came as an
afterthought as a way to afford some of those high-priced 99's which I can't
afford. You, Max, Dale and George kinda all put it in good perspective.
Well, I hope to have some wine experiences to share with this group. Seems
like a lot of good people here.

Take care!

If you're in Chicago, Sam's has some '99s that probably would drink well with
(a) 2 hour decant & (b) some meatier dishes. Seconds like Bahans Haut Brion or
Sarget du Gruaud-Larose, lesser Left Bankers like Grand Puy Lacoste, or Right
Bankers like La Croix du Casse or Mazeyres. The Bahans is only one I know I've
had, but I'd try any.

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

If you're in Chicago, Sam's has some '99s that probably would drink well with
(a) 2 hour decant & (b) some meatier dishes. Seconds like Bahans Haut Brion or
Sarget du Gruaud-Larose, lesser Left Bankers like Grand Puy Lacoste, or Right
Bankers like La Croix du Casse or Mazeyres. The Bahans is only one I know I've
had, but I'd try any.

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:34:15 GMT, "Vincent" >
wrote:

>Again, that makes a lot of sense. I've been drinking wine for many years,
>some I've enjoyed better than others, obviously, but my recent discovery of
>a particular Bordeaux (Chateau La Lagune, 1975) has ignited a passion in me
>that makes me want to pursue my new interest. Of course, Bordeaux's are not
>the cheapest ones in the world to experiment with, and my income,
>unfortunately, does not match my taste. Those less-expensive Bordeaux's (the
>$20 bottles) that I have seen say they won't be "ready" to drink until 2015
>or something like that.

I've encountered the same problem. I'm at the age where I'm reluctant
to buy green bananas. A wine that won't be 'ready' for ten years would
be a waste of my money.
>
>Therefore, I've concluded (maybe erroneously) that I most likely will enjoy
>a 99 rated Bordeaux (WS). That may be silly. I don't like all 4-star movies
>better than all two-star movies, but given 20 random movies of each rating,
>I would generally enjoy more 4-star movies than 2-star movies. So given
>that, when I see a $300 bottle of wine (auction price that gets no bids)
>selling in wine strores for $450 to $500, and in restaurants for $695 to
>$895, and they say it won't be drinkable 'til 2005, with 15-20+ years to
>enjoy, I'm thinking it has to be a winner. On the other hand, I do have to
>wonder why it gets no bids.

The number of folks who are willing to spend that much money for a
bottle is small. That means small market for the sale. You'll find a
lot more folks that like wine are able to buy bottles for $30-50
dollars and will spend $100-150 splurging in a good restaurant for
something that they might not otherwise be able to find. I've enjoyed
some Turley, Rochioli, Siduri, etc. when I've seen them on a wine
list, but have never had much chance to find them on the shelf of my
local merchants.
>
> US Midwest! I'm from Chicago, so if you know of any stores where I might
>try, please let me know.

I was born/raised in Chicago, but moved away many years ago and don't
get back much. I have, however, had great experience with Sam's online
(http://www.samswine.com/homepage.asp). They've got a great selection,
good prices and are reliable for shipping. They send me a newsletter
email once or twice a week with special offerings and apparently they
run regular tasting events to highlight regions and producers. If I
were in Chicago, I'd certainly make a pilgrimage.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

> I was born/raised in Chicago, but moved away many years ago and don't
> get back much. I have, however, had great experience with Sam's online
> (http://www.samswine.com/homepage.asp). They've got a great selection,
> good prices and are reliable for shipping. They send me a newsletter
> email once or twice a week with special offerings and apparently they
> run regular tasting events to highlight regions and producers. If I
> were in Chicago, I'd certainly make a pilgrimage.

Ed, Thanks for the reply. I have found Sam's website and it is very
frustrating not being able to find a specific wine I'm looking for. I can
find expensive ones easilly, as these are available at many auction houses,
which pop up when googling them.

For example, after reading Max's reply, I decided to find a Bordeaux for $20
or so. Starting at Wine Spectator's wine rating page, I selected Bordeaux,
1995, and (Below $10, $10-$15, $16-$20). Sort results by score. 114 ratings
found!!

Here are the first two that show up....

Winery: Chteau d'Armailhac
Wine: Pauillac 1995
Sco 92
Price: $20 (based on a 1998 review, so it may be more expensive today)
Loads of fruit in this wine, with concentrated tobacco, cherry and cedar.
Full in body, with big, velvety tannins and a long, succulent aftertaste.
Best after 2002. 21,000 cases made. (JS)

Winery: Chteau Dauzac
Wine: Margaux 1995
Sco 92
Price: $20 (also based on a 1998 review)
Best Dauzac ever. Attractive berry and violet aromas follow through on the
palate. Medium- to full-bodied, with racy tannins and a long, floral
aftertaste. Very pretty indeed. Best after 2002. (JS)

These both sound like ones I'd like to try. What would be the best way to go
about finding these in Chicago? Or would expecting to find them here be next
to impossible?

Thanks in advance.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:24:13 GMT, "Vincent" >
wrote:

>Ed, Thanks for the reply. I have found Sam's website and it is very
>frustrating not being able to find a specific wine I'm looking for. I can
>find expensive ones easilly, as these are available at many auction houses,
>which pop up when googling them.
>
>For example, after reading Max's reply, I decided to find a Bordeaux for $20
>or so. Starting at Wine Spectator's wine rating page, I selected Bordeaux,
>1995, and (Below $10, $10-$15, $16-$20). Sort results by score. 114 ratings
>found!!
>
>Here are the first two that show up....
>
>Winery: Chteau d'Armailhac
>Wine: Pauillac 1995
>Sco 92
>Price: $20 (based on a 1998 review, so it may be more expensive today)
>Loads of fruit in this wine, with concentrated tobacco, cherry and cedar.
>Full in body, with big, velvety tannins and a long, succulent aftertaste.
>Best after 2002. 21,000 cases made. (JS)
>
>Winery: Chteau Dauzac
>Wine: Margaux 1995
>Sco 92
>Price: $20 (also based on a 1998 review)
>Best Dauzac ever. Attractive berry and violet aromas follow through on the
>palate. Medium- to full-bodied, with racy tannins and a long, floral
>aftertaste. Very pretty indeed. Best after 2002. (JS)
>
>These both sound like ones I'd like to try. What would be the best way to go
>about finding these in Chicago? Or would expecting to find them here be next
>to impossible?

You're going to be frustrated terribly with that approach. Major
retailers are dealing with current releases (and in the case of large
shops like Sam's, "futures".) They don't keep wines, except for the
very big names from older vintages. Current Bordeaux offerings are
going to be 2000, 2001, 2002.

You might try Zachy's (www.zachys.com). I found your Dauzac, but 2000
and 2001. The 2000 is $39.99 and the '01 is $31.99. Both years are WS
91. But, you won't find merchants holding wines for years until they
are drinkable.

Similarly, you're also setting yourself up for disappointment by
choosing on pricing from seven or eight years ago. That was then
and....you know the rest.

Try searching Sam's for bordeaux, then looking for stuff in your price
range. Then go back to Wine Spectator if you want to see how they
rated what you've found in your price range and currently available.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:24:13 GMT, "Vincent" >
wrote:

>Ed, Thanks for the reply. I have found Sam's website and it is very
>frustrating not being able to find a specific wine I'm looking for. I can
>find expensive ones easilly, as these are available at many auction houses,
>which pop up when googling them.
>
>For example, after reading Max's reply, I decided to find a Bordeaux for $20
>or so. Starting at Wine Spectator's wine rating page, I selected Bordeaux,
>1995, and (Below $10, $10-$15, $16-$20). Sort results by score. 114 ratings
>found!!
>
>Here are the first two that show up....
>
>Winery: Chteau d'Armailhac
>Wine: Pauillac 1995
>Sco 92
>Price: $20 (based on a 1998 review, so it may be more expensive today)
>Loads of fruit in this wine, with concentrated tobacco, cherry and cedar.
>Full in body, with big, velvety tannins and a long, succulent aftertaste.
>Best after 2002. 21,000 cases made. (JS)
>
>Winery: Chteau Dauzac
>Wine: Margaux 1995
>Sco 92
>Price: $20 (also based on a 1998 review)
>Best Dauzac ever. Attractive berry and violet aromas follow through on the
>palate. Medium- to full-bodied, with racy tannins and a long, floral
>aftertaste. Very pretty indeed. Best after 2002. (JS)
>
>These both sound like ones I'd like to try. What would be the best way to go
>about finding these in Chicago? Or would expecting to find them here be next
>to impossible?

You're going to be frustrated terribly with that approach. Major
retailers are dealing with current releases (and in the case of large
shops like Sam's, "futures".) They don't keep wines, except for the
very big names from older vintages. Current Bordeaux offerings are
going to be 2000, 2001, 2002.

You might try Zachy's (www.zachys.com). I found your Dauzac, but 2000
and 2001. The 2000 is $39.99 and the '01 is $31.99. Both years are WS
91. But, you won't find merchants holding wines for years until they
are drinkable.

Similarly, you're also setting yourself up for disappointment by
choosing on pricing from seven or eight years ago. That was then
and....you know the rest.

Try searching Sam's for bordeaux, then looking for stuff in your price
range. Then go back to Wine Spectator if you want to see how they
rated what you've found in your price range and currently available.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> Try searching Sam's for bordeaux, then looking for stuff in your price
> range. Then go back to Wine Spectator if you want to see how they
> rated what you've found in your price range and currently available.

Thank you for the advice, Ed. I did search Sam's site and have found a
drinkable Bordeaux for $19.95. Sam's is only 20 minutes away, and they do
have it in their store. If you (or anyone) care to comment on my selection,
I'd be appreciative.

WS review....

Winery: Chteau Duluc
Wine: St.-Julien 2000
Sco 87
Soft, plummy and chocolaty, with a lovely medium-bodied palate, with plenty
of fruit and a delicious aftertaste. Second wine of Branaire-Ducru. Best
from 2004 through 2008. 7,915 cases made. (JS)

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> Try searching Sam's for bordeaux, then looking for stuff in your price
> range. Then go back to Wine Spectator if you want to see how they
> rated what you've found in your price range and currently available.

Thank you for the advice, Ed. I did search Sam's site and have found a
drinkable Bordeaux for $19.95. Sam's is only 20 minutes away, and they do
have it in their store. If you (or anyone) care to comment on my selection,
I'd be appreciative.

WS review....

Winery: Chteau Duluc
Wine: St.-Julien 2000
Sco 87
Soft, plummy and chocolaty, with a lovely medium-bodied palate, with plenty
of fruit and a delicious aftertaste. Second wine of Branaire-Ducru. Best
from 2004 through 2008. 7,915 cases made. (JS)

"Vincent" in . ..
> "Max Hauser" in ...
>
> How would I find some good $20 "drinkable" Bordeaux's?
> Would you have any recomendations (or even where to look)?

The following longe-term advice has worked for many wine enthusiasts in
recent centuries. There I'm not joking actually. I have at hand Alexandre
Dumas's dictionary in the Colman edition, with its stories of wine (I was
just searching for the one about the Roman general who also was a hopeless
wine geek, but maybe that's elsewhere). Marcel Rouff; couple editions of
Brillat-Savarin; some Waverly Root of course, at least three; many other
reflective writers from earlier days; wine books too from earlier days; even
truly ancient tidbits displayed in the reference sources such as Bitting and
Simon. (I do NOT have, alas, Vicaire [1].) But the others seem to
consistently support at least elements of this advice:

Watch and taste what's on the market (co-operative tasting groups help,
jointly sharing the work and expense). Communicate with and buy from good
wine merchants (the ones who are wine enthusiasts themselves); they further
watch and taste what's on the market. Do some homework. (One book I've
suggested for a few years is Stevenson's _New Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia,_
ISBN 0789480395 [2001] or 0789420791 [1997 edition], $35 at amazon.com, less
if used, if you can find one someone has parted with, I keep copies in
various places for emergency reference at a moment's notice, Preparedness
Pays!) Also, it doesn't hurt to build or borrow or rent
temperature-controlled storage because many good values need time. And keep
at it, it takes time too to develop anyone's palate and sense of producers,
geography, grape varieties, and that stuff.

(A similar question, by the way, got me posting about wine online in the
first place, on net.wines in 1983.)


> In my case, I think I care about the ratings only when I don't
> know the wine. If I already like it, the rating doesn't matter.
> In fact, I wish it were rated lower so that market conditions
> would bring down its price. Some of the cheapest great wine I
> had, was at restaurants in Northeast Italy. The house wine was
> wonderful, stuff we can't buy [in the US] in most cases, as they
> were from local wineries too small to export (and averaging
> the same price per bottle as we in Chicago would pay for a glass).
> . . .
>
> Based on descriptions given of wines you do like, are you able
> to judge whether another similarly described wine would be to
> your liking? In other words, if I find one I like that's nose is
> described as "berries, vanilla, and oak," might there be a good
> chance that I might like another with the same flavors (as
> opposed to "tar, tobacco, and leather")?

I believe so. I have always advocated reading descriptions by knowledgeable
critics (just as with movies or restaurants or books or whatever).
Sometimes when I have the chance to compare my own impressions with a critic
's, I disagree completely, which is good if it is consistent. Then I know
where the critic stands and how to "read" or calibrate that critic's
descriptions to my own taste. The US formerly had, as many countries do, a
group of competing specialty wine publications and writers with descriptive
tasting notes. When one of the newer critics coupled a precise-looking
numerical score with a penchant for decision (greatest wine in many years --
will definitely age well -- etc.) -- some of us wondered at the time, by the
way, about those decisive long-term aging claims from someone so young --
that new style was what consumers liked, and it came to affect markets, as
earlier US critics had not.

--Max


[1] "Real progress [in my collecting of books on gastronomy and allied
subjects] was not made, however, until [I got] a copy of Vicaire's
_Bibliographie Gastronomique._ This masterpiece in its field was published
in Paris in 1890 and covers the early European literature in a most
satisfactory manner. Vicaire was librarian to the Bibliothèque nationale
and correspondent to the Vatican Library, thus having access to unlimited
works. . . ."

Katherine Golden Bitting, 1939 (San Francisco). The Bitting collection is
described elsewhere as later (1946?) forming the nucleus of the cookbook
section at the US Library of Congress.