Rhys Incoming....Jan. 31st

[Thomas K.]

No good deed goes unpunished. Thanks to Kevin & team for granting some, even if not all, wishes. Keep up the good work. We look forward to the next release. There, now I said it.

[Corey Miller]

The real bundling comes in the form of the 4-bottle minimum purchase requirement. For those of us new to the list, we got offered 3 Alpine and 3 SCM. I'm really only interested in the SVDs after having had some mediocre experiences with the Alesia wines, but in order to buy the Alpines I had to buy an SCM to meet the 4-bottle minimum. Sounds like bundling to me.

[Jim Hartten]

Brady, I agree with you that if you can have a tiered system where seniority and buying history is taken into account to reward longtime buyers, yet also be able to spread a small number of limited bottlings to newer people on the list that are buying aggressively, I see it as a positive. I left two Alpine Chard, a Swan and an Alpine pinot on the table this release, and am happy to deter to the Rhys team on distribution formula. Remember, formulas are often kept secret!

[Larry P]

When Rhys began, they had a lot of acreage not yet producing wine. I think the flat/shallow tiers was partly to help develop their list to a size well matched to their expected full production. That acreage is mostly up and running, but weather, etc., the past few years has kept the yield per acre pretty low.

Great point Al. No doubt Kevin is struggling to allocate what has been disappointing yields over the past few years.

[G B a r k l e y]

.

[David M. Bueker]

And so it has begun - the inevitable internet backlash on what was formerly a sacred winery. Welcome Kevin, to a hallowed club. Keep doing what you're doing, stick to the plan, and someday you too will be a has been like Donnhoff!

[Cris Whetstone]

And so it has begun - the inevitable internet backlash on what was formerly a sacred winery. Welcome Kevin, to a hallowed club. Keep doing what you're doing, stick to the plan, and someday you too will be a has been like Donnhoff!

Exactly. Has there ever been an allocation system that made everyone happy? That will never happen for a wine that everyone is trying to get.

I've found the Rhys system to be very fair in the way I look at things. I've never ever understood the lists where if you've been around a long time and buy a lot you get to buy the farm every time. Spreading the goods out some while offering long time customers a better shot at scarcities always seemed best to me. The former only encourages flipping and after market profiteering. Id rather see a lot of people get to enjoy at something close to list price than have a few people feel self satisfied at being special while being able to profit off it.

[Brad S w a l l o w]

And so it has begun - the inevitable internet backlash on what was formerly a sacred winery.

This thread is amazing. First people complain about price increases, then they complain about not being allocated enough of the wine (or enough of the wines they REALLY want).

For my own part, I have always been happy with Rhys wines and the customer service experience that goes along with them.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Rhys bundles.

There, I said it. It's as simple as that.

If you don't like it, don't buy.

Sent them an email this morning expressing this. I don't like it, but I bought anyway. My opinion is that if you are going to bundle - tell your customers!

To be clear, I have no problem with the system; I'm just calling it as I see it.

[Humberto Dorta]

Wow talk about nit picking. I like the system, and Im happy I got one bottle to try, though I certainly wouldnt have bitched if someone else got it. Geez, I remember when Justin Smith screwed the pooch and some people on the list offered to return wines so others wuold have a chance at getting some. That is the spirit of wine drinking I like.

[Scott Williams]

Sorry, but this is not at all the same as the Saxum or Rivers-Marie episodes, where allocations were generally quite large (my first Saxum allocation was for over a case) and everyone received the same allocation, first come, first served. I find this comparison ridiculous.

And we are not talking about a bunch of fat cats at the top of the list getting flippable quantities. I am not a "C1" who gets offered cases more than a "C4". Unless I am mistaken, the top allocation was for one case: 4 Alpine, 3 chard, 3 SCM, 2 chard. That is not having the opportunity to "buy the farm" in my book, especially as everyone was allocated at least 6 bottles. I'm not greedy. I don't want and can't afford case quantities of these wines. I've never even taken more than 6, even when offered a case of the FF last fall. 3-4 of each would make me very happy.

As I see it, people are not complaining (at least I'm not). I think we're simply expressing our opinion that perhaps the wish list distribution system should be revised. I honestly can't think of any other winery that does wishlists in this way (e.g., giving extra bottles to lower tiers first). Many are first-come, first-served, others do it based on aggregate purchasing history. I personally think the latter is the most fair, and until recently, I thought this was how Rhys approached it as well. And yes, I would feel this way regardless of how high or low on the list I was.

cheers,
scott

[Lewis Dawson]

... I will say that my zealous purchasing is partly fueled by the fact that my wishlist requests for items that really push my buttons are generally granted.

Me too, Fred. If there is no "reward" in the wishlist process for buying aggressively, then it would be a lot harder to buy quite so aggressively on a consistent basis..

Added on edit... My comments are not a complaint about how Rhys has operated their allocation system, which has always seemed very fair, and does include a "reward" for long-time buyers. Rather, I am responding to the suggestions in this thread that Rhys change the system to shift the most scarce wines toward new customers and/or cherry pickers. I like it the way it is now, and sorry if I was unclear about that.

[David M. Bueker]

For my own part, I have always been happy with Rhys wines and the customer service experience that goes along with them.

+1 Trillion

[Lance Smith]

Always bummed to not get the 'extras' but at the some time, now we can justify going and exploring some other wines. Anthill just emailed, they want to sell some wine too :)

Another perspective - more savings for Da Horseshoe come Fall!

[Humberto Dorta]

Sorry, but this is not at all the same as the Saxum or Rivers-Marie episodes, where allocations were generally quite large (my first Saxum allocation was for over a case) and everyone received the same allocation, first come, first served. I find this comparison ridiculous.

And we are not talking about a bunch of fat cats at the top of the list getting flippable quantities. I am not a "C1" who gets offered cases more than a "C4". Unless I am mistaken, the top allocation was for one case: 4 Alpine, 3 chard, 3 SCM, 2 chard. That is not having the opportunity to "buy the farm" in my book, especially as everyone was allocated at least 6 bottles. I'm not greedy. I don't want and can't afford case quantities of these wines. I've never even taken more than 6, even when offered a case of the FF last fall. 3-4 of each would make me very happy.

As I see it, people are not complaining (at least I'm not). I think we're simply expressing our opinion that perhaps the wish list distribution system should be revised. I honestly can't think of any other winery that does wishlists in this way (e.g., giving extra bottles to lower tiers first). Many are first-come, first-served, others do it based on aggregate purchasing history. I personally think the latter is the most fair, and until recently, I thought this was how Rhys approached it as well. And yes, I would feel this way regardless of how high or low on the list I was.

cheers,
scott

You are correct, I wasnt comparing the episodes, I was comparing the attitudes of people involved. All this complaining is about one bottle or two. Luckily Rhys has great customer service and Kevin has tried to please everyone, I find the whinning about one bottle ridiculous. But we are all allowed our opinions. I posted what I got and my wishlist items in response to someone's inquiry regarding what one might have to buy to get a wish, and had I known it would engender "well, how come I didnt get one?" whinning I wouldnt have posted anything. Shame on me for not figuring that one out. FWIW, and in an unrelated correction, the "c" designation is Seasmoke. RM offered a case max and Saxum a case and a half in both episodes respectively.

[Jim Hartten]

Let me just add this point that many long time Rhys buyers will appreciate - my first bottle of Rhys was 1 bottle of 2004 Family Farm that I received by ordering some extra wine. After that, I was next offered 2006 Alpine, my only 2006 Rhys. But then came 2007, 2008, and now 2009. When I look at my Rhys inventory, I have gotten more Rhys each year even though some recent vintages have been low production and the list growing. The point is - the trend in allocations is up, and that's positive for all of us. Further, I think with the vinyards maturing, the Rhys team dialing in more every year, the best wines are yet to come. So let's enjoy the ride!

[J.R. Young]

Let me just add that I hate the Rhys Wishlist System.....we'll not really, I just hate trying to convince my wife that I needed to spend the extra $600.

[J Diven]

I've been buying for years and have no issue with the allocation system, or feelings of inequity on wish list items, etc.
My only feedback is that it would have been nice when ordering to know that passing on the chardonnay would mean being ineligible for wish list items.
(I was looking for 1 more of each pinot instead to round out my case, and have always understood the Alpine chard to be in very high demand)

Actually my assumption is they likely did not know this for a fact at the time, and frankly it would not have changed my decision anyway.
But if possible, it would be nice to know going forward. I guess we will all assume it now.

Apart from all that, folks we're only talking about a few bottles of wine here, even if it is Rhys.
Just buy something else instead!

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Let me just add that I hate the Rhys Wishlist System.....we'll not really, I just hate trying to convince my wife that I needed to spend the extra $600.

Yeah, that totally sucks.

[Rich Byrne]

I'm very happy with my case and didn't wishlist anything more.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Apart from all that, folks we're only talking about a few bottles of wine here, even if it is Rhys.
Just buy something else instead!

There's really two sides to the coin:
1. not getting the desired wishlist items
---------- this is what most people are focusing on, and the common answer to this is "buy something else."
2. buying wines one doesn't want in an attempt to gain access to other wines one does want and then not getting access to those other wines.
--------- this is, I believe, the bigger issue here because "buy something else" isn't really the answer; it's not about what one didn't get, but rather about getting stuck with wines one bought (but didn't want) in an attempt to gain access to other wines, but then not getting access to those other wines. The problem here is *not* the lack of access to the other wines, but having a bunch of wines one wouldn't have bought if they knew the purchase thereof wouldn't be enough to gain them access to the "other wines." In other words, that "bunch" needed to be bigger to earn the desired access.

It would be nice to know exactly, or approximately, what is required to gain access to those "other wines." With that information, people can decide if they want to buy a bunch of wines they may not want a whole lot in order to gain access to those "other wines."


I'm sorry if this comes across as wordy/confusing, but hopefully you'll get my drift. If not, ask me to clarify and I'll try to think of a different way of saying what I'm trying to say.

[Mark Alcorn]

The real bundling comes in the form of the 4-bottle minimum purchase requirement. For those of us new to the list, we got offered 3 Alpine and 3 SCM. I'm really only interested in the SVDs after having had some mediocre experiences with the Alesia wines, but in order to buy the Alpines I had to buy an SCM to meet the 4-bottle minimum. Sounds like bundling to me.

Corey;

I don't know how soon you drank/drink the Alesias, but I think I know what you mean about them. However, I've had my best luck with them by not touching them until 4 years out.

Mark

[Larry P]

My advice is:
- buy what you want
- don't buy what you don't want
- make all purchase decisions assuming wishlist items won't be granted

[Kevin Brogle]

I'm really only interested in the SVDs after having had some mediocre experiences with the Alesia wines...

Corey-

I would not judge the Rhys appellation wines based upon the Alesia wines: different regions, different vineyards, different growers.

Cheers

[Larry P]

The real bundling comes in the form of the 4-bottle minimum purchase requirement. For those of us new to the list, we got offered 3 Alpine and 3 SCM. I'm really only interested in the SVDs after having had some mediocre experiences with the Alesia wines, but in order to buy the Alpines I had to buy an SCM to meet the 4-bottle minimum. Sounds like bundling to me.

Given that Kevin is offering free shipping, some minimum seems only reasonable and 4 bottles is nothing.

But, if you want to talk about the real bundling issue with Rhys, let's talk about the free shipping. Of course this means shipping is included in the price of the wine, even for those of us who pick up at the winery. I'm forced to buy shipping which I don't want, just to buy the wine. Get rid of the free shipping and the 4-bottle minimum can be removed as well. I'd consider that fair.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

My advice is:
- buy what you want
- don't buy what you don't want
- make all purchase decisions assuming wishlist items won't be granted

But, what if it's maybe worth it to a buyer to buy a bunch of things they don't want if they eventually get access to the more limited wines? Certainly, that buyer would like to know how much they must buy of the stuff they don't want to earn the access to the more limited wines they do want. Perhaps this buyer is willing to buy *some* un-wanted wines to earn the extra access, but not *a lot* of un-wanted wines to earn the extra access. That buyer is kinda in a tough spot, no?

[Lewis Dawson]

Give it a rest, Brian. It makes no sense to buy stuff you don't want just to hope for a wishlist success. Haven't we been around this track enough times already?

[Brad S w a l l o w]

My advice is:
- buy what you want
- don't buy what you don't want
- make all purchase decisions assuming wishlist items won't be granted

But, what if it's maybe worth it to a buyer to buy a bunch of things they don't want if they eventually get access to the more limited wines? Certainly, that buyer would like to know how much they must buy of the stuff they don't want to earn the access to the more limited wines they do want. Perhaps this buyer is willing to buy *some* un-wanted wines to earn the extra access, but not *a lot* of un-wanted wines to earn the extra access. That buyer is kinda in a tough spot, no?

Wow, what a dilemma for your hypothetical buyer. That person should probably make a wise economic decision and not buy. Perhaps the present allocation system favors people who have an interest in all, or at least most, of the wines in the Rhys portfolio. If Rhys keeps the present regime in place, then after a while most of the active list members might be people like them.

Clearly, that wouldn't make any sense. Why would Rhys want to encourage something like that?

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Give it a rest, Brian. It makes no sense to buy stuff you don't want just to hope for a wishlist success. Haven't we been around this track enough times already?

It's not necessarily about the wishlist, Lew. It's more about building the 4 year buying history.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

My advice is:
- buy what you want
- don't buy what you don't want
- make all purchase decisions assuming wishlist items won't be granted

But, what if it's maybe worth it to a buyer to buy a bunch of things they don't want if they eventually get access to the more limited wines? Certainly, that buyer would like to know how much they must buy of the stuff they don't want to earn the access to the more limited wines they do want. Perhaps this buyer is willing to buy *some* un-wanted wines to earn the extra access, but not *a lot* of un-wanted wines to earn the extra access. That buyer is kinda in a tough spot, no?

Wow, what a dilemma for your hypothetical buyer. That person should probably make a wise economic decision and not buy. Perhaps the present allocation system favors people who have an interest in all, or at least most, of the wines in the Rhys portfolio. If Rhys keeps the present regime in place, then after a while most of the active list members might be people like them.

Clearly, that wouldn't make any sense. Why would Rhys want to encourage something like that?

The sarcasm, Brad, is not necessary. What makes not buying "the" wise economic decision? And what does "most" mean?

[jdietz]

My wife was "bundled." I had to take the good and the not so good, or nada. It was worth it.

[Brad S w a l l o w]

The sarcasm, Brad, is not necessary. What makes not buying "the" wise economic decision? And what does "most" mean?

Lighten up, Brian, the sarcasm is in response to the nature of what you are saying. It seems like it was a hundred posts ago or so when someone suggested that the person who only wants a few wines in the portfolio could acquire them more economically by buying them on the secondary market instead of hanging around on the list for four years, buying unwanted wines, etc. If you want to keep going around and around on this, at least don't pretend to be offended by a little light-hearted sarcasm.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Brad,

Many people have good reasons for not wanting to buy on the secondary market. Additionally, many buyers *do* like some of the wines they presently have access to, and might deem it "worth it" to buy some unwanted bottles (depending on quantity required) to gain primary access to additional bottlings.

I really don't think I'm beating a dead horse b/c very little of the discussion here is focused on the second situation I outlined in post #302. And don't try to pass your last post off as a "little light-hearted" sarcasm; every single sentence you wrote in that post was sarcastic.

[Kevin Gibbs]

Give it a rest, Brian. It makes no sense to buy stuff you don't want just to hope for a wishlist success. Haven't we been around this track enough times already?

It's not necessarily about the wishlist, Lew. It's more about building the 4 year buying history.

Or you could use a really novel approach and simply purchase the bottles that you actually want to buy off of Winebid or some other online auction site. What a concept.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Give it a rest, Brian. It makes no sense to buy stuff you don't want just to hope for a wishlist success. Haven't we been around this track enough times already?

It's not necessarily about the wishlist, Lew. It's more about building the 4 year buying history.

Or you could use a really novel approach and simply purchase the bottles that you actually want to buy off of Winebid or some other online auction site. What a concept.

Wow, I never considered doing that, Kevin. I will do that because there's absolutely no good reason I could possibly have for not wanting to do that. Man, you are so smart and I am so dumb. You are simply brilliant!