Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
User avatar
Steve Eisenhauer
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: January 27th 2009, 3:02pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #501  Postby Steve Eisenhauer » July 21st 2009, 8:51am

Max Marinucci wrote:Nice post there by Parker, who still does not explain why it took JM 10 months to re-taste a wine of very dubious quality that in the process was being sold as a great 96 pointer. Also, I do not understand...is the 16,000-20,000 bottles just the supposed "first cuvee" or the total of the three bottling? If the total production was about 1500 cases and more was bottled subsequently, it sounds like fraud to me.



Exactly, and the silliness about the producer "doing an investigation" and providing a "satisfactory explanation" just smells badly.

Other people have hit the nail on the head. The tasting protocol actually used by WA (as opposed to the one it proclaims on its front page - how many years has there been a discrepancy between the two, btw?) leads to too many opportunities for things to go south.

Advertisement

User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #502  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 9:00am

Matt Hartley wrote:
Do you really want credit for this? If so, why?


Matt,

3, 4, 5 are important steps. #6 was a joke to take credit for and 1 and 2 were parker's ideas of taking control of the situation. So yes, I will take some credit. Posting TNs is very important. Parker says that they are more important than the score.

I do not know your store, but we may have similar biz models, or may be very different. I am the principal of mine. I am in this to make money. Period. I write my paychecks, which helps pay the mortgage, and puts food on the table. I do what is best for my family with my business.
ITB

ht
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #503  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 9:06am

Steve Eisenhauer wrote:
Max Marinucci wrote:Nice post there by Parker, who still does not explain why it took JM 10 months to re-taste a wine of very dubious quality that in the process was being sold as a great 96 pointer. Also, I do not understand...is the 16,000-20,000 bottles just the supposed "first cuvee" or the total of the three bottling? If the total production was about 1500 cases and more was bottled subsequently, it sounds like fraud to me.



Exactly, and the silliness about the producer "doing an investigation" and providing a "satisfactory explanation" just smells badly.

Other people have hit the nail on the head. The tasting protocol actually used by WA (as opposed to the one it proclaims on its front page - how many years has there been a discrepancy between the two, btw?) leads to too many opportunities for things to go south.

[winner.gif] [winner.gif] [winner.gif]
ITB

ht
Larry Kaplan
 
Posts: 773
Joined: May 28th 2009, 6:17pm
Location: Palatine, Illinois

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #504  Postby Larry Kaplan » July 21st 2009, 9:07am

Well oiled was founded in 2005 how can this be a well established and trusted importer as refered to in Parker's post when this was clearly only their first or second go around with TWA.
Last edited by Larry Kaplan on July 21st 2009, 9:35am, edited 1 time in total.
The Wine Cellar
User avatar
John Morris
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 9664
Joined: June 21st 2009, 2:09pm
Location: New York City

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #505  Postby John Morris » July 21st 2009, 9:11am

Daniel Posner wrote:As for two bottlings, as John Morris has pointed out, has that been verified anywhere. Parker just posted it, but that is news to me.


Dan! You haven't been paying attention! Sleeping rather than spending your time committing these threads to memory, I have to suppose.

Mark Clinard from Well Oiled said that there were three bottling runs: http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=39

Parker in his posting today referred to two further bottlings after the one that Miller tasted, though it's not clear if he actually knows anything beyond what Clinard posted.

It's funny that Clinard first asked people to send him their bottle numbers, which wouldn't help much if there were multiple bottlings, each with their own numbering sequence. Then he told people that the number he was looking for was the one that followed the little L (i.e., the lot number): http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=20

Sounds like he's not too clear on the lot number concept.
Last edited by John Morris on July 21st 2009, 9:16am, edited 1 time in total.
"I have some sympathy for these people as I was once caught in a similar situation after using the wrong shampoo on a client's raccoon." -- Craig Gleason

"There is not an infinite linear progression of betterness associated with rising alcohol intake. There is an obvious asymptote, followed by a decline in betterness...." -- Anton Dotson
User avatar
Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: June 18th 2009, 1:13pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #506  Postby Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡ » July 21st 2009, 9:15am

I'd like to say that many members who have posted investigatory questions about Well Oiled, including myself, have been contacted by Mark Clinard. I found the contact to be somewhat suspicious, but it could be innocuous. My gut tells me something is up.
User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site AdminSite Admin
Head Babysitter
 
Posts: 33849
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:46am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #507  Postby Todd F r e n c h » July 21st 2009, 9:15am

Steve Manzi wrote:
That is how we deal here. Have respect for this board and come here without the preconceived notion that we are a board of "the banned" looking to hate those responsible. We are legitimate and we take this board seriously.


Well said, Steve. Perhaps, there was a strong basis for this early on, but not anymore, as our content speaks for itself, without question. Personal vendettas, should they exist, would exist anyway, whether this forum community was in existence or not. Each of those who might have such a vendetta probably has a reason for it - it's not for me to judge, nor is it for me to decide what is 'acceptable' in that regard, unless it steps over the line into mean-spirited personal attacks, in which case it gets nuked, and a PM is sent to the party who posted it in the first place. The input of the community, our growth, and the quality of the content here has most definitely legitimized the forum community as a whole.

Humberto Dorta wrote:FWIW I enjoy your posts on Ebob. From a selfish standpoint would love to see you post here more, since I spend more time here ;)


I would strongly echo this statement. Neal, I would LOVE to have your participation on our forum, and hope that you don't simply take a look at this one thread, but see the hundreds of tasting notes, the fantastic discussions of those ITB (retailers and makers), and the general 'free' concept we have here, combined with some great tasters who I'm sure will appreciate your input. See us for the 99.99%, not the .01%...

Peter Simpson wrote:Roy, I couldn't agree more!

I joined this board some time ago, but have been reluctant to post here because of the vitriolic nature of the personal attacks being made on Jay Miller.

I have no great love for Miller and, IMHO, it is fine to discuss the merits of a critic's reviews and methodology, but repeated comments about that critic's dining habits or statements that he is lazy are too much for me.

I am sure Dan and Steve are great guys, but these bitter posts do their cause more harm than good, and leave us neutrals wondering if this board really is a place where we might want to hang out.


Peter, I would echo my statements above - particularly the last one. The lone voices of those who might be perceived as having a 'vendetta' toward one individual in the profession (or one group) does NOT a whole community make. You give these single (or multiple) individuals so much influence, while the 1000 plus others have no consideration? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. As a whole, there is NO group vendetta or purposeful attack against any one person, group, or company. That's the truth.

It's been said many times that individuals who find a post or thread uncomfortable should avoid it, and look at all the rest of the spectacular content that has made us grow as fast and boldly as we have. It's not been the criticism here and there, it's been the overall content, the great TN's, the CT integration, and the warm reception provided to those ITB. I think we are given greater scrutiny by many who are 'not sure' about us because we are new. I know the same complaining exists on many other forums, including the one in question, but they are apparently not held in the same light of judgment as we are. I can accept that, as I know the overall quality of this forum speaks for itself, and with a ratio of probably 10,000 to 1 for quality versus complaining, we're on a great track for future growth as well.

I encourage everybody to look at the REST of the forum - see what the WHOLE community is all about, not the lone voices that prove to be disruptive to you. Don't judge based on one or two people, as you wouldn't for any country you visit, or any company you choose to do business with.

I'd point out also that I have no interest in this topic at all. I don't care if there was some fraudulent activity somewhere else - it doesn't bother me in this instance, therefore I don't participate in the thread. For those for whom it does, however, I'm happy to provide a vehicle in which they can discuss it.
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP) (and have a "penchant for gossip" -KBI)
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14657
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #508  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 9:47am

I would like to point out, to Todd, and the community as a whole, along with others who just pop in to take a look.

1) I don't believe I have had any negative thing to say about Jay Miller before this thread. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe I am.

2) I only took interest in this incident because Robert Kenney (a friend) who is the one responsible for me buying this wine last year, called me like 6 times in one day about this, and got be interested in it, and quite honestly, it became a passion to get to the truth, simply because the more questions Kenney and I asked each other, the more questions arose. It fed on itself, simply because there ARE tons of suspicious things that went on and continue to go on.

3) Due to the totally inadequate nature of the investigation, along with the seemingly lack of caring by Jay Miller, the need for Kenney and I to find out the truth became extremely strong.

4) During our quest, the number of people joining in was astounding, from both boards

5) Because I am recovering from surgery, I have SO much time on my hands, that I have been focused on this quest, and it may seem like I am OVERLY dedicated to it. I have not had wine since 6/24, so I have very little interest in reading other threads, although the last 2 days, I have begun to do so.

6) When people accuse me of having a vendetta, or taking glee in trying to take down Jay or TWA, I take offense to that.

I believe all I have done is taken an investigation very seriously, at a time when I have MORE time on my hands than is probably healthy, so it comes across as a mission to go after Jay.

Bitterness is a strong word, and I take offense to that label. Passion is not bitterness. I have not received any PM from anyone indicating I have been over the line. If I have gone over the line, I would appreciate a PM showing me, so that I can correct it. Again, passionate search of the truth and pointing out instances of laziness, complacency, suspicion, and outright mistakes of things stated as facts, is not bitterness. Outrage at incompetency is not bitterness.
______________________________________________________________
"To the grieving, it is inconceivable that the world keeps going when their world stopped."

________________________________________
"The trouble is, we think we have time" - Buddha
Tony V e l e b i l
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: January 27th 2009, 4:00pm
Location: Rockridge (Oakland, CA)

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #509  Postby Tony V e l e b i l » July 21st 2009, 9:58am

From Robert Parker in the Sierra Carche thread on eBob:

lots of travel and winery visits...lots of centralized tastings with importers/distributors/syndicates..


Doesn't this contradict his claim that he tastes blind whenever possible and that he purchases 60% of the wines he reviews?
“Remember,” said John Adams, “de
User avatar
Bill Tex Landreth
SubscriberSubscriber
Ayatollah of Rum & Cola
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: January 27th 2009, 12:45pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #510  Postby Bill Tex Landreth » July 21st 2009, 10:05am

Tony V e l e b i l wrote:From Robert Parker in the Sierra Carche thread on eBob:

lots of travel and winery visits...lots of centralized tastings with importers/distributors/syndicates..


Doesn't this contradict his claim that he tastes blind whenever possible and that he purchases 60% of the wines he reviews?



Well yeah....
ITB: Elmo Wagyu Cattle Company

Thomas Puricelli
(Online)
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: June 8th 2009, 11:14am

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #511  Postby Thomas Puricelli » July 21st 2009, 10:23am

I'm not a big poster on either board, but have read both threads. It looks like Jay Miller got duped here and his lack of interest in trying the bottle sent to him (or laziness as some people have indicated) has substantially delayed this issue being brought to light. That said, and as someone clearly not "itb", where were all the retailers for the past several months will Miller was sitting on his bottle? Did any retailers try this wine before they bought it? If not, why not? If they didn't try it before purchase, when they received the wine from the distributor, did they just put it out on the floor and let the lemmings have at it? Shouldn't these retailers have recognized that the wine was bad and done something about it?

It's instances such as these that highlight the importance of working with retailers that try every bottle that they sell and stand behind their product. Period. From what I have read, this situation is not a case of "it may be 96 points, but it is just not my style. Some of my customers will love it though." It sounds like the product is undrinkable and no good retailer would sell this wine. Maybe I am naive, but I like to believe that the owners of the stores that I frequent would (1) not have accepted delivery of this wine and (2) would certainly not have sold it to their customers.

I could really care less about Jay Miller and The Wine Advocate, but from my vantage point we have a bad actor that was surrounded by a lot of lazy/careless players. Hopefully all parties step up their respective games following this debacle.
User avatar
Brian Loring
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 852
Joined: January 27th 2009, 8:28pm
Location: Lompoc

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #512  Postby Brian Loring » July 21st 2009, 10:28am

One general comment...

It's virtually impossible to come up with a process that guarantees that "doctored" wines won't get reviewed. And no matter what you came up with, I bet someone could still figure out a way to cheat the system.

The good news is that the system has a built in protection against this happening too often - and we're seeing it in action right now. No winery or importer can survive the type of negative publicity that happens when they get caught. That deterent is far more effective at preventing cheating than any process could ever be.

And to be fair to JSM, his tasting methods don't really come into play in this case. Not that I'm defending his tasting methods in any way. You may question how long it took him to taste the wine that was sent to him, but there are a lot of reasons why he might not have gotten to it immediately. Including not wanting to set a precedent of having consumers send him wine to taste when they thought something was wrong with his review. That's a can of worms that no reviewer wants to see opened.
Loring Wine Company
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14657
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #513  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 10:31am

Thomas Puricelli wrote:I'm not a big poster on either board, but have read both threads. It looks like Jay Miller got duped here and his lack of interest in trying the bottle sent to him (or laziness as some people have indicated) has substantially delayed this issue being brought to light. That said, and as someone clearly not "itb", where were all the retailers for the past several months will Miller was sitting on his bottle? Did any retailers try this wine before they bought it? If not, why not? If they didn't try it before purchase, when they received the wine from the distributor, did they just put it out on the floor and let the lemmings have at it? Shouldn't these retailers have recognized that the wine was bad and done something about it?

It's instances such as these that highlight the importance of working with retailers that try every bottle that they sell and stand behind their product. Period. From what I have read, this situation is not a case of "it may be 96 points, but it is just not my style. Some of my customers will love it though." It sounds like the product is undrinkable and no good retailer would sell this wine. Maybe I am naive, but I like to believe that the owners of the stores that I frequent would (1) not have accepted delivery of this wine and (2) would certainly not have sold it to their customers.

I could really care less about Jay Miller and The Wine Advocate, but from my vantage point we have a bad actor that was surrounded by a lot of lazy/careless players. Hopefully all parties step up their respective games following this debacle.


Tom,

I believe that Jay tasted a "great" bottle. Of that I have no doubt.

I bought mine, as did Robert Kenney, on PRE arrival from the Wine Library. My guess is that at some point, they tasted this wine, and IF it was a bad bottle, they would have investigated. Again, my guess is that they blew through this PRE arrival offer in a matter of hours. Many picked up their wines and did not try it. Others let it sit there until they were ready to pick up or ship the other orders together. Plus, the Wine Library has stated that they had people repeat purchase, so some bottles of the FIRST run, were fine, some (Like mine,a nd Kenney's) were undrinkable.

The PLCB says they drank a bottle before their purchase, and said it was very nice..."not a 96, but well over 90" or something to that effect.

I cannot believe ANY wine store took that wine IF they tasted it. And if they only took a few cases, I can understand not tasting it.

Hope that helps.
______________________________________________________________
"To the grieving, it is inconceivable that the world keeps going when their world stopped."

________________________________________
"The trouble is, we think we have time" - Buddha
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14657
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #514  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 10:34am

Brian Loring wrote:One general comment...

It's virtually impossible to come up with a process that guarantees that "doctored" wines won't get reviewed. And no matter what you came up with, I bet someone could still figure out a way to cheat the system.

The good news is that the system has a built in protection against this happening too often - and we're seeing it in action right now. No winery or importer can survive the type of negative publicity that happens when they get caught. That deterent is far more effective at preventing cheating than any process could ever be.

And to be fair to JSM, his tasting methods don't really come into play in this case. Not that I'm defending his tasting methods in any way. You may question how long it took him to taste the wine that was sent to him, but there are a lot of reasons why he might not have gotten to it immediately. Including not wanting to set a precedent of having consumers send him wine to taste when they thought something was wrong with his review. That's a can of worms that no reviewer wants to see opened.


Brian,

Then Jay should have decline the offer from his number ONE fan, to send him a bottle at his own expense, along with the overnighting of it, again at Kenney's expense. Then, 78 e-mails were exchange back and forth promising that he would get to it very soon.

Completely unacceptable.
______________________________________________________________
"To the grieving, it is inconceivable that the world keeps going when their world stopped."

________________________________________
"The trouble is, we think we have time" - Buddha
Roy Hersh
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: January 29th 2009, 11:16pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #515  Postby Roy Hersh » July 21st 2009, 10:39am

Now, for you to start this "We all have an agenda to take down Jay and the WA" bullshit, is just insulting to me, many others here, and THIS board.



Steve Manzi,
Misquoting and getting your panties in a knot when I clearly stated that I had an issue with Daniel Posner's position ... nothing about anyone else or you in particular. You then get caught up in this silly diatribe ... chill out. Speaking of knee jerk reactions.

I joined this Forum early on and have enjoyed my time here, reading more than posting. Calling me out because I don't post enough for your liking is not going to feel user friendly to others who may be lurking and thinking of posting here in the future. I know we never get on people for their quantity of posts like you and Peter C. have done. That is just bad form.

I have my own Forum to run and that's where I choose to do most of my posting. Shoot me if I am not posting here or on Squires' enough for your liking. I have posted in dozens of threads HERE though, and like I said, I enjoy my time here and have plenty of friends on this Forum too. If you seriously have a problem with my quantity of posts, too bad.

To be clear (especially for Manzi), I have zero doubt that any FACTS represented by Dan Posner's investigative reporting are true. I have read all of the nonsense leveled at Miller. Clearly he is in way over his head and continues to wind up in trouble ... Parker has supported him to the best of his ability too (for better, but usually worse). I don't take issue with the fact that these points are brought up and exposed -- as truth deserves to be. It is the reason I initially came over here in the first place. I don't believe I have been a trouble maker here or on Squires. You can disagree with my POV and so can Dan Posner. I just stated an opinion and don't really care if it is popular or not ... and don't expect Manzi to agree. He gets way too emotional, way too fast anyway. Dan Posner on the other hand, maintains a calm that I prefer and from his response, I appreciate that he has read my thoughts and observation, can hear what I've had to say and move on.

That is fine with me and like I said, I respect Dan and have for years. In fact, I truly hope to be able to sit and drink some fine wine with him during one of my NY trips. That said, it seems to me that he is OVERALL heavy handed in lobbing bombs all around RP/Miller/Squires with what seems like a vendetta. If that is not the case, fine. I am just stating that (and it is clear I am not alone in this "feeling") it seems like it was a personal mission. That is not about THIS thread in particular ... it is a general statement having seen LOTS of threads bringing up every miscue and f*ck up that goes on over there. It is tiresome to continue to read negative stuff with such frequency. So while not having ANY issue with this thread or the basis in fact with this particular Spanish bottling ... that as Dan pointed out, and Steve M. ... with 10 months allowing the other bottle to sit in the cellar ... alot of damage control could have been done to prevent the ongoing shit storm. For the last time, my comment was not aimed at the gist of the main issue in this thread, just questioning the motivation, just like many questions have been leveled at Miller himself.

In closing, I still say this Forum can be a great place and if you want others like Neal, me or whomever else to post more ... a bit more positive energy and less negativity, would go a long way to making this a better place to want to come for others.

Manzi, get off your high horse ... you are so much like Squires in taking stuff personally that is not even directed at you ... that the irony is remarkable.
Last edited by Roy Hersh on July 21st 2009, 10:42am, edited 1 time in total.
Roy Hersh
fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: June 18th 2009, 1:13pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #516  Postby Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡ » July 21st 2009, 10:39am

Brian Loring wrote:One general comment...

It's virtually impossible to come up with a process that guarantees that "doctored" wines won't get reviewed. And no matter what you came up with, I bet someone could still figure out a way to cheat the system.

The good news is that the system has a built in protection against this happening too often - and we're seeing it in action right now. No winery or importer can survive the type of negative publicity that happens when they get caught. That deterent is far more effective at preventing cheating than any process could ever be.

And to be fair to JSM, his tasting methods don't really come into play in this case. Not that I'm defending his tasting methods in any way. You may question how long it took him to taste the wine that was sent to him, but there are a lot of reasons why he might not have gotten to it immediately. Including not wanting to set a precedent of having consumers send him wine to taste when they thought something was wrong with his review. That's a can of worms that no reviewer wants to see opened.


Astute points.
User avatar
BobH
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: January 29th 2009, 9:42am

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #517  Postby BobH » July 21st 2009, 10:41am

Neal.Mollen wrote:[ I merely made the observation that a few individuals do seem to have been engaged in precisely the sort of behavior Roy identified, .


Neal:
I certainly have not problem with you posting here. As for me, I have always said, and still maintain, that I am a big fan of Robert Parker, and a big fan of the WA. The fact that I spend some time here does not change that. This BB does have a different personality, and IMHO does better when it does not focus on the other BB.
However, this case is a bit of an exception. While I have a dog in this Sierra Carche mess, ultimately, it is only $250 or so worth of wine, and it won't break me. However, I personally am sad to have reached the point where I feel that some of the advice I get from the WA is less than reliable. I hope that changes. I hope that RMP respects that great brand that he himself has invented. I still remain a fan of his writings, reviews, and his palate.
hud@k
User avatar
Keith Levenberg
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: June 6th 2009, 3:11pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #518  Postby Keith Levenberg » July 21st 2009, 10:49am

Steve Eisenhauer wrote:Other people have hit the nail on the head. The tasting protocol actually used by WA (as opposed to the one it proclaims on its front page - how many years has there been a discrepancy between the two, btw?) leads to too many opportunities for things to go south.
This is exactly right. Granted I am out of touch with what wines are darlings of the WA these days, but I have never heard of Sierra Carche before this thread and don't gather too many other people have heard of or cared about it either. If this issue were about one obscure wine it is doubtful that as many people as have posted on these threads would have bothered. The reason this has become a topic of interest is because of what it says about the WA's reviewing procedures. Whatever is going on with Sierra Carche is a small scandal, but the way the WA has primed itself to be taken in by such small scandals is a big scandal.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #519  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 11:38am

Roy Hersh wrote:

To be clear (especially for Manzi), I have zero doubt that any FACTS represented by Dan Posner's investigative reporting are true. I have read all of the nonsense leveled at Miller. Clearly he is in way over his head and continues to wind up in trouble ... Parker has supported him to the best of his ability too (for better, but usually worse). I don't take issue with the fact that these points are brought up and exposed -- as truth deserves to be. It is the reason I initially came over here in the first place. I don't believe I have been a trouble maker here or on Squires. You can disagree with my POV and so can Dan Posner. I just stated an opinion and don't really care if it is popular or not ... and don't expect Manzi to agree. He gets way too emotional, way too fast anyway. Dan Posner on the other hand, maintains a calm that I prefer and from his response, I appreciate that he has read my thoughts and observation, can hear what I've had to say and move on.


Thank you Roy, we can have that drink now. ;)

FYI, we sat next to each other at the first annual Lugaresque, if I am not mistaken. I poured you the Yalumba 50 year old tawny. Proof that I drink Aussies!

I appreciate all opinions. I just hope that those dissenters read as closely as I know Roy and Neal have. They have a problem with me personally, in the way that I have continued to "bash" this thing home. I am okay with that. If I did not do it, no one else would have. I am willing to be the "martyr" as Levenberg said once. I have everything to lose here, and not much to gain, except for integrity. I have loads of integrity! [training.gif]
ITB

ht
bvm winemaker
 
Posts: 2
Joined: July 21st 2009, 12:24pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #520  Postby bvm winemaker » July 21st 2009, 12:32pm

We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #521  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 12:38pm

Thank you BVM winemaker, do not log out yet, as I believe Steve Manzi willhave some interesting questions for you.

Like, does the three lot numbers constitute "three runs" of this wine as Mark of Well Oiled has eluded to?

Maybe Robert Kenney should ship you, free of charge, a btl from his cellar. Just do not take 10 months to sample it.

Seriously, I wish I knew your name, but thank you for logging on here and addressing this situation!
ITB

ht
Fernando Losada
 
Posts: 34
Joined: May 28th 2009, 1:32pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #522  Postby Fernando Losada » July 21st 2009, 12:45pm

bvm = Bodegas y Vinedos de Murcia?
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #523  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 12:53pm

bvm winemaker wrote:We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.


BVM,

What you have written here is not what Mark Clinard, Robert Parker or Jay Miller has led us to believe up to this point. I just want you to know that.
ITB

ht
User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site AdminSite Admin
Head Babysitter
 
Posts: 33849
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:46am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #524  Postby Todd F r e n c h » July 21st 2009, 12:58pm

Fernando Losada wrote:bvm = Bodegas y Vinedos de Murcia?

A PM has been sent requesting a change in username...just fyi
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP) (and have a "penchant for gossip" -KBI)
User avatar
Neal.Mollen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 20212
Joined: January 30th 2009, 2:26pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #525  Postby Neal.Mollen » July 21st 2009, 1:02pm

Daniel Posner wrote:I just hope that those dissenters read as closely as I know Roy and Neal have. They have a problem with me personally, in the way that I have continued to "bash" this thing home.
No, Dan, I have no problem with you personally, as I hope has been clear throughout our exchanges. I think you have totally lost perspective on this all things related to Robert Parker. He is Dr. Big Jay, not Dr. Mengele. Other people get annoyed, frustrated, even angry when he or TWA makes a mistake; you get excited.

Thanks, though, for your kind words earlier and those of some others welcoming my post.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #526  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 1:04pm

I meant not with me personally, but the way in which I have handled this, personally...if that made sense.

But I do not excited, I laugh. It is very sad. Truly.
ITB

ht
Mo K a n g
ContributorContributor
 
Posts: 300
Joined: April 24th 2009, 11:13am

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #527  Postby Mo K a n g » July 21st 2009, 1:06pm

bvm winemaker wrote:We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.


Whatever happened to the real names policy? How do we know this person is real? This issue now has the potential to sink JM AND the importer. I will certainly never buy wine from Well Oiled Wine nor from BVM, whoever the heck that is. Of course I could be duped if the company just changes names, and I won't be able to rely on my "Advocates" for any help in this regard. Frankly, this is a problem for Spanish wines in general-- I will think twice about buying Spanish wines without tasting-- I have been burned too often by overzealous reviews by the WA in the past, and issues like this and the Las Rocas.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #528  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 1:11pm

Mo,

Relax man, smoke something... [swearing.gif]
ITB

ht
Dale Williams
(Online)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: April 27th 2009, 10:19am

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #529  Postby Dale Williams » July 21st 2009, 1:11pm

bvm winemaker wrote:We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.


Thanks for info, but this raises some questions:
1) from description, since people who got the wine very early (and from the bottles numbered "out of 20000) are the ones complaining, did you have a problem with one of the first two lots? People have reported that Mark Clinard has said there was a problem with excessive filtration, did you do something different with one lot?
2) Robert Parker said "Jay tasted a great bottle of Sierra Carche...not a barrel sample" - was the sample a finished bottle? Sample from a blending tank?
3) Do you normally bottle additional bottles of wine after distributing bottles indicating that only X were produced?
4) Mark Clinard said he had meetings with you back in March about this issue -no testing then?

Just trying to clarify some contradictory statements.
User avatar
Bruce Leiser_owitz
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 10719
Joined: June 16th 2009, 12:54pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #530  Postby Bruce Leiser_owitz » July 21st 2009, 1:16pm

bvm winemaker wrote:We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.


Not at all sure how this story, even if correct, explains the materially substandard bottles received by customers such Mr. Kenney about a year ago.

Bruce
"Bruce you are correct."--Andrew Kaufman, 3/24/13.
User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #531  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 1:20pm

Assuming this is the truth (and if it is not, then that is a whole other can of worms), this explains away the belief that the winery (Vinedos Murcia) did anything wrong from their standpoint. It also refutes all stories from Mark C, Bob P and Jay M.

Mark C has not answered many of the questions (I have heard WOWC will do a press release tonight)


AGAIN, IF THIS IS THE TRUTH.


WINEMAKER: Marcial Martinez Cruz
Bodegas y Vinedos de Murcia is located in El Carche (Jumilla)

Is that you, Marcial?
Last edited by Daniel Posner on July 21st 2009, 1:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
ITB

ht
Mo K a n g
ContributorContributor
 
Posts: 300
Joined: April 24th 2009, 11:13am

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #532  Postby Mo K a n g » July 21st 2009, 1:21pm

Daniel Posner wrote:Mo,

Relax man, smoke something... [swearing.gif]


I AM RELAXED, DANG IT!!!
headbang [soap.gif] [swearing.gif] [middle-finger.gif]

In all seriousness, I would wait until our maoderators get some confirmation of identity before taking this anonymous poster seriously.
L i n d a Lindsay
 
Posts: 193
Joined: June 30th 2009, 2:24pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #533  Postby L i n d a Lindsay » July 21st 2009, 1:28pm

We produced a single tank of 180 hl for Sierra Carche 2005 and a sample was submitted to the Wine Advocate for tasting in November 2007. We bottled the full quantity over two days and labeled 20,000 bottles for Well Oiled Wine Co order (lots 8113 & 8114) and we reserved the remnant (3,600 bottles) into clean skin stock (lot 7033). Following the wine’s successful reception among customers and reviewers, we shipped the remnant lot 7033 to additional markets including 1050 bottles to the US. At the request of Mark Clinard at WOW Co following the complaint by the Wine Advocate, we re-tasted the wine and while we found no problems, we also sent samples for analysis at an independent laboratory. We will report the results as soon as they are available. In the meantime, in keeping with our policy on all wines delivered to any customer, BVM will honor any returns of Sierra Carche 2005.

If this shows up twice, sorry Im a bit new here

The Math
1hl = 26.4 Gallons
180hl X 26.4 Gallons = 4752 Gallons Produced
Assuming NO loss at bottling (which is not correct)
The maximum amount that could have been bottled would be :
4752 / 2.47 = 1923 Cases - 12 pack, 750 ml
OR 3847 Cases - Six Packs
OR 23,086 Bottles

I wonder when this wine was bottled, and did they actually send JM a tank sample ?

PS, not sure how they got an extra 500 + bottles, I am thinking I should go to spain where wine increases in volume ! Less cost of goods :-)
User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site AdminSite Admin
Head Babysitter
 
Posts: 33849
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:46am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #534  Postby Todd F r e n c h » July 21st 2009, 1:28pm

Mo K a n g wrote:
Daniel Posner wrote:Mo,

Relax man, smoke something... [swearing.gif]


I AM RELAXED, DANG IT!!!
headbang [soap.gif] [swearing.gif] [middle-finger.gif]

In all seriousness, I would wait until our maoderators get some confirmation of identity before taking this anonymous poster seriously.

Mo, 95% of the time, we do it that way. Sometimes, we let one go and contact them, and nearly 100% of the time, they respond and changes are made before they make their first post. Not in this case.

We'd be happy to consider you for moderator duties in the future if you'd like.
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP) (and have a "penchant for gossip" -KBI)
User avatar
Bill Tex Landreth
SubscriberSubscriber
Ayatollah of Rum & Cola
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: January 27th 2009, 12:45pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #535  Postby Bill Tex Landreth » July 21st 2009, 1:30pm

Linda Lindsay wrote:PS, not sure how they got an extra 500 + bottles, I am thinking I should go to spain where wine increases in volume ! Less cost of goods :-)


Short pours for each bottle?
ITB: Elmo Wagyu Cattle Company

User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #536  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 1:33pm

Just as an FYI, he logged off one minute before I posted my first question. It is late in Spain.
ITB

ht
R Callo
 
Posts: 52
Joined: June 19th 2009, 12:21pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Reply from the winery

Post #537  Postby R Callo » July 21st 2009, 1:37pm

Mo K a n g wrote: Frankly, this is a problem for Spanish wines in general-- I will think twice about buying Spanish wines without tasting-- I have been burned too often by overzealous reviews by the WA in the past, and issues like this and the Las Rocas.


Mo, I respectfully disagree that this a problem for Spanish wines in general, unless you meant that their reputation is being tainted by the poor excuse for reviewing them that the WA has been doing.

As for Jay Miller, let's be honest here, he is not lazy, that's being too easy on him. He is just not a skilled wine critic. Even before they events of the last couple of months most winos I know had zero respect for his reviews. Giving your friend a job that he is completely unsuited for is just setting him up to fail, not something that you would think a true friend would do. I mean what's next, Mark Squires writing official WA reviews? [oops.gif]
Rodger
User avatar
Michael Alberty
 
Posts: 288
Joined: March 4th 2009, 1:06pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #538  Postby Michael Alberty » July 21st 2009, 1:44pm

Wow. I have never watched a story play out this way on a wine board (s). It was pretty interesting stuff before, but BVM's post has got me hooked. The way this has been handled so far (talk about creating another great case study for a business school somewhere) is making Murphy-Goode look downright competent. Can't wait to read that press release tonight!
Storyteller Wine Co.
Portland
User avatar
Bruce Leiser_owitz
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 10719
Joined: June 16th 2009, 12:54pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #539  Postby Bruce Leiser_owitz » July 21st 2009, 1:56pm

Michael Alberty wrote:Wow. I have never watched a story play out this way on a wine board (s). It was pretty interesting stuff before, but BVM's post has got me hooked. The way this has been handled so far (talk about creating another great case study for a business school somewhere) is making Murphy-Goode look downright competent. Can't wait to read that press release tonight!


Michael--Don't say anything to anyone, but I've just secured the rights to turn this story into a telenova on Telemundo. Mum's the word.......

Bruce
"Bruce you are correct."--Andrew Kaufman, 3/24/13.
User avatar
Bill Tex Landreth
SubscriberSubscriber
Ayatollah of Rum & Cola
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: January 27th 2009, 12:45pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #540  Postby Bill Tex Landreth » July 21st 2009, 2:00pm

Bruce Leiserowitz wrote:
Michael Alberty wrote:Wow. I have never watched a story play out this way on a wine board (s). It was pretty interesting stuff before, but BVM's post has got me hooked. The way this has been handled so far (talk about creating another great case study for a business school somewhere) is making Murphy-Goode look downright competent. Can't wait to read that press release tonight!


Michael--Don't say anything to anyone, but I've just secured the rights to turn this story into a telenova on Telemundo. Mum's the word.......

Bruce


As long as Salma Hayek is somehow involved...mum is the word here.
ITB: Elmo Wagyu Cattle Company

User avatar
Daniel Posner
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: January 29th 2009, 12:33pm
Location: New York

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #541  Postby Daniel Posner » July 21st 2009, 2:02pm

Salma will play Jay's Argentinian girlfriend!
ITB

ht
Jack Bulkin
 
Posts: 3207
Joined: January 27th 2009, 4:54pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #542  Postby Jack Bulkin » July 21st 2009, 2:04pm

Daniel Posner wrote:Salma will play Jay's Argentinian girlfriend!


That is a role I am certain she would turn down.
An article in the “Journal of Ps
User avatar
ChrisBeacham
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: January 28th 2009, 11:28am
Location: The People's Republic of Carrboro, NC

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #543  Postby ChrisBeacham » July 21st 2009, 2:04pm

Daniel Posner wrote:Salma will play Jay's Argentinian girlfriend!


Okay we know that somehow, somehow Roberto got a hottie but please don't suggest that Big Jay did!
Check out my artblog here.

I us
User avatar
Michael Alberty
 
Posts: 288
Joined: March 4th 2009, 1:06pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #544  Postby Michael Alberty » July 21st 2009, 2:05pm

Forget Telemundo, this has Discovery Channel written all over it. It could air right after Dirty Jobs.
Storyteller Wine Co.
Portland
User avatar
Jorge Henriquez
ModeratorModerator
 
Posts: 9832
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:11pm
Location: Westchester County, NY

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #545  Postby Jorge Henriquez » July 21st 2009, 2:05pm

ChrisBeacham wrote:
Daniel Posner wrote:Salma will play Jay's Argentinian girlfriend!


Okay we know that somehow, somehow Roberto got a hottie but please don't suggest that Big Jay did!


Famous wine critics get all the girls. [tease.gif]
"I'm a bowl of excitement, bitch!" TMF 08/13/10

ITB - The Wine Cellarage
User avatar
Bruce Leiser_owitz
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 10719
Joined: June 16th 2009, 12:54pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #546  Postby Bruce Leiser_owitz » July 21st 2009, 2:06pm

Daniel Posner wrote:Salma will play Jay's Argentinian girlfriend!


I hadn't really thought of casting Jay as the vinous equivalent of Gov. Sanford, but I suppose I can work that in and reveal it as a plot twist just before a commercial break.

Bruce
"Bruce you are correct."--Andrew Kaufman, 3/24/13.
User avatar
Bruce Leiser_owitz
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 10719
Joined: June 16th 2009, 12:54pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #547  Postby Bruce Leiser_owitz » July 21st 2009, 2:11pm

Michael Alberty wrote:Forget Telemundo, this has Discovery Channel written all over it. It could air right after Dirty Jobs.


Michael--I thought about the History Channel, but I didn't want all those cheesy "re-creations" mucking up the story line.

Bruce
"Bruce you are correct."--Andrew Kaufman, 3/24/13.
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14657
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #548  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 2:19pm

Roy Hersh,

IN rereading your post and rereading my response, it sure does come across over the top and a bit emotional. For that I sincerely apologize. I will say though that I was taking your post to Dan, as I would myself and the board. I felt it was unfair to take this thread and go down that road. I still feel that IF you or anyone else has an issue like this, they should start a thread to discuss it. BUT, the better thing to do, if one does not like these types of threads, to NOT OPEN them. I mean, it IS titled "Sieerra Carche - Jay Miller - and the lastest black eye. It's obvious what this thread was going to be about.

With all that said, I again agree and apologize to you AND the board for being a bit emotional. I was the one who began the thread, and I have been under a bit of stress lately, but no excuse to go over the top like I did. I hope you accept that and not hold it against me, OR more importantly, the board.

One last thing: Please don't compare me to squires over this, or even a couple outbursts. [pillow-fight.gif] I would hope the consensus would be that THAT is over the line. neener

Let's please put this behind us and regroup, for many good reasons.
______________________________________________________________
"To the grieving, it is inconceivable that the world keeps going when their world stopped."

________________________________________
"The trouble is, we think we have time" - Buddha
User avatar
Steve Manzi
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 14657
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:55pm
Location: North/Central NJ

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #549  Postby Steve Manzi » July 21st 2009, 2:26pm

Daniel Posner wrote:Salma will play Jay's Argentinian girlfriend!


If this Argentinian girlfriend is IN Argentina, they won't be seeing each other much. neener
______________________________________________________________
"To the grieving, it is inconceivable that the world keeps going when their world stopped."

________________________________________
"The trouble is, we think we have time" - Buddha
James Koch
 
Posts: 4
Joined: July 17th 2009, 3:53pm

Re: Sierra Carche - Jay Miller - and the latest black eye

Post #550  Postby James Koch » July 21st 2009, 2:27pm

Linda Lindsay wrote:The Math
1hl = 26.4 Gallons
180hl X 26.4 Gallons = 4752 Gallons Produced
Assuming NO loss at bottling (which is not correct)
The maximum amount that could have been bottled would be :
4752 / 2.47 = 1923 Cases - 12 pack, 750 ml
OR 3847 Cases - Six Packs
OR 23,086 Bottles

I wonder when this wine was bottled, and did they actually send JM a tank sample ?

PS, not sure how they got an extra 500 + bottles, I am thinking I should go to spain where wine increases in volume ! Less cost of goods :-)


Don't move to Spain yet:
180 hl x 26.4172051 gallons = 4,755.0969 gallons
4,755.0969 / 2.3775488 = 2,000 cases = 12 pack, 750 ml
OR 4,000 cases - six packs
Or 24,000 bottles

Return to Wine Talk

logo
Food Advertising by