Schrader - Does a CT note (or notes) affect after market pricing?

I just read 2 notes (both from yesterday) on the 2009 Schrader Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon RBS Beckstoffer To-Kalon Vineyard. This wine cost was $175 for folks on the mailing list. Two posters just gave the wine 99 points. Average CT is 96. Checking Wine Searcher, domestic US pricing is in the low $300’s. If this wine continues to receive higher than average scores, will prices on the open market increase?

I doubt it…

Don’t be so modest. I’ve seen more than a few wine stores with CT average score shelf talkers. Why do you think I score everything below 90 points? Gotta average down to maintain the sanity of the wine budget.

Think it works on the negative side, at least for auctions - seeing a series of negative reviews or reports of corked bottles will make anyone think twice about bidding.

Does a CT note (or notes) affect after market pricing?

[Troll mode] Or perhaps market pricing is more likely to affect a CT score / note [/Troll mode]

Totally fair spin, and I agree.

As fantastic and wonderful as CT is the market penetration and brand awareness is a rounding error. That’s a great problem!

FYI - I’ve tasted this wine https://www.cellartracker.com/wine.asp?iWine=1044425
Craig from Sojourn bought it at the auction during falltacular 3 years ago and popped it immediately. That’s the way he rolls!

It’s an extremely impressive wine although punishingly young at the time.

The bevy of high consumer notes mean exactly nada, zilch, nothing to the price of a wine. Parker moves the market, especially with Schrader. Ian is actually closer to the truth above.

If the scores are coming from credible sources it can only help prices escalate or at least justify current pricing.

Let me refer you to the second post in this thread…

My apologies if this is slightly tangential…

I’ve received a number of messages on CT asking me to delete my low scores for certain wines (mostly BDX and SQN) I’ve been told that my scores are artificially lowering the CT community average and something must be wrong with me. The notes have not been from producers or retailers (and they haven’t been from the CT team…) but it’s pretty clear that some people out there find these aggregated scores important.

More and more retailers are using CT scoring in marketing emails, and I’ve also seen some stores quote CT reviews too!

There are absolutely CT users that are point chasers and/or are upset if their 95 point wine gets bumped down. Seen it first hand. Smile and move on.

Emailing someone on CT and asking them to delete their “lower scores”??. No schmucks, we need to read all the reviews, positive or negative. Occasionally I don’t agree with a low CT score, but more often I am not aligned with some of the high CT scores. Regardless, all the input is valuable.

Matt, has anyone requested you delete a really high score because it’s “artificially inflating the the CT community average?”.

Really, what could be their objective?

Schrader is a bad case study. This may be the only remaining Napa cab that regularly trades 2-6 x’s in the secondary market.

I see no reason why positive CT scores shouldn’t positively affect pricing and demand. There is no doubt that the power of CT is growing, whether one wants to ‘believe’ this or not. And I find it interesting that many would not find it to be the case.

The target market for some of these ‘high flyers’ is not here but in circles where folks don’t spend as much time talking about wine, but just want ‘trophy’ wines. It’d be interesting if Eric collects search info on CT to see what labels or brands are searched most often - and the same would be interesting on WineBid ta boot.

As far as being asked to remove negative reviews - no surprise. I’ve been asked to remove comments about specific wineries, even when just inquiring about the components of a wine. I certainly can imagine consumers not being happy that the wines that they’ve chased and purchased, and cherished, are apparently ‘downgraded’. Heck, that happens here all of the time when certain ‘darlings’ are not discussed in anything other than glowing terms . . . .

Cheers.

Click the IGNORE button to block them. People ask us to delete such scores all the time, and we explain that scoring is SUBJECTIVE. And we encourage THEM to block people who they disagree with. It’s all good.

A retailer once told me the small amount of wine that Schrader moves thru distribution is sold to the wholesaler at mailing list price. Thus $175 wholesale becomes $350 retail.

I agree with this - aggregated scores on CT seem to be gaining importance with retailers, but also with consumers who will often glance at their phone before purchasing an unknown wine.

I’ve never commented on someone’s notes, but have noticed that for a wine with a score history of, for instance, 91, 92, 91, 60, 90, 91, etc, that very low score will usually have exasperated comments underneath. I just assume that the original review came from someone with a strong agenda either against the winery or the style they use and that the reciprocal comments are from a group defending either of the two.

I’m not saying that any of your notes or scores are unwarranted or extreme obviously - just that I think you’re correct to associate the push-back against your opinion on CT with its ascent as a marketing arena for individual wines, wineries, and even wine-making styles.

i believe the answer is no. the variations in after market pricing seem to be due to rps’s scores.