You get exactly what I was trying to get at. And you’re right, if you have unlimited disposable income then this is all irrelevant. I was coming to this question assuming 99% of us do not? And the “unlimited” income crowd is small enough to where these wines are still available day 1 to everyone with no wait list at the offer price.
I actually think this is a good way to look at it! No, it doesn’t have to match the S&P 500, but I’d hope it came close! It’s also much easier selling the S&P 500 when you want to unload! Also I think the $225 is the asking price not clearance price. Would need to value it at clearing price after all fees.
But of course, the purchase in 2008 was not to sell but to drink with your son one day. So it is rather irrelevant if it was a good investment or not.
I agree with DICO. Very very impressed and will be buying a lot more.
There are no more Parker Hundos. There are only Lisa Perotti Brown Hundos or some other reviewers. It used to be back in the day, when most winemakers in Napa did not understand “the formula” (really ripe grapes+lots of French oak to hide any blemishes+small production, good PR perceived shortage building on FOMO) that there were just a few wineries that would blow doors off most of the competition. Ah yes, I remember the 90’s. Now the degree of separation between many of these wineries has gotten reaaaaaaly small in the uber ripe lush styles. Many cab based blends are almost impossible to pick out in blind tastings as unique. There are a few exceptions based on unique sites (Pritchard Hill) or unique patrimony and vine stock (McDonald, Scarecrow) or what is most surprising, a re-evaluation of producers who stayed the course and just produced nice, ageable, well balanced wines at a decent price (Corison, Frog’s Leap, Flora Springs and I guess you could list Togni and Dunn in the “don’t drink until 10 years old” category).
So if you take this approach and filter the wines into different categories, it will make a lot more sense. Occasionally you will run into the “unclassifiable” category of wines like Greer, William Cole, or a couple of others that cross some boundaries. There are always exceptions to every rule. Another dead giveaway is the owner who typically made a bundle of money in some other industry, wanted to move to the valley after it became a lifestyle destination, and bought a house with some grapes then hires a celebrity winemaker to produce a vanity project. These are almost always a wine that falls into the ripe grapes+lots of oak+ sexy label category. Kind of a dime-a-dozen these days. That is if your dime is valued at about $225.00.
In addition you can thanks Andy Beckstoffer for the relative flattening of the playing field, as he introduced a uniform pricing strategy for purchased grapes. Anything I missed to help a brother out?
Matt - Yes, pretty interesting that a 2008 MB matched the S&P! There probably is some correlation there between growth of wealth and premiere wine prices. Should be a great wine to share with your son, good choice!
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
My point about the Parker Hundo, now RPWA Hundo, is that even without Parker’s name on the review it will typically double or more the aftermarket price of the wine. So if you like that wine but usually buy it on the aftermarket at less than winery price you’re going to pay more for it that year or spend your money elsewhere, i.e. “lots of good wine out there”.
But, you said you’re buying for consumption. Supply and demand determines the secondary market price. But, who gives a shit? What’s relevant is how much you enjoy a wine, which should determine the value you put on that wine. If one wine is going for $400 and looks like it will appreciate in value, and another you enjoy equally is $60 and will just sit there, your consumption value is the same for both wines. The difference you have a hard time telling between a $100 and a $225 wine may be zero. Don’t try to justify wasting money. Buy low, drink high.
As far as pricey Napa Cabs go for me, some seem worth the price, others seem gimmicky, extreme for extreme’s sake, are often unpleasant to drink and leave me skeptical they could age well. Price does not equal quality does not equal enjoyability.
there will be zero appreciation (investment wise) in these wines though.
there are clearly two separate conversations here which are getting fused.
+1
I can’t think of many wines that depreciate significantly after the initial release price on normal to good vintages. Some of them will sell tax free from retailers at around the same price a few months later so you can save money that way. Plenty of napa cabs that appreciate almost 100% of the time though.
You’re asking a lot of good questions.
Don’t assume that price correlates with “quality,” whatever that is (it’s an individual thing). You should figure out what you like, then look at prices.
With expensive wines, a lot of the price stems not from inherent pleasure but from (a) scarcity and (b) Veblen-esque status display. That’s not just California; it’s true of many European wines, too. Once you’re at $100 or more, you’re dealing with a luxury product. It’s no accident that LVMH owns a lot of iconic wine producers (e.g., Yquem).
If you really want to have a meaningful measure of value FOR YOU, you should blind taste a bunch of these wines at different ages. Then decide what you’re willing to pay and which ones are worth it to you. Pay attention to the fact that you can’t tell much different between a $100 and a $225 wine!
This isn’t like a stock or a business where you can look at P/E or Ebitda multiples to judge value.
Personally, I find an inverse relationship between price and pleasure in Napa cabs once you get past $100 or so. Over that price point, they have to be super-extracted, very ripe and very oak, because that’s what wins 95+ points from the wine press, which sustains demand. I don’t like that style, so to me it would be just throwing away money on most of those. (Ridge Montebello and a few others would be exceptions.) And, if you do like that style, I still think if you taste $100, $200 and $300 bottles side by side blind, you’re unlikely to find price and your preference correlates well.
As a general matter, I think that is not true of Napa cabs, save for a very few. It certainly hasn’t been true historically. Auction prices on older cabs rarely show a lot of appreciation.
For release price vs. what you pay secondary? There are not a ton but there are certainly more than a handful. Anything allocated that sells out quickly will usually appreciate, even if only a little bit. Realm has 3 bottles I can think of, Vice Versa SVDs, Maybach Materium, Memento Mori SVDs, Some of the Carter wines, some of the Myriad wines, Macdonald (obviously) and I’m sure there are more.
I think a bit of confusion in this thread. Yes, I do not want any wine for investment purposes. That doesn’t mean I want to overpay for wine! I agree one person’s $225 wine might be worth $1000 to someone else based on their tastes and net worth, despite it being readily available for $225.
Basically I want fantastic QPR to consume and it’s hard for me to see a $225 wine that is readily available to everyone no matter how great it tastes is a great QPR based on it being overpriced vs supply/demand. I have much of less issue with a $50 wine like DICO which of course you can also argue is not priced right given it’s readily available for $50. But the QPR is fantastic cause it’s $50 not $225.
Does that make any sense?
I think DICO is priced correctly. It seems like a good deal because everyone around it is inflated.
If you compare DICO to other high quality QPR bdx style wines, then it is just right. For example, in the same price range, you can try 2016 Domaine the Chevalier or Malescot St Exupery and you see DICO does not perform as well. It is equivalent to Lafon Rochet to me, and that is at $40.
Napa-wise, DICO QPR is right at 1. Basically if you can put a price on the quality of the wine, it matches with the selling price. It tastes like a $50 kind of wine, and it costs $50. Most of the $225 I have tasted are worth 100-150 to me. For example, Phelps Insignia is 225, but to me, it tastes like a 150 kind of wine, so the QPR is 0.67. It is increasingly rare to find a wine over $100 that has QPR higher than 1.
I am always looking for good QPR wines. It seems like that ship has sailed for the ones in the $200+ from Napa. Yet, I still buy some of them knowing I am overpaying.
So if a wine sells out in a day it’s underpriced. But if it doesn’t sell out in a day it’s overpriced? If not, then what is the amount of days it should take to sell out a particular wine in order to prove it’s priced right?
This is excellent advice.
Somewhat unpopular to say so, but there are $225 class Napa wines that I’ve found to be excellent, and better than $100 Napas. There are also some $75 Napa cabs that I’ve loved and enjoyed nearly as much. And some $300 bottles that I didn’t much care for. All a matter of personal taste - so worth testing your taste hypotheses with vigorous sampling!
Specific examples? Above $200 I’ve found Colgin and Shafer to be pretty amazing. Greer and VHR as well. Depending on the vintage some of these can be found below release price. Still, I’m not buying these any more as my cellar is full and I’ve found some cabs at lower price points that scratch that itch.
No, really only referring to high priced $200+ cabs which I think are a lot of hype and the supply/demand imbalance is what drives it past that price point, if that makes sense.
I just pulled the trigger on a 2015 Shafer Hillside Select. I’ve never had a SHS, but I hope it’s worth the $49 I got it for! I’ve yet to pay more than $200 for a bottle of wine, so I’m not sure how a lot of these high end Cabs stack up.