For those of you comfortable buying wines with signs of past seepage, I’ve got cases of first growths I’d happily sell you. Bought since release and stored in private collectors’ sellers until I had them shipped to me. I haven’t opened any of them. I got them for a great price from a big group of uber rich guys from New Orleans what was it, 15-16 years ago?
1 Like
There are different variables to consider, including what the current fill level is and what the storage conditions were. Leaking can be because of a bad cork, bad storage conditions that caused the cork to not hold the wine (overheating), and the bottle was overfilled. The last one is no big deal generally.
With Port and Madeira, if the storage conditions were generally ok and the fill level is ok, then I’ll consider buying it. The residual sugar levels seem to protect them.
On other wines where the fill level looks normal but there’s signs of a little seepage, I usually chalk that up to an overfilled bottle. In that case, I’ll probably be interested in buying the wine and taking advantage of the price discount that should go along with the risk.
How do you know they were uber rich and not lyft rich?
The vast majority of 20 year+ Auslese that I have seen has fully saturated corks and some seepage. I have learned to accept this for this style of Riesling because none of those bottles seemed oxidized or otherwise spoiled and resulted in a fantastic showing/tasting/experienced. These wines are all incredible high in acidity and residual sugar and I suspect that has everything to do with the cork saturation, the seepage AND the fact they are unspoiled. I have had Port that was similar in this regard, but not nearly as much personal experience as with Auslese/Riesling.
I think it is going to vary by varietal and the general rule would be to avoid. But I have enough experience with Auslese that it does not deter me in the slightest. I would guess that Alsatian Riesling has enough acidity to weather additional air, but there is probably only one way to find out . . .
What a dumb question. Obviously they had the cases of wine delivered to me by Uber Black cars. DUH.
The wine I was interested in was Trimbach CFE 1985; there were 3 bottles with signs of past seepage available on Flickinger Wines at a great price, which is searchable through WineSearcher. Not hard to figure out what I might have been looking at knowing that it was an aged Alsatian Riesling from a good producer in a good vintage.
I had browsed the site over the past couple of weeks and the bottles were all available the whole time. Shortly after I posted this, they were gone. All bought. Coincidence? Maybe, but I doubt it.
I guess I posted my question publicly, so it’s all fair game. But I posted it in good faith, and this sort of feels like bad form to me. Was it bad form? Was I naive to post my question in first place? Thoughts?
I am rearranging my cellar and a bottle of Copain Syrah from about 2004 had enough seepage that it stained my hand. I will try to remember to open it soon and report back. I bought it direct so I have owned it since release.
IMO,regarding bad form – not at all. Shouldn’t this be a place where such questions are asked and answered?
Since you didn’t state what wines you were looking at in your original post, this is purely coincidental. You asked a question you wanted an answer to, and you got some good answers for the next time wines show up that you want.
I do not bid on anything with signs of past seepage or cork issues (raised or depressed).
Ummmm. Really? I totally understand being frustrated that you waited too long to pull the trigger and missed out on the wines, but to insinuate that someone here saw your reference to ‘Older Alsatian Riesling from a good vintage’ and scoured the internet to find your exact bottles based off of a super vague description and then purposely sniped them from underneath you is…a bit of a stretch. Plus, its kind of a slap in the face to everyone here that tried to help you out by providing detailed feedback to your question. Bad form? Yeah. I’d say so.
If the price is right next time, don’t think about it for so long. Lots of peeps out there looking for good deals on wine. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
2 Likes
Lol. Just a few months ago, I split some 83/89 Trimbach CFEs that were ~$100/btl all-in, without the past seepage, after they weren’t flying off the shelves. Thank god this thread wasn’t made in time. Would’ve changed the market. /s
1 Like
Not exactly sure I understand what this is about. Somebody was thinking about buying some wine on the internet and, in the meantime, somebody else bought it. Is that it?
Judge with care and foresight. Many of us will eventually resemble bottles with signs of seepage.
Basically. I had been debating about buying a bottle of 85 CFE for a couple weeks. Going back and forth because of the past seepage. Three were available. I sought guidance here about bottles with seepage, not saying what I was looking at specifically, but just vaguely alluding to it. Shortly after posting, all three bottles were bought up by someone else. I thought maybe the buyer got tipped off on this board, but seems like the consensus is that I’m just being paranoid. Probably true. That’s what I get for not pulling the trigger when I had the chance!
dumb question:
why does Leroy overfill their bottles (intentionally?) even though they know that seepage happens to most of them?
what is the benefit of overfilling (and let them seep)?
I was off by a bit. It was a 2004 Copain Hacienda Secoya Pinot. “Signs” of seepage is an understatement. The wine was bottled without a capsule, so the dark reddish goo at the top of the cork was obvious. I had bought it on the Copain mailing list, probably back in 2006. I removed the cork with a Durand because it was covered with goo and looked soaked through. It was and although it held together, the cork was stained dark throughout. Decanted and there was a bit of sediment in the bottle which nicely slid into the neck like it was supposed to so I could avoid pouring it into the decanter. The wine seemed a bit light in color for a Cali pinot, but it was 17 years old. No brownish coloration or other distortion.
The wine was excellent. No deterioration from the seepage. It improved gradually over 5 hours in the decanter, indicating that whatever oxygen had snuck into the wine had no negative effect. Even after all that time, the color is almost entirely red wine, with just a touch of bricking, but you have to search for it. If anything, the customary Cali pinot funk that shows up so often, and that I do not like, was nonexistent. I would say no negative effect of the seepage.
Just want to chime in to say this is the most hilarious thing to me. Most expensive wines in the world and they can’t fill the bottles right.
1 Like
I was in Piedmont about a month ago, and the Barbaresco producer we visited (Grasso Fratelli) had 2008 Vallegrande that showed signs of seeping. He asked if we wanted to try it, to which we answered “Yes, please!” It was magnificent, and I was able to buy three bottles of that vintage along with some 2011 and 2012 as well.
I feel like such a moron. There must have been a glitch with the Flickinger website (or equally likely, a glitch in my brain). I re-checked the website and two of the three bottles of 85 Trimbach CFE with signs of past seepage are available again. I took it as an omen and bought one. I’ll let you all know how it is. Apologies for casting any suspicion on all you fine folks of WBers!