Yep, great customer service . . .
But how screwy is it that the retailer who sold them to you wouldn’t stand behind the products sold? Not cool . . .
It IS the winery’s fault. They have chosen to use a closure method that is known to have a high failure rate even though far more effective alternatives, screw caps, are available for no additional cost. I don’t buy the whole “wine needs the slow oxidation provided by a cork” argument. That is simply an additional flaw of cork closures. If wineries and consumers are being honest with themselves, they would have to admit that they just don’t like the image of screw caps. They both feel screw caps detract from the mystique and perception of sophistication associated with premium wine. Even if presented with conclusive evidence that screw caps were superior to cork in every way for protecting and aging wine, many consumers and wineries would still make up arguments in favor of cork simply because they feel that screw caps dispel the sophistication they feel is conferred on those drinking wine with a cork. Propagating and accepting an unnecessarily flawed closure method isn’t sophisticated; it’s delusional.
Plus 1
In my opinion all wineries and all stores/distributors/importers should take back corked bottles and provide either a credit or a replacement (even if from the latest vintage). A flawed product unfit for consumption from the day it leaves the winery is a flawed product just like any other spoiled product in other industries. In other industries there are warranties that protect the buyer and for almost all other products the stores will take back a defective product.
With wine, there seems to be one big difference - the length of time between purchase and discovery. Stores will argue that they cannot get recovery from the chain above them but stores selling other products never make the same argument. Some distributors and importers make similar arguments that they cannot get covered by overseas producers but this argument isn’t made for other products (and by the way, they can and should get covered when the next vintage is delivered).
So, it seems the temporal element is the one that is the trickiest. But, at the higher end, which is what we are really talking about, it is intended by the producer of the product that the customer will not “use” the product for many years and so the tempral element is integral to the product itself and should not be used as an excuse by the people who are selling the product. I don’t think that should matter either. Corked now, it was corked years before. Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard when I went to return a corked Grand Cru Burg with my receipt a handful of years ago was that the store covered corked wines for two years but not afterwards - really, really??? - they are charging me a lot of money for a Grand Cru Burg which everyone knows should be aged for many years (and which at the time of purchase THEY would recommend is cellared for years) and saying their policy times out far before the time when the wine is to be opened - after arguing with me for a while they finally gave me a credit for half - I have never bought from them again.
Based on time, I may not get a replacement of the older bottle and I understand that but the latest release should suffice or even at least a refund. If I don’t have the receipt then that is my fault (just like not having the receipt for another type of product and trying to make a return at a store). However, receipt or no receipt the producer should still make the person whole because ultimately they know that it came from them. I don’t think the primary responsibility should be to refund what was paid unless it was purchased from the winery (winery might have only received a fraction of the price particularly if there is a rise in the secondary market) but instead a replacement of the same or at least an equivalent quality vintage should be provided. It still creates a big risk for buying at inflated secondary market prices but I don’t think the winery should necessarily be hit with that type of coverage.
Though wineries can argue that it wasn’t their fault, ultimately they included a component in their product that ruined it for the consumer of the product and they are the ones who should therefore be responsible. They should build in a certain amount to their budgets and pricing (just like every other industry does for contingencies with products and returns and warranty coverage) and are in the best position to price it in and/or insure against it (if they can). This is easier to do so because of how few returns will actually be made.
If there are issues with proof then a return of the rest of the bottle should be requested (and is fair for the most part with exceptions like being poured out to a group in a restaurant) - just like with returns of other defective products where you actually have to return the product. However, if the winery doesn’t want to run it through a local retailer (or doesn’t have one) then they should pay to have it shipped back if they want to see the bottle.
The argument that it is just part of buying and drinking wine is far too convenient for the industry which is responsible and profits off of the defective products (not intentionally of course but makes money off them nonetheless). If consumers want to make that choice then they can do so for themselves but they shouldn’t have to.
I have had good experiences from non mailing lists on getting a newer vintage of the corked wine. I don’t care where or when I purchased it and do expect a replacement. The consumer should never pay the price for the product in the end and a good operation will always take care of you. The worst service by a landslide is Chave. No action on their International importer and no response make directly from Chave on an email I sent 2 weeks ago.
I’ve had no problems getting refunds/exchanges for corked bottles, as rare as they are. A winery or retailer who isn’t willing to refund/replace corked bottles loses my business.
What are folks’ thoughts on reduced bottles (‘terminally’ reduced)?
Never had a bottle so reduced that a night’s worth of oxygen can’t cure it…
Definitely seek a replacement, Jim. I’ve had several bottles from mailing list wineries that I’ve posted passing notes on their being corked, and at least two of the winemakers saw the notes and offered to replace the bottles without my even requesting (John Cabot the most recent).
I’m not sure I’d stay on a list if the winery didn’t stand behind the quality of what they shipped me (for some, it would be a close call, I suspect)
Wow, that’s beyond expectations. Well done by Tablas Creek!
Postscript - PM could not have been nicer about it, offering to replace the bottle with no questions asked. They even waived their general requirement to get the bottle back to test and see if they needed to re-evaluate their cork providers, given the fact that AZ wouldn’t allow me to legally ship them the bottle.
Great service, along with terrific wines from Peter Michael.
I’ve had no problems getting refunds/exchanges for corked bottles, as rare as they are. A winery or retailer who isn’t willing to refund/replace corked bottles loses my business.[/quote]
A HUGE plus ONE on this…NO retailer gets more business from me if I buy a corked or flawed bottle and they don’t stand behind the purchase.
I think that’s the right answer, it’s just not what most of us do.
Do you find that you need to provide proof to retailers? What about retailers who aren’t in your area? Does the answer depend on how much volume you do with that retailer, whether they’ll take your word or not?