Cart in front of horse. You should have called them first.
if the bottle had the : There was lots of brown gunk at the bottom of the capsule, but it looked like a stain from something other than wine. you should have avoided, no? Just my thoughts. Whats to say this wine did not have 4 owners since its birth? Their policy seems fair enough.
That’s precisely the point. I would have avoided this bottle at an auction. But because it was on sale at Chambers, I “let my guard down,” since I was assuming that they had done their homework to ensure that the wine had been appropriately treated and was in reasonable condition (which is not the same as guaranteeing it will be delicious or even palatable at age 49–no one can do that).
So what did Chambers say ?
I’ve had quite good luck with older bottles from CSW. As noted, they say they stand behind the wines; on the few times I’ve had bad bottles I didn’t bother to return because I figured it wasn’t their fault, but I’m sure they would have honored (they’ve been extremely upfront and honest on other occasions) .
As to provenance, are retailers only allowed to purchase 1964 Barolo from collectors over 75 years old, who are probably only ones who might have bought on release? Even if they absolutely know provenance, that is no guarantee that a substandard/leaky cork wouldn’t lead to a maderized wine (I’ve had browning oxidized wine in a single bottle of 15 year old wine from a case I bought close to release where rest of case was fine).
If wondering what their responsibility was, why on earth would you have posted here and on CT without contacting them first?
I don’t buy a lot of old wine, and I also don’t recall ever returning a bottle of wine because it was bad. Usually more trouble than it is worth. But I am certain that if I were buying a 50 year old wine I would figure the odds of it performing are no better than 50-50. This is why I have a cellar; buy young and hold.
To ask whether the community thinks I have the “right” to request compensation from them. If the norm is really buyer beware/tough sh!t, then I misunderstood and would just eat the loss, as I do when my auction purchases go awry.
Is there a consensus here that asking them for refund/credit/replacement would not be seen as out of line?
I’m co-owner at Chambers Street Wines. I don’t think we’ve heard from Dan yet, but here’s our deal:
We guarantee the condition of every bottle we sell, and we will always give a store credit for any unsatisfactory bottle.
Since this means that we put our money where our mouth is, we are very careful about provenance and storage in general (you might be surprised, shocked even, at how many importer/distributors store their wine without temp-control).
As an avid consumer of older vintage wine, I also understand that there’s a reasonable statute of limitations on such issues, and we certainly appreciate when our customers take a certain amount of caveat emptor with their wine, but nonetheless we stand by our guarantee and we don’t argue the issue.
Because the credit card companies charge their vig when we charge a card AND when we refund a card, we naturally prefer to offer a credit as opposed to a refund. There’s usually something else tempting in stock here to replace the bad bottle.
It’s relevant to add here that I’ve opened quite a few bottles of old Nebbiolo that showed very poorly or worse on the first taste. Most recently, I double-decanted a bottle of 1967 Oddero Barolo, and it showed DOA - brown, volatile, maderized. I came within seconds of dumping it, but decided to bring it along just to see what happened; 6 hours later it had completely transformed, and was our wine-of-the-night.
Whatever the initial appearance of old Nebbiolo, I think it’s critical to decant the wines, to get rid of their typically very heavy sediment, but also because they perform very differently from any other old wine I’ve handled, and benefit tremendously from an extended time to breath. On Saturday I’m taking a 1968 Brovia (among other things) to the Festa del Barolo, and I’m going to decant it at about 3pm. Stop by our table to see how it shows!
Of course, Neal. If there had been anything resembling an airtight seal and the wine just happened to be bad, well, that’s the risk of buying 50 year old wine. It’s only when a bottle has clearly been mistreated that I think retailer responsibility comes into play.
Separately, I think it would be great if cutting the capsules on old wine became the market norm/expectation.
Just from a business point of view, a retailer does not have to “know” the provenance or quality of wine to stand behind it. Obviously it helps one’s business to present quality products, and certainly results in less returns and hassle, but nothing prevents the retailer from simply guaranteeing their wines regardless of source or condition.
Hi Jamie,
No, you haven’t heard from me yet, because I wanted to sound out the community on whether it would even be appropriate for me to request compensation. Obviously if I buy a wine at auction and it’s a lemon, I don’t get to demand that the auction house or the seller make me whole.
I’d be delighted if you think a store credit would be appropriate in this case. What are the requirements? Do you need the bottle, cork, un-drunk contents, and receipt for proof of purchase? I believe I bought the wine in cash and obviously didn’t keep my receipt, and the bad wine eventually went down the drain. So if that means I’m out of luck this time, that’s entirely fair, and I’ll be more diligent in the future.
For the record, we did come back to the wine at the end of the evening, and it was still vile. This wasn’t a case of a wine that was just waiting to be transformed–it was a wine that presumably had been exposed to air for decades.
You can all keep debating but I think this answers the question.
On the other hand, I can’t believe how many of you willingly will accept defective products whether cooked, corked, leaking or whatever.
There are many reasons I’m thankful not to be living in NYC 
, but this is not one of them. What a great policy and business model. I wish more retailers were like you folks.
Dan,
Just give us a call, or let us know we owe you one next time you stop in.
I’m impressed that you would accept returns of an older bottle like this. I’ll definitely look at buying older (and younger) bottles the next time I’m looking.
I agree that old Barolo and Barbaresco’s (esp Barolo) need for decanting (1/2 to 1 hour in decanter, 2-4 hours back in bottle) before dinner and to be completely free of sediment is greatly under appreciated. I’ve had various older Nebbiolo (47, 52, 58, 64 mostly but not all Borgogno) handled this way and all showed better for it.
Very impressive Jamie. And smart too; a lot more than $150 in goodwill purchased with that post
Just one more reason why Chambers is a class act! 
Unless I am missing something, I don’t see how you can conclude there was a problem with provenance. The problem may well have been with the cork. To me, provenance refers to how the bottle was treated during its lifetime. To my understanding, CSW and a few other retailers DO take great pains to check out the provenance of older wines they purchase. I have had a great experience with CSW in this regard.
When I received a similar bottle from CSW, I asked them what to do BEFORE opening it. Why on earth would you open a questionable bottle and then complain when, SURPRISE, it has a problem? Anyway, in my example, CSW and I agreed I would try the bottle, and I was given full assurances of a refund, replacement or credit (I don’t recall the exact arrangement) if the bottle was not good. When the bottle was opened, it was spectacular. My experience is that a certain percentage of older Baroli have problematic corks that seep a bit during shipping, which has nothing to do with provenance and does not necessarily mean the bottle will not show well.
I have no problem with posting about a retailer who has acted unreasonably. But I don’t understand naming a retailer for selling such a bottle without first even finding out how they will handle it. Posting for input on what is reasonable to expect can make sense, but naming the retailer and insinuating it did not properly investigate provenance is unfair.
Sure, you come across all touchy-feely, lovey dovey- but I know what kind of people you really are at CSW. You guys KNOW i’m a Barolo junkie. You KNOW I cannot resist buying old Barolo. You KNOW I’m helpless when you send me these offers for old Barolos. And yet, you not only send the offers to me, you willingly sell me these wines. Heartless bastards. Damn you. Damn you. Damn you.
(BTW- I got three of those 67 Oderros and my experience matched yours except it was DOA and stayed DOA- but I didn’t hang around 6 hours. I have a couple left and will give one a more patient treatment). Damn you.
This has been my experience, too. And CSW has absolutely stood by their goods.
Which is one reason !I love CSW! and shop there instead of many local stores.
Jamie,
More importantly, what are you bringing Friday night to Maialino?