Howard–I don’t know enough to distinguish between bad provenance and a bad cork. If it’s the latter, does that go in the category of wines marred by TCA (luck of the draw that a retailer can’t be held accountable for) or selling a defective product?
And again, I was assuming there was no such thing as a questionable bottle at CSW. I suppose in the end that assumption was confirmed, if they’ll give store credit for any wine a customer deems to merit it. I’d think that would expose them to substantial risk from unscrupulous customers drinking delicious wine and then claiming it was faulty and asking for store credit. But maybe their clientele has more of a sense of honor than I’m giving them credit for.
Regardless, I certainly don’t accept the notion that I should somehow be expected to disguise the identity of the retailer for fear of sullying its reputation. In this particular case, the owner happened to find his way to this thread within a few hours, and offered store credit for a bottle that I wasn’t even sure I had the right to request it for. I think CSW comes out smelling like roses here–unlike the unfortunate '64 Borgogno.
Very cool of them not only to offer the credit for a wine of that age, but to do so purely on the word of the customer, with no receipt, bottle or wine. I’m thoroughly impressed.
To address your first question, what you saw at the capsule was likely evidence of seepage. That could be due to a poor seal/defective cork/over filling (not provenance) or heat damage (poor provenance). TCA is not poor provenance as it has nothing to do with the handling or storage of bottled wine. A good retailer before acquiring a cellar will investigate the history of the cellar (when acquired, how stored, etc.) If there are many bottles with signs of seepage, that suggests poor provenance. If there are not many such bottles, provenance may be okay. Here, the issue to be determined would be, why is there seepage? It might well have been during shipping to you.
To respond to your second point, mentioning CSW and the problem with the bottle did not bother me; you were seeking input, which is fine. But you also directly criticized CSW for selling wine with what you described as poor provenance, which is a significantly negative comment, far worse in my opinion then just saying they sold you a bad bottle. The latter merely says you got a bad bottle. The former says, their business practices are suspect.
By the way, it is true that CSW now looks good, because it responded. But it is rare for a retailer to respond to a thread on this board, so I don’t think that outcome means it was okay under the circumstances to criticize CSW for selling wine of poor provenance.
And, again, I have ZERO problem with calling out a retailer for shoddy practices. I just don’t think there were any here, yet they got called out. Glad that is now resolved, and I hope you are satisfied with the outcome.
For the record, I do have the bottle to return (including the Chambers St Wines sticker) and the cork, so it’s not like they’re just taking my word. They’re taking my word that it was awful, and not just awful in a “50 year old wines are often awful” way.
On point #2, I think that the presence of all the gunk at the bottom of the capsule should have been enough to raise a red flag. I presumed, incorrectly, that they must have scoped that out and confirmed it wasn’t wine/seepage related before putting it on their shelves. I do think a good retailer should not have sold that bottle, based exclusively on its external appearance. But everyone’s allowed a mistake, and they’re offering to rectify it.
I’ll pile on the love-fest. Last week, UPS had a problem with delivering a case of wine that I had ordered from CSW. Normally, I don’t sweat delayed deliveries, but in this instance the wine would sit in 80 degree heat for 3 days (my office is closed on the weekends). On learning of the delay Friday morning, I emailed CSW and asked them to contact UPS for options. Within an hour, I received a telephone call from CSW in which they told me that they were shipping a new case overnight for Saturday delivery. UPS agreed to pick up the delivery costs and CSW recalled the delayed box. The replacement was delivered at my home at 10am the next day, Saturday. By the way, I live in Los Angeles. And the wine in the box cost $30 per bottle.
CSW deserves its reputation for outstanding customer service.
They sold me a '74 Barolo a while back that was quite obviously “stomped on” and topped off with something alcoholic, not Barolo, and totally undrinkable. My email to them received a “old wines can be like that, glad you enjoyed it” or something to that effect. The table I drank it with were VERY experienced palates. No more Chambers business for us.
Yes. Faulty corks exist. I’ve been in some of the most pristine cellars in the world where an alarm goes off if the temperature varies more than 2 degrees. There are always some older bottles with conditions on them. It could be a faulty cork, overfilling when bottling or perhaps it got a little too warm the day that importer delivered the wine to the retailer.
In my experiences, Chambers is a 100% class act, and a good guy in the wine business. Based on the facts in this thread, without seeing the bottle, etc, I think they have done everything correctly. They are one of the few retailers I still receive emails from.
Kudos to CSW for their highly professional response. If your intent in posting initially was solely to gauge WB opinion, you needn’t have named the retailer in your first message, especially before even inquiring about their policy. The appearance created is that your actual goal was to pressure them into a refund.
Like some previous posters, considering the vicissitudes of wine storage and transport, I wouldn’t expect a retailer to be responsible for a secondary market wine, if I’d trusted them to take reasonable precautions, especially when I’m in a position to examine the bottle myself prior to purchase. An exception would be when the retailer is in a position to seek credit from the individual who supplied the bottle.
CSW is a class act, and their class shows to best advantage in the way they respond to unexpected problems.
Exactly. I’ve had bad bottles from the cellars of the most fanatically careful collectors . Even the auction collections that demand big premiums for provenance (nils Stormby, Graham Lyons, etc) have plenty of bottles that have already passed through the secondary market. I’d say the chances of any 40+ year old wine being one owner is in single digit percentages.
The idea that any 50 year old Barolo that is not directly from producer can be guaranteed to have never seen heat is crazy (not a lot of reefers in 60s).
Plus the vagaries of a poor cork. When I got into wine one of the first full case purchases I made was 1989 Meyney. Drank a couple, left alone while seemed shut down. Started drinking again maybe 10 years ago. Really liked the wine, except for the 9th or 10th bottle which showed seepage under the capsule, was heavily advanced and maderized. Yet the final bottles (same storage, same box) were great. If someone drank the bad bottle would it be the fault of storage? If I had sold my cellar would retailer be guilty of selling an “obviously undrinkable” wine?
I do think a good retailer should not have sold that bottle, based exclusively on its external appearance.
I find this an amazing statement from someone who chose and bought the bottle in the store.
I also find it amazing the OP hasn’t edited his CT note. The cork was completely saturated and literally started bubbling when I tried to open it with an ah so. Major FAIL for Chambers St. Wines, which sold me this obviously undrinkable bottle for $150.
I’m glad CSW is (as always) a class act, because they because they seem to be the only party in this transaction who fits that description.
I LOVE CWS. And I would expect nothing but the best response if you in fact had that experience, and expressed it to them.
And anyone who says “You buy it you own it. Period, no questions asked”, is either a nut, or has WAY too much money…or both. I would never do business with a store who does not back up their wine purchases. A certain wine store in California Premiere Cru wines comes to mind.
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}