Well, to some people (me) there is something wrong with it. By splitting the full allocation with friends you’re preventing others who are on the list from having a shot at those wines. You’re also doing whatever is necessary to stay in the good graces of the particularly winery, which further prevents others from moving up the list for future releases of those wines.
It’s a free world, you can do what you want, but just know there’s not “nothing” wrong with it.
Wow!! Didn’t realize that splitting wines amongst friends, for wines we enjoy, while trying to balance out all the wine offerings out there, and all my household, kids, retirement, etc. needs, and not being forced to unilaterally take the required min qty’s by the winery, was considered a wrong by some. (Run-on sentence?)
How do those same people feel about those who do buy the min qty’s, or more, and then sell them (many times illegally and shipped illegally) for profit and not their own enjoyment? Probably a bit more than “bullshit” and “wrong”. But as stated, it’s a free world.
imo there’s nothing wrong with it. You’re not entitled to be sold a bottle of wine direct, and unless the winery puts restrictions on resale/distribution (which they can only really enforce by cutting off allocations), do what you want.
If you’re not allocated the wines you want, you can more often than not source them on the secondary market.
I guess I had better stop opening bottles of mailing list wines with my friends who are not on the list. Didn’t realize that I was supposed to just hoard the stuff to avoid breaking etiquette rules.
This is a support club people…stop fighting! Just kidding. But back to the original concept (although not re Rhys in my case) I have put a 6 bottle per mailer limit on myself this year. I’ve realized that I’m going to run out of space and have too may bottles from too few producers. I even am going less than six in many cases. However, I’ll violate this rule for whites, which we drink as fast as we buy, compared to reds that keep building up.
I hope Kevin doesn’t consider sharing wines among friends (at cost) to be a problem. Several of us locals have split up sampler packs over the past couple of years. I’m pretty sure it’s understood that case purchases of futures wines are sometimes being shared among friends. But then those aren’t “allocated” in the way that the normal release wines are, so maybe that’s different.
I’d love to have a friend who’d share allocations with me, especially from mailers like Rhys that has generous offerings but also a very strict allocation hierarchy. As it is, I just buy very occasionally (occasionally with years between buying) and have been doing so since the very first release. Not a winning strategy for sure. However, I was offered my first “Home” last summer so there might be a glimmer of hope that I’ll get to try the ultimate expressions of what Rhys makes at some point.
I get the appeal of sharing-at-cost thing with friends. It seems innocuous or maybe even the nice/generous thing to do. And at the end of the day, a winery like Rhys might not care, as long as they sell out every year. But the issue of sharing allocations is a perfect example of the Coase Theorem in practice – which is precisely why I don’t think people should be sharing their allocations in order to maintain list status, and you should agree if you care about letting wineries control the distribution of small production wines in a way that prevents highly sought-after wines from just ending up in the hands of people with the most money.
Put bluntly: for a list like Rhys that rewards quantity and longevity with better allocations, anybody who doesn’t think sharing is cheating is just rationalizing. It’s cheating for those who maintain artificially high status without buying the wine for themselves, and it’s cheating for those who bypass the waiting list and purchasing history that the Rhys formula is designed to reward. Taken to the extreme, if everybody currently on the Rhys list maxed out their allocations every release by selling all their bottles to their friends (at cost or not), no one would ever get off the waitlist even though the current list members aren’t even actually buying the wine. The list members – not Rhys – would then control the distribution.
Do I think you are actually immoral if you share your allocation? Not really. But if you believe what most people around here seem to – that the shift toward viewing wine as an investment and/or status symbol has been bad for the community of real wine enthusiasts – then you should want to support wineries that use allocation systems to distribute wines in a way that rewards enthusiasm and commitment in addition to a willingness to pay top dollar. If you can’t afford to buy your whole allocation for whatever reason (new kid, job change, bought too much Burgundy, etc.), then leave the bottles for people who are buying their whole allocation with their own money and wishlisting in order to get a shot at Skyline someday.
Typical snarky misfire, David. There’s a big difference between buying wine to share with friends and selling the wine to your “friends” on CC, whether at cost or not.
If you cannot handle sarcasm you had better stay off the internet Jay.
I don’t think this is a big deal or that it happens often enough to move the needle for people’s allocations and wait times to any material degree.
But I do see the issue, and to simplify it, it’s kind of like cutting in line. If you arrive at the back of a long line at the grocery store or wherever, then you see some acquaintance of yours standing second in line, and you go up and join him, I think it’s a legitimate grumble for the people behind him in line. Their wait gets longer in exchange for your wait shortening.
Now, it depends somewhat on who it is. There is a difference between it being your wife standing second in line versus an acquaintance versus a stranger. There is a degree of difference between you and another friend having gone in together on some allocations on a regular basis, versus going on Commerce Corner and finding some stranger to buy your allocation.
I think it’s a very small thing (I really doubt this happens nearly often enough to screw people over), but I do see the issue.
If you want support to quit:
We will - once the people who are calling us “WRONG” for having a different point of view than them knock it off. I guess those people constantly had comments on their report cards that they didn’t play and share with others well. 
But, it is Wine “Berserkers” and not Wine “Nice Guys” so you can’t simply express opposing ideals without denigrating anyone who isn’t on your side of the fence. ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
To those taking militant stances on the sharing of allocations among friends, allow me to quote the great Sgt. Hulka: “Lighten up, Francis”.
I tried to share my allocations with friends, but nobody wants 'em. ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
I have tried to share allocations with friends but have none.
Allocations or friends? 
David, as you know, sarcasm is the highest form of wit. But the deliberate mischaracterization of an argument to score a cheap point isn’t witty, even if it is cloaked with sarcasm.
Well, to some people (me) there is something wrong with it. By splitting the full allocation with friends you’re preventing others who are on the list from having a shot at those wines. You’re also doing whatever is necessary to stay in the good graces of the particularly winery, which further prevents others from moving up the list for future releases of those wines.
It’s a free world, you can do what you want, but just know there’s not “nothing” wrong with it.
Jason,
Where I do not follow your logic is where you say “You’re also doing whatever is necessary to stay in the good graces of the particularly winery, which further prevents others from moving up the list for future releases of those wines.” I share allocations with friends for the simple reason that it makes no sense for each of us to join the list. It has nothing to do with staying in good grace with anyone or moving up any list. We buy the wines we are alloted and we drink them. Sometimes only one of us buys and thats that. There is nothing wrong with it. Sounds to me like someone complaining of those who ride the car pool lane. And no, our sharing of wines does not cheat anyone of any wine.
I am down to just one mailing list - Carlisle. And for the first time I think I am passing on the release. Palate shift mostly. I am more interested in northern Rhone, Bordeaux, Burgundy, Italian Sangiovese and Nebbiolo. Liberating but a bit sad as I like many of the people at the wineries who’s lists I am dropping off.
Except when it’s a really stupid argument, which it is.
I’d put satire ahead of sarcasm. Hell, I’d put slapstick ahead of sarcasm.