Given that retailer doesn’t create the cork taint either, getting them to take a return just shifts the cost of damage over to them. Maybe they are in a better position to get a credit from someone in the supply chain. But again it still seems like swatting a mosquito, in that it ‘solves’ a problem for one person one time. I’d rather drain the mosquito swamp, and see what tech solutions can be found for what is clearly an industry issue. I’m happy to support alternative closure methods, and the producers who use them.
Look at the first growths have responded to Rudy K fraud concerns. For a problem that doesn’t / shouldn’t affect them – the years later secondary trading of their bottles – they have been fast to work on holograms, laser engravings, difficult to replicate bottles etc. They did realize they were not unaffected by this, if they desire to release semi regularly library offerings, at the prevailing high auction prices, with guaranteed estate provenance, they knew they needed to disarm fraud concerns. I would think that they ought to consider taint to just as big of a problem. If someone bought a ‘new’ 03 Latour for $900 and it was corked, given that so many of those are coming into the market from retailers who’ve bought them from the estate directly, I think that is a good situation for the loss to be pushed back all the way to the producer. And its a cleaner chain of control, than something that sat in a customers cellar (or who knows) for the last dozen years. But that’s probably not the typical situation. To me I would look for some kind of solution to come from a producer who has a more direct connection to the end consumer, with library releases. Maybe LLC will come up with something, since they are holding so much of their own wine, rather than selling it, and ought to be more vulnerable to tainted wine being put back to them since they don’t have the long/murky supply chain.
Don’t get me wrong - I hope Chris gets some kind of fair resolution.
I completely agree with you and Larry that the retailer eating the buck is a poor solution, but given the other, worse solution of the customer doing so. . .
I’m not sure there is a solution outside of supporting alternative closures, just like you said, but damnit if that doesn’t seem like a battle uphill through shit creek without a paddle.
Great post - but unless folks really scream loudly, your hope of ‘draining the pond’ is just not going to happen in the short term. Folks really seem ‘okay’ with the fact that a percentage (whatever it may be) of wines they purchase will be damaged - and there’s no way to know for sure until that wine is opened, oftentimes years or decades later. The only hope is that folks become less sensitive to TCA in general so they just won’t realize it’s there
I wish consumers screamed louder about the problem - OR wineries took more responsibility in not accepting the possibility that a certain percentage of their wines will be ‘faulty’ due to something they truly can control.
Well, Kyle, through shit creek I will continue to go, with or without a paddle!
Here’s what sucks - that we did not have as bad a problem with TCA as the Aussies did back in the day. They HAD to make a change - and what really made the difference is that the second time they made a major shift towards screw caps, they put the winemakers out front of the marketing campaign, explaining that they were NOT trying to ‘cheapen the product’ by putting it under screw cap, NOR were they saying that the wines could not age, but instead were doing so to ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR HARD WORK inside the bottle so consumers could enjoy the wine as the winemakers envisioned. Pretty straightforward message, if you ask me.
This has NEVER been done in this country and that is one of the reasons that the ‘conventional wisdoms’ that continue to exist about wines under screw cap (they can’t age, this is done to save money, they get reductive, etc etc etc) continue to live on and on.
We’ll see what the next decade brings, but I do believe that a handful of us will continue to stay the course . . .
THE FIRST LINE IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CONSUMER IS THE RETAILER. If anyone wants to get into the wine retailing business that is fundamental. As such the consumer is YOUR customer; not the customer of the distributor, importer or producer. Each level of markup has to include a shrinkage factor, and the retailer has to be ready to assume his responsibilities. To the extent that he can unload some or all of his cost within the chain, so much the better, but he CANNOT shirk the fact that the consumer is HIS customer.
That sounds pretty simple to me…perhaps I am naive regarding what practices are in play at the retail level, but the fundamentals do not change acceptance of one’s responsibilities.
The retailer is turning a profit from the consumer. The end user (Chris) has been sold a defective product. This retailer has likely booked thousands in profits from him. It is much easier for them to count his money in their coffers and decide whether or not to take it back upstream to the distributor.
Anyone have any insight as to how ‘faulty’ products are handled in other industries?
Hank, I agree that the retailer is 'on the hot seat ’ and invariably should ‘make rhings right’ . . . It just sucks that this attitude does not necessarily continue down or up the line as it should.
Should the customer be out the money?
2 recent purchases at retail. Both corked on 2 consecutive nights no less. I reached out to the 2 retailers and got a begrudgingly refund at one, and a friendly a store credit at the other.
However there is a risk with auctions if wine is corked, the buyer has no recourse
I brought up the Rudy situation to illustrate the differential in how estates responded. Consider that there has been a pretty swift response (by the standards of estates that have been making stuff for hundreds of years) to deal with fraud concerns. Yet, taint, which affects far more consumers of their goods, seems to be less of an issue for the estates to deal with. Or maybe because they don’t care because the costs are being borne far down the line. I believe that they could address it (as perhaps the OZ industry has) if they got motivated to. Do I know if it would be effective? I don’t know.
Maybe it could be something that consumers could specify as a “perk” of ordering EP. Just as people specify the bottling sizes, maybe they could request alternative closures. Let the market, and consumer choice dictate. It doesn’t strike me that running an extra bottling line with alternative closures is that gigantic of production modification. And people would be able to determine over the course of a decade or two how the seals work, if aging is affected, and what their experience with taint is. i.e. is this reducing the problem.
Do you think the retailer gets their money back for a ‘faulty’ shirt from the manufacturer? What if said manufacturer let them km now that 2-5% (or whatever % you insert) were going to have this problem?
But if you bought a car that had a severe defect…even many years later…they have to fix it.
It would be one thing if we could taste what is in the bottle before we leave the store to know it is sound and if we give it the ok, you’re done. But we can’t (not yet anyways). The defect is hidden until the bottle is open but the defect is already there. This isn’t like a shirt which you can see it has a flaw or a piece of furniture that fails on you within a certain period of time (warranty).
The reason the industry isn’t addressing it seriously is because there isn’t enough of an incentive to. I’m sure many places don’t want to give you an infected wine but it isn’t a problem until it is a problem.
This is an interesting question. I think the most fair thing would be a recent vintage of the wine, or a credit in that amount, but I wouldn’t complain if it were just the original purchase price. I definitely wouldn’t expect current market if that were a greater amount than recent vintages on the shelf.
I think the biggest thing would be the willingness to do something, rather than nothing, for your customer.
I would be happy with a credit equal to the pricing on a current release of the same wine or the same wine, but current release. Unfortunately, I have been told they will not do anything for a bad cork because I bought the wine 6 years ago.
from the consumer perspective, it shouldn’t matter where the retailer’s getting reimbursed for the consumer to get a refund/credit. i’m always of the opinion that businesses should be held to a higher standard than the consumer… your products are your livelihood, afterall… so it’s up to the business to do the research and figure out if a particular wine is worth the risk before putting it on the shelves.
with that said, the retailer then would and should reflect this issue up the chain, to the distrubutor and the distributor to the wine maker. the winemaker has a choice to use a cork, a synthetic, or a twist top… if winemakers are pressured enough to change then perhaps eventually the cork industry will be more regulated?
but this all has to start somewhere, and that would be for the consumer to seek action at point of sales.
If you buy a flawed good from best buy, they go back to the manufacturer for the refund right? (if they do at all). Why should it be any different with wine.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}