Not trying to start an argument about the merits of aged wines but i dont get buying really bad wines that are obviously undrinkable, for example the Chicago wine company has a current auction for the following
1974 Mouton, WS score 69, est low of $660
Whats the point of buying this ?
Even when i first drank wine in early eighties the 72 & 74’s were considered finished.
I can’t speak to the 74 Mouton, but older BDX are predominantly my greatest experiences with wine. Several have been from “off” vintages, including 1966, 1970, 1975, 1978, 1979, and 1981. My guess is that WS low price for the 74 Mouton is something of a trophy bottle sale. The 66 Mouton has fond memories, as does the 70 (if not only for the beautiful Marc Chagall painting on the bottle that sits in my apt).
Have you had this?
The closest thing to an off vintage in your list is 1976. 1966 and 1970 have been well regarded for at least 20 years, 1975 correctly reputed as wildly variable with a few very high highs, and 1978, 1979, and 1981 have been known as pleasant vintages, at least to me and other Bordeaux lovers I know. The vintages you list are only “off” relative to legendary vintages, and 1966 and 1970 aren’t that far off 1959 or 1961, and are probably the 2 best between 1961 and 1982.
Labels tend to distort Mouton pricing.
What on earth are you talking about Faryan? 66, 70 and 75 left bankers are not off vintages, especially for top names… And the rest of your list is far, far, far better than the OP vintages, which actually suck.
To answer the question, I’m sure there are low information wine drinkers that think that these wines are good simply because they are good brands and fine wine gets better with age…
First, it has an average score of 88 on Cellar Tracker, with 82% of the people scoring it between 85 and 94. So probably not undrinkable. (When was the WS score given? Was it based on a single bottle?)
Yes, the price is steep for even those scores. But people want first growths in even mediocre or poor years for birth years and sentimental reasons. Or they want to drink a first growth to say they have, or to impress someone who knows the chateau but not vintages.
Who cares about WS scores?
I’m not a buyer of 74s, but I’ve had several that are quite drinkable. Though WMJ for Mouton is $330, so estmate seems high./
CT scores are much higher, and the only person I’ve had wine with on that list scores it '89. I’d take his judgement over Suckling or whoever
And of course with Mouton you can get a different kind of collectors- '74 is Motherwell, not Picasso but Motherwell prints sell fairly well
And, of course, I’d bet buyer was looking for birthyear or anniversary wine. I paid more for '60 BV GdlT than the quality really deserves, because it was the rare BY wine that I knew was good (defintely not great, but good)
Ignore the points.
However it is interesting to read TNs in CT, and it does sound like what Faryan suggests has truth for a lot of the buyers - a 1st growth Bdx, sometimes in their birth year. I suppose for some it’s a (shudder) ‘bucket list’ aspiration. There are some positive notes, but many notes less than glowing. At $100 a bottle it doesn’t sound like there would be value (from their notes).
A friend of mine bought two 1st growths from 1960 for his 40th birthday, both brown as gravy (and closer to that in aroma than to wine).
There are still some great bottles in unregarded vintages, and from producers less-lauded. Indeed maybe a decade ago there was good value to be had around the auction scene and I’m very happy on the balance of successes vs. failures for the price.
I would have no issues with buying the vintages Faryan is talking about, 70 was well known as a long lived year, 66 was second only to 61 in the sixties.
Back then bad vintages were really bad, they didnt have lesser years like they do nowadyas, they had flat out bad years
I think that’s less true than you think. After posting above, I recalled bottles of 74 Lafon Rochet and Pontet Canet I had in the late 90s that a friend had picked up at auction. We tasted them out of sort of morbid curiosity and they turned out to be quite decent.
Alan -
Older Mouton in so-called bad years still commands a premium because of the label and people trying to build verticals of the label years. I bought a birth-year 1965 Mouton about 20 years ago and held it until my 50th recently. I paid something like $125 expecting it to be crap given how bad of a year 1965 supposedly was, but thought it would be fun nonetheless. The value of that bottle went way high over the years as these off-year bottles are harder to find as they were consumed early on. I think it was worth well over a grand. Abalat has a bottle for sale right now for $4000.
I popped it a couple months ago when Tooch, Corey and MarcF were over for a party. It was a lovely wine, quite an elegant surprise. I rated it 89, Tooch gave it an 88. Levenburg, who has a tremendous palate, rated it a 69 back in 2008. Check out CT on it. You know the old saying, there are no great years, only great bottles. This bottle met and exceeded my expectations. Now, no way would I pay the current fare, but the point is, these very mature bottles of Bordeaux can surprise you.
Cuz undrinkably delicious.
Huh? …from the upcoming Auction At TCWC:
1 x 750ml 1974 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac (750ml)
[Damp-stained and torn label; Corroded capsule.]
67 WS $200
4 x 750ml 1974 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac (750ml)
[Damp-stained labels.]
67 WS $860
3 x 750ml 1974 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac (750ml)
[Very high-shoulder fills; Damp-stained labels.]
67 WS $640
As is often the case when you use a specific example to make a larger point, around here, it will be the specific point that is focused on and dissected to no end. To answer your question simply, no one buys wines they know to be undrinkable. Potential buyers, who intend to drink the wine, can be divided into two categories: those who have some knowledge of the wine and those who don’t. The former is taking a calculated risk that it will be a satisfactory, if not extraordinary experience while the latter is simply taking a shot in the dark. Then there are those who would acquire a wine in hope of financial gain.
This thread pointedly proves my point elsewhere, that points matter, often to those who point out otherwise.
Part of the point made was the outrageous pricing, no?
Alan - to your point, I haven’t touched many 68s, 74s, or 84s. When they crop up at high prices, they are definitely headscratchers.
Remember the hardcore collectors, that can’t relax, with holes in their verticals/horizontals.
They also buy low fills, and wrong colored wine.
Btw. 1962 Pauillacs, can still be very fine. -The “forgotten” vintage, after The 61.
Re. 1970, and 79, many good bottles around, not off-VT, like '77.
-Soren.
Alan,
You did not ask me for this, but here is the big picture as I see it which may help answer your question.
Some guys on this board post about popping immature wines regularly and sometimes the same wine repeatedly. Others let ancient wines breathe for extended periods of time with the ambition to catch the wine on a peak during oxygenation.
We all have our personal palate preferences and the above is just WB patterns.
How about the huge number of people globally putting ice in wine–there are probably millions doing so and they like it.
Lots of people ignore ratings. I find accurate, detailed and timely reviews are more informative.
Maybe some guy had the best sex of his life via a 1974 Mouton.
As a wine sales guy, I hope for a client to bathe in Dom.
What you have in your pocket for chump change vs what I have vs. someone else, well, its all relative and ascribing our own values to the price of a particular bottle of grape juice in a market with a huge spectrum of wines and buyers does not necessary make sense to others.
Wine is just a unique product that evokes strong passions, interests and some wing nut desires too.
As Steve said in the SQN thread…
It’s every American’s right to spend their money on whatever they fancy, no matter how much of a waste it is.