de Negoce offer

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
Jeff A
Posts: 1
Joined: September 19th, 2020, 10:15 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7101 Post by Jeff A » November 14th, 2020, 6:07 pm

JBucholz wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:01 pm
Any guesses as to the source?
Possibly Prime Solum?
A l l i s o n

Peter Valiquette
Posts: 115
Joined: April 14th, 2018, 10:35 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7102 Post by Peter Valiquette » November 14th, 2020, 6:09 pm

Claiming he added 2% for verve is a stretch. I seriously doubt that such a small amount of one Napa cab added to another Napa cab would be detectable by anyone.

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7103 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 6:11 pm

Peter Valiquette wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:09 pm
Claiming he added 2% for verve is a stretch. I seriously doubt that such a small amount of one Napa cab added to another Napa cab would be detectable by anyone.
Agree, so that's why I hypothesized it's cause the 98% winery said can't sell it as 100%. Otherwise why add the 2%? He sold out of #78 so wasn't to move excess wine! It's 2%!

But we can all agree that 2% is irrelevant in this blend. So why did he do it? I just hypothesized. I doubt anyone is going to say it was for "flavor".
I'm a Turk

Michael Martin
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: August 28th, 2010, 3:35 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7104 Post by Michael Martin » November 14th, 2020, 6:15 pm

Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:02 pm
Guarantee he has extra juice, these aren't shiners, he is just moving thru product in a manner he sees fit.

By a winery selling him wine they are saying they can't sell that exact blend and that is why they do it under a mostly anonymous program like de Negoce.

Once Cam buys it he can do whatever he wants outside of revealing the source.

No point in your post unless you know that to be true, unless you just enjoy speculating, then proceed.

Being a fan is one thing, pretending you know any more than anyone else is just posturing.
Agree. Extra wine in a tank somewhere that needed to go. Original source wouldn’t bottle that small of a supply.

User avatar
CliffM
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 65
Joined: September 26th, 2020, 5:09 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7105 Post by CliffM » November 14th, 2020, 6:15 pm

Guarachi
M a t h i e s o n

User avatar
Kris Patten
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5796
Joined: February 1st, 2009, 6:25 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: de Negoce offer

#7106 Post by Kris Patten » November 14th, 2020, 6:16 pm

#78 is 100% Cab, but its it's still a blend, if he didn't like 4% Diamond Mtn. in it he has extra, same with the Napa portion of it if 98% didn't make sense he has some extra.

Please continue with your blind fanboy-dom.
ITB

User avatar
Kris Patten
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5796
Joined: February 1st, 2009, 6:25 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: de Negoce offer

#7107 Post by Kris Patten » November 14th, 2020, 6:17 pm

CliffM wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:15 pm
Guarachi
I think that is a good guess.
ITB

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7108 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 6:18 pm

#78 sold out in about 15 minutes. Only had 175 cases.

https://www.denegoce.com/products/og-n- ... 2048&_ss=r

2% of 400 cases (#81) = EIGHT CASES.

If you conspiracy theorists think he had 8 extra cases of a wine that sold out in 15 minutes and needed to move it so blended it into #81...ok

There is probably a much more innocent explanation than "needed to move juice". It sold out in 15 minutes.
I'm a Turk

DanielP
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 884
Joined: October 5th, 2015, 7:21 pm
Location: NYC

Re: de Negoce offer

#7109 Post by DanielP » November 14th, 2020, 6:22 pm

I don't see why "needing to move juice" is a non-innocent explanation. As long as he's upfront in his disclosure, there's nothing untoward about it.

If he has leftover high quality components from one OG blend, then I could see why one would rather blend it into the next offering rather than just dumping it down the drain. I doubt this is a high margin business, and all the shipping snafus only hurt.

The more interesting question is when he decides to release a winery blend versus the blend+a little extra. Could just be just whenever the extra juice is lying around and doesn't hurt the final blend.
P@ik

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7110 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:16 pm
#78 is 100% Cab, but its it's still a blend, if he didn't like 4% Diamond Mtn. in it he has extra, same with the Napa portion of it if 98% didn't make sense he has some extra.

Please continue with your blind fanboy-dom.
PLEASE keep calling me a fanboy. I can barely read your english but #78 was not a cam blend. "The fruit is sourced from a legendary vineyard just 1000-feet outside the Howell Mountain AVA and is the producer's bottling blend which retails for $140/bottle. This is supple, elegant, meticulous wine/jewelry-making at its finest."

Yes, there is 3% Diamond Mountain but it's the producers blend, not cam's. I have no idea what else you said in this message. If you can translate for me I'll be happy to respond.

Yours,
Fanboy
I'm a Turk

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7111 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 6:26 pm

DanielP wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:22 pm
I don't see why "needing to move juice" is a non-innocent explanation. As long as he's upfront in his disclosure, there's nothing untoward about it.

If he has leftover high quality components from one OG blend, then I could see why one would rather blend it into the next offering rather than just dumping it down the drain. I doubt this is a high margin business, and all the shipping snafus only hurt.

The more interesting question is when he decides to release a winery blend versus the blend+a little extra. Could just be just whenever the extra juice is lying around and doesn't hurt the final blend.
Totally. But he sold out of #78 immediately, instantly. And he knows PRODUCER BLENDS sell better than when he mixes them. So why on earth would he throw 2% into it knowing it f*ck up his marketing, especially when he sold #78 instantly? That's all I was saying. And then I got hit with "THAT'S ABSURD FANBOY!"

Otherwise, yah. He will of course blend his excess wine into future de Negoce wine. He has done so in the past. But 2%? It's a rounding error. And he didn't need to. Would sell it better if it was "producer blend". He knows this.
I'm a Turk

DanielP
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 884
Joined: October 5th, 2015, 7:21 pm
Location: NYC

Re: de Negoce offer

#7112 Post by DanielP » November 14th, 2020, 6:32 pm

Well if it's leftover juice, that's 2% extra volume that he already paid for that he can move.

This offering is small enough where it's going to sell out regardless, so may as well move that excess juice with it
P@ik

Michael R Fox
Posts: 22
Joined: September 8th, 2020, 1:15 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7113 Post by Michael R Fox » November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm

MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread

R Scott Hughes
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 64
Joined: August 6th, 2020, 4:22 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7114 Post by R Scott Hughes » November 14th, 2020, 6:35 pm

Just when this thread was starting to bore me to tears with tedious discussions about shipping issues, it comes roaring back in the best possible way.
R 0 L A N D

User avatar
Kris Patten
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5796
Joined: February 1st, 2009, 6:25 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: de Negoce offer

#7115 Post by Kris Patten » November 14th, 2020, 6:37 pm

MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:18 pm
#78 sold out in about 15 minutes. Only had 175 cases.

https://www.denegoce.com/products/og-n- ... 2048&_ss=r

2% of 400 cases (#81) = EIGHT CASES.

If you conspiracy theorists think he had 8 extra cases of a wine that sold out in 15 minutes and needed to move it so blended it into #81...ok

There is probably a much more innocent explanation than "needed to move juice". It sold out in 15 minutes.
There is nothing untoward about what he is doing whatsoever, as long as its stated before sale, in his offer.
ITB

YLee
Posts: 2000
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 8:09 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7116 Post by YLee » November 14th, 2020, 6:41 pm

Michael R Fox wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm
MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread
+1
This guy is so annoying. Thats why I put him in "foe". He is like a child fanboy.
-¥ 0 ñ 9

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7117 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 6:42 pm

Michael R Fox wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm
MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread
Thanks Michael, new user from September 2020, for your really interesting hot take. Everyone is better off now that we've heard your views.

Maybe take it up with the guy who called what I said "absurd" and "a fanboy" for simply suggesting a reason 2% might have been blended! That's all I did.

But anyway Michael, I love you too.
I'm a Turk

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7118 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 6:46 pm

YLee wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:41 pm
Michael R Fox wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm
MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread
+1
This guy is so annoying. Thats why I put him in "foe". He is like a child fanboy.
Oh you "foe"'d me? The horror. LOL wtf is happening tonight? I literally wrote this:

"The most logical answer is the producer said can't sell the exact same wine. Not much more to think of than that."

And then was called "absurd" and "a fanboy" and I'm the one being told I'm derailing the thread? For suggesting why he might have blended 2% of #78 into this wine? LOL. This message board is the best. I'll never leave you guys flirtysmile
I'm a Turk

Michael Martin
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: August 28th, 2010, 3:35 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7119 Post by Michael Martin » November 14th, 2020, 6:49 pm

I blocked Matt. It makes the thread readable again.

Randall H
Posts: 3
Joined: January 27th, 2018, 4:47 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7120 Post by Randall H » November 14th, 2020, 6:51 pm

Any other guesses/intel on the source of this one?
Randy Howard

User avatar
Eric White
Posts: 487
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 3:28 pm
Location: Banks, OR

Re: de Negoce offer

#7121 Post by Eric White » November 14th, 2020, 6:52 pm

Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:17 pm
CliffM wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:15 pm
Guarachi
I think that is a good guess.
this was my initial guess as well.

User avatar
Kris Patten
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5796
Joined: February 1st, 2009, 6:25 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: de Negoce offer

#7122 Post by Kris Patten » November 14th, 2020, 6:52 pm

MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:42 pm
Michael R Fox wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm
MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread
Thanks Michael, new user from September 2020, for your really interesting hot take. Everyone is better off now that we've heard your views.

Maybe take it up with the guy who called what I said "absurd" and "a fanboy" for simply suggesting a reason 2% might have been blended! That's all I did.

But anyway Michael, I love you too.
Grow up.

Nothing Cam did is wrong, nor was it when he had a label under his own name. I never said that. I am sure it made the best wine possible in his opinion. 2% can make a big difference by the way, it is not a rounding error in wine.

What I did say is your supposition as to why he did this is likely wrong. My opinion only comes from 20+ years ITB. Do I know it for a fact, no. Am I better equipped to know this industry than you, probably.

If you want to write off people with dissenting opinions because they don't align with yours, that is your perogative. Good luck here, outside the two dN threads.

People stretch wine in the industry all the time, some very ill conceived, purely for profit. For instance we sold a very popular commercial Pinot Noir that had 3% Chardonnay, 3% Gewurtz, and 4% Syrah in it, and people asked why that was in it.....it was simple, you could get better revenue from it in a bottle LEGALLY labelled Pinot Noir by State law than you could selling them as varieties. It was stated on sell sheet and on website so nothing untoward. To be clear this is separate to dN, I think Cam is on the up and up.
ITB

User avatar
Troy Stark
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 842
Joined: March 7th, 2012, 9:51 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Re: de Negoce offer

#7123 Post by Troy Stark » November 14th, 2020, 6:58 pm

MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:11 pm
Peter Valiquette wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:09 pm
Claiming he added 2% for verve is a stretch. I seriously doubt that such a small amount of one Napa cab added to another Napa cab would be detectable by anyone.
Agree, so that's why I hypothesized it's cause the 98% winery said can't sell it as 100%. Otherwise why add the 2%? He sold out of #78 so wasn't to move excess wine! It's 2%!

But we can all agree that 2% is irrelevant in this blend. So why did he do it? I just hypothesized. I doubt anyone is going to say it was for "flavor".
2% of 400 cases is about half a barrel. Easiest explanation is he had some leftover wine.
Insta: @lofiwineguy

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7124 Post by MatthewT » November 14th, 2020, 7:02 pm

Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:52 pm
MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:42 pm
Michael R Fox wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm
MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread
Thanks Michael, new user from September 2020, for your really interesting hot take. Everyone is better off now that we've heard your views.

Maybe take it up with the guy who called what I said "absurd" and "a fanboy" for simply suggesting a reason 2% might have been blended! That's all I did.

But anyway Michael, I love you too.
Grow up.

Nothing Cam did is wrong, nor was it when he had a label under his own name. I never said that. I am sure it made the best wine possible in his opinion. 2% can make a big difference by the way, it is not a rounding error in wine.

What I did say is your supposition as to why he did this is likely wrong. My opinion only comes from 20+ years ITB. Do I know it for a fact, no. Am I better equipped to know this industry than you, probably.

If you want to write off people with dissenting opinions because they don't align with yours, that is your perogative. Good luck here, outside the two dN threads.

People stretch wine in the industry all the time, some very ill conceived, purely for profit. For instance we sold a very popular commercial Pinot Noir that had 3% Chardonnay, 3% Gewurtz, and 4% Syrah in it, and people asked why that was in it.....it was simple, you could get better revenue from it in a bottle LEGALLY labelled Pinot Noir by State law than you could selling them as varieties. It was stated on sell sheet and on website so nothing untoward. To be clear this is separate to dN, I think Cam is on the up and up.
Your reply to me was:

"This statement is absurd."

And that's all you wrote.

Of course it could be leftover wine! I have no clue. I don't make wine. I didn't even think what I said was "Fanboy"! How is suggesting the original winery said they couldn't resell the exact same wine a Fanboy statement? All I did was hypothesize. Again, your response was simply "This statement is absurd."

Then you called me a fanboy. First absurd then called me names. So tell me, who should grow up?
I'm a Turk

User avatar
Kris Patten
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5796
Joined: February 1st, 2009, 6:25 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: de Negoce offer

#7125 Post by Kris Patten » November 14th, 2020, 7:14 pm

To be fair 143 pages of your intermittent posts says you're a fanboy, so yeah I was being a Richard and calling you on it.

Good call, you're correct.
Last edited by Kris Patten on November 14th, 2020, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ITB

rjquillin
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 68
Joined: January 8th, 2013, 7:36 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: de Negoce offer

#7126 Post by rjquillin » November 14th, 2020, 7:20 pm

N.81 sold out
That didn't take long
~Ron Q~
I build cameras for spacecraft and extra-terrestrial vehicles.

R. Serafin
Posts: 34
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7127 Post by R. Serafin » November 14th, 2020, 7:29 pm

the point is moot...sold out.....
R o b

Toby P
Posts: 256
Joined: May 7th, 2018, 6:44 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7128 Post by Toby P » November 14th, 2020, 7:35 pm

Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:52 pm
MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:42 pm
Michael R Fox wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:33 pm
MathewT you have wayyy to much time on your hands. I am curious how old you are? For people trying to follow the thread for other reasons than your personal beef with anyone that disagrees with you, may be better for you to PM for all arguments that may take up 30 pages of this thread
Thanks Michael, new user from September 2020, for your really interesting hot take. Everyone is better off now that we've heard your views.

Maybe take it up with the guy who called what I said "absurd" and "a fanboy" for simply suggesting a reason 2% might have been blended! That's all I did.

But anyway Michael, I love you too.
Grow up.

Nothing Cam did is wrong, nor was it when he had a label under his own name. I never said that. I am sure it made the best wine possible in his opinion. 2% can make a big difference by the way, it is not a rounding error in wine.

What I did say is your supposition as to why he did this is likely wrong. My opinion only comes from 20+ years ITB. Do I know it for a fact, no. Am I better equipped to know this industry than you, probably.

If you want to write off people with dissenting opinions because they don't align with yours, that is your perogative. Good luck here, outside the two dN threads.

People stretch wine in the industry all the time, some very ill conceived, purely for profit. For instance we sold a very popular commercial Pinot Noir that had 3% Chardonnay, 3% Gewurtz, and 4% Syrah in it, and people asked why that was in it.....it was simple, you could get better revenue from it in a bottle LEGALLY labelled Pinot Noir by State law than you could selling them as varieties. It was stated on sell sheet and on website so nothing untoward. To be clear this is separate to dN, I think Cam is on the up and up.
Lol Kris, this is ridiculous. You came in and picked a fight by being obnoxious for no good reason. Settle down! Honestly go re-read your response to a completely innocuous statement from Matt and ask who escalated here. There was no need at all for it.

And while I have no idea why Cam would add 2% here, nobody has explained why he would have this excess juice if it was from a wine he easily sold out. I.e. none of you have explained why he wouldn't have just sold a few more cases of the original wine. So you're being dismissive without even addressing the obvious Q at hand here. There may well be a reason for it, but not seeing a real answer here to why not just sell more #78 since it was a very small amount. TBH, Cam playing master blender and thinking he's improving the wine makes more sense as alternative.
P r a t t

User avatar
michael_holmstrom
Posts: 35
Joined: October 27th, 2018, 5:30 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7129 Post by michael_holmstrom » November 14th, 2020, 7:40 pm

NealW wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:41 pm
So why add 2% to the producers blends? Very strange / fishy?
Its like adding baking soda to pure Coke so you can increase supply and profit. [rofl.gif]

User avatar
Kris Patten
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5796
Joined: February 1st, 2009, 6:25 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: de Negoce offer

#7130 Post by Kris Patten » November 14th, 2020, 7:51 pm

Toby P wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 7:35 pm
Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:52 pm
MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:42 pm


Thanks Michael, new user from September 2020, for your really interesting hot take. Everyone is better off now that we've heard your views.

Maybe take it up with the guy who called what I said "absurd" and "a fanboy" for simply suggesting a reason 2% might have been blended! That's all I did.

But anyway Michael, I love you too.
Grow up.

Nothing Cam did is wrong, nor was it when he had a label under his own name. I never said that. I am sure it made the best wine possible in his opinion. 2% can make a big difference by the way, it is not a rounding error in wine.

What I did say is your supposition as to why he did this is likely wrong. My opinion only comes from 20+ years ITB. Do I know it for a fact, no. Am I better equipped to know this industry than you, probably.

If you want to write off people with dissenting opinions because they don't align with yours, that is your perogative. Good luck here, outside the two dN threads.

People stretch wine in the industry all the time, some very ill conceived, purely for profit. For instance we sold a very popular commercial Pinot Noir that had 3% Chardonnay, 3% Gewurtz, and 4% Syrah in it, and people asked why that was in it.....it was simple, you could get better revenue from it in a bottle LEGALLY labelled Pinot Noir by State law than you could selling them as varieties. It was stated on sell sheet and on website so nothing untoward. To be clear this is separate to dN, I think Cam is on the up and up.
Lol Kris, this is ridiculous. You came in and picked a fight by being obnoxious for no good reason. Settle down! Honestly go re-read your response to a completely innocuous statement from Matt and ask who escalated here. There was no need at all for it.

And while I have no idea why Cam would add 2% here, nobody has explained why he would have this excess juice if it was from a wine he easily sold out. I.e. none of you have explained why he wouldn't have just sold a few more cases of the original wine. So you're being dismissive without even addressing the obvious Q at hand here. There may well be a reason for it, but not seeing a real answer here to why not just sell more #78 since it was a very small amount. TBH, Cam playing master blender and thinking he's improving the wine makes more sense as alternative.
I fessed up. I didn't want to pick a fight. Just call out fanboy who shuts down any dissenters or counter opinions.
ITB

JonathanG
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 719
Joined: August 7th, 2019, 10:45 pm
Location: SF Bay Area - Mid Peninsula

Re: de Negoce offer

#7131 Post by JonathanG » November 14th, 2020, 8:01 pm

MatthewT, I just have to ask, are you a lightning rod for criticism and trolling in real life, or is this just a phenomenon that exists in this thread?
J0|\|@+h@n Gr@h@m

User avatar
PeterH
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 4154
Joined: May 14th, 2011, 3:06 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7132 Post by PeterH » November 14th, 2020, 8:15 pm

Missed the #81. I'll live.
P Hickner

On s'en bat les couilles

User avatar
tpetty
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 184
Joined: November 18th, 2019, 8:02 pm
Location: Quincy, IL

Re: de Negoce offer

#7133 Post by tpetty » November 14th, 2020, 8:27 pm

same

I have not gotten text alerts the last couple offers. Not sure why.

I don't check my email every hour.
T o d d *** P e t t y

Timothy B a l l a r d
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 156
Joined: August 25th, 2020, 9:27 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7134 Post by Timothy B a l l a r d » November 14th, 2020, 8:43 pm

Over my Cab fatigue, obliged a case of OG 81. Friends offered to split, becoming their personal wine assistant. Don't care about the extra 2% "OG 78" offered up. These are legitimate deals from Cameron, need aging in cellar. None of my bottles have a label "Serve before Tuesday".

Brian_K
Posts: 12
Joined: October 1st, 2020, 5:22 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7135 Post by Brian_K » November 14th, 2020, 8:53 pm

This thread is by far the best when posters are guessing the source of the offers - often with what seems to be stunning accuracy and insight. I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned by reading the guesses and related rationales as the possible source is debated.

The attacks on Matt are needless and unhelpful.

[thankyou.gif]
K @ y

User avatar
Robert M yers
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3418
Joined: March 10th, 2010, 8:24 pm
Location: Cleveland

Re: de Negoce offer

#7136 Post by Robert M yers » November 14th, 2020, 9:01 pm

40 needs no aging and I can’t see myself aging any of the mere 4 cases I’ve bought. This can be a fun blip on the radar but I just can’t see myself using cellar space to Deep age wine I have no idea where it comes from. Do we really think in 10 years I’ll be regretting that that OG #xx isnt still around? This isn’t 1994 Dominus or 2001 Dunn. I’m imagining I’ll be well off into something else. I’m quite sure Cam is hoping it will be OG #9876. I’d think for it to be a sustainable business he will have to sell individual bottles or somehow convince you folks Who bought lockers for this to start drinking them ASAP.

User avatar
Robert M yers
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3418
Joined: March 10th, 2010, 8:24 pm
Location: Cleveland

Re: de Negoce offer

#7137 Post by Robert M yers » November 14th, 2020, 9:05 pm

Brian_K wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 8:53 pm
This thread is by far the best when posters are guessing the source of the offers - often with what seems to be stunning accuracy and insight. I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned by reading the guesses and related rationales as the possible source is debated.

The attacks on Matt are needless and unhelpful.

[thankyou.gif]
Beware... Matt might attack you for only signing up in Oct. 2020

VidaF
Posts: 14
Joined: August 25th, 2020, 10:15 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7138 Post by VidaF » November 14th, 2020, 10:00 pm

Brian_K wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 8:53 pm
This thread is by far the best when posters are guessing the source of the offers - often with what seems to be stunning accuracy and insight. I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned by reading the guesses and related rationales as the possible source is debated.

The attacks on Matt are needless and unhelpful.

[thankyou.gif]
I totally agree. I really have enjoyed reading the guesses on where the wines come from but the attacks are totally unwarranted and not at all enlightening regarding the wines. And so often it seems like someone who hasn’t been posting suddenly appears with a derogatory statement. Not sure why that is but why not keep the discussion focused on the wine?? [swoon.gif]
F r e e m a n

User avatar
Rodrigo B
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 588
Joined: June 9th, 2020, 11:21 pm
Location: New York

Re: de Negoce offer

#7139 Post by Rodrigo B » November 14th, 2020, 11:25 pm

Jeff A wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:07 pm
JBucholz wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:01 pm
Any guesses as to the source?
Possibly Prime Solum?
Yeah, came here to suggest that after doing a bit of digging. It's the closest I can find for now.
B r a g a

<hr!s.L
Posts: 13
Joined: November 12th, 2020, 12:55 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7140 Post by <hr!s.L » November 14th, 2020, 11:37 pm

Not wishing to stoke the embers of a dying argument for the sake of drama, but I feel MatthewT could use a little additional defense.
Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:53 pm
MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:52 pm
NealW wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:41 pm
So why add 2% to the producers blends? Very strange / fishy?
The most logical answer is the producer said can't sell the exact same wine. Not much more to think of than that.
This statement is absurd.

Myself, I don't know anything about the wine business personally, but someone from earlier in this thread (page 102) wrote the following:

Lloyd A. Kasman wrote:
October 3rd, 2020, 11:48 am
Some of the reason behind the modification may be that winery X says OK you can take our prized juice, but add 2% of X So we wouldn’t know we have 100% exact competing product on the market. I do this all the time by blending in a small portion of another wine when buying bulk from producers in South America

MatthewT engaged in a discussion with Lloyd A. Kasman at the time of his post, and thus learned that a négociant buying bulk wine may be contractually required to subtly alter wines as part of the terms of purchase. (Ironically, this discussion took place amidst an ongoing kerfuffle between MatthewT and another user named Sean.)

So MatthewT's explanation for the 2% alteration of OG 81 is grounded in some seemingly legitimate professional information.
L @ n g l 0 i s

<hr!s.L
Posts: 13
Joined: November 12th, 2020, 12:55 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7141 Post by <hr!s.L » November 14th, 2020, 11:38 pm

Logically, I would have to agree with MatthewT's theory:

- Regarding OG 81, meddling with the winery's bottling blend diminishes it's appeal and value; a businessman would only do this out of necessity (extra juice alone would be a poor reason to tarnish the purity of an otherwise exact proprietary branded luxury wine).

- Furthermore, why would anyone blend in 8 cases (2% of 400 cases from OG 81) of wine that can be sold in a snap at $240 per case to diminish the value and appeal of a wine you are selling for $216 per case? (To point, OG 78 sold 175 cases in seven minutes.) There is no logical explanation not to bottle and sell every drop of OG 78 just as it is.

Yet, there is one possible logical explanation: perhaps he was contractually obligated to blend another luxury wine (OG 81) and, as a damn savvy salesman, he skillfully devised how to make that required reduction in perceived value to be as inoffensive as possible. "I know 99% of you missed out on - and are lusting after - the precious OG 78. Well, a sweet little fraction of that delicious juice is sprinkled in this new fabulous wine I have for sale!" By using an even better, more desirable wine in the mix, it makes the blending as palatable as I can imagine it to be.

At least that's how the move read to me.
L @ n g l 0 i s

User avatar
John O'
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 930
Joined: October 30th, 2011, 4:24 am
Location: Skaneateles, NY

Re: de Negoce offer

#7142 Post by John O' » November 15th, 2020, 2:54 am

Over in the reviews section there are several that are some variation of:
"Popped an OG XX. It's really good. I wouldn't pay the advertised $XXX for it, but I would pay $XX for it. Really happy at the $X price."
It's seemingly a perfectly rational analysis, but I'm wondering if it's some form of what economists call "anchoring"?
O Sullivan

Toby P
Posts: 256
Joined: May 7th, 2018, 6:44 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7143 Post by Toby P » November 15th, 2020, 4:56 am

John O' wrote:
November 15th, 2020, 2:54 am
Over in the reviews section there are several that are some variation of:
"Popped an OG XX. It's really good. I wouldn't pay the advertised $XXX for it, but I would pay $XX for it. Really happy at the $X price."
It's seemingly a perfectly rational analysis, but I'm wondering if it's some form of what economists call "anchoring"?
For sure, as with pretty much any purchase I think that plays a real factor. What's interesting / a little different here is that there are 2 opposing anchors: the low DN price and the higher presumed "true" price of the underlying source. I think the relative force of those anchors probably depends in large part on every individual's perception of the DN venture, i.e. if you're more skeptical you anchor lower, if you're more of a believer then higher. The only real way to un-anchor would be to do a true blind tasting, ideally with many wines at a time (more than just a one-on-one). Most of the DN reds are probably still too young to do any of that but maybe next year we'll see some reviews from blind tastings with a DN bottle thrown in :)
P r a t t

Dave R.
Posts: 39
Joined: August 3rd, 2020, 11:37 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7144 Post by Dave R. » November 15th, 2020, 5:46 am

Anyone care to tackle Guarachi vs Prime Solum for N.81?
... @ c k v 3 ll

ChrisWolff
Posts: 85
Joined: December 4th, 2019, 9:49 am

Re: de Negoce offer

#7145 Post by ChrisWolff » November 15th, 2020, 5:58 am

The more that people in the business come into this thread to post negative comments, the better I feel about my purchases

L Harris
Posts: 62
Joined: September 15th, 2020, 5:05 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: de Negoce offer

#7146 Post by L Harris » November 15th, 2020, 6:14 am

Rodrigo B wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 11:25 pm
Jeff A wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:07 pm
JBucholz wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:01 pm
Any guesses as to the source?
Possibly Prime Solum?
Yeah, came here to suggest that after doing a bit of digging. It's the closest I can find for now.
First of all a disclaimer in the hopes of avoiding a ‘that post is absurd’ comment. This is pure speculation and I am not ITB so could be totally off base.

Having said that, Prime Solum makes good sense to me, not only because it matches the wine itself pretty well (98% of it at least!) but since they OWN the Brokenrock vineyard. It seems logical to me at least that the owners of the vineyard are the most likely to sell excess product as most wineries buying from the vineyard would only buy what they think they can sell and would have much less, if any, excess.

No guarantee this fruit would be the same wine as the Prime Solum $115 Cab of course - could be other excess fruit at the vineyard that the didn’t/couldn’t sell after the bumper crop in 2018 so they decided to make a wine with it.

At least that’s the theoretical logic that makes this make sense to me.
L u k e

User avatar
MatthewT
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 3:41 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7147 Post by MatthewT » November 15th, 2020, 6:50 am

<hr!s.L wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 11:37 pm
Not wishing to stoke the embers of a dying argument for the sake of drama, but I feel MatthewT could use a little additional defense.
Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:53 pm
MatthewT wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:52 pm


The most logical answer is the producer said can't sell the exact same wine. Not much more to think of than that.
This statement is absurd.

Myself, I don't know anything about the wine business personally, but someone from earlier in this thread (page 102) wrote the following:

Lloyd A. Kasman wrote:
October 3rd, 2020, 11:48 am
Some of the reason behind the modification may be that winery X says OK you can take our prized juice, but add 2% of X So we wouldn’t know we have 100% exact competing product on the market. I do this all the time by blending in a small portion of another wine when buying bulk from producers in South America

MatthewT engaged in a discussion with Lloyd A. Kasman at the time of his post, and thus learned that a négociant buying bulk wine may be contractually required to subtly alter wines as part of the terms of purchase. (Ironically, this discussion took place amidst an ongoing kerfuffle between MatthewT and another user named Sean.)

So MatthewT's explanation for the 2% alteration of OG 81 is grounded in some seemingly legitimate professional information.
This is amazing. I forgot I had that conversation with Lloyd who is an actual negociant! Thank you Chris for signing up just to post this. I'm sure the trolls will think I'm Chris, Cameron, and Matt, but what else is new.
I'm a Turk

User avatar
Rodrigo B
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 588
Joined: June 9th, 2020, 11:21 pm
Location: New York

Re: de Negoce offer

#7148 Post by Rodrigo B » November 15th, 2020, 9:03 am

L Harris wrote:
November 15th, 2020, 6:14 am
Rodrigo B wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 11:25 pm
Jeff A wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 6:07 pm


Possibly Prime Solum?
Yeah, came here to suggest that after doing a bit of digging. It's the closest I can find for now.
First of all a disclaimer in the hopes of avoiding a ‘that post is absurd’ comment. This is pure speculation and I am not ITB so could be totally off base.

Having said that, Prime Solum makes good sense to me, not only because it matches the wine itself pretty well (98% of it at least!) but since they OWN the Brokenrock vineyard. It seems logical to me at least that the owners of the vineyard are the most likely to sell excess product as most wineries buying from the vineyard would only buy what they think they can sell and would have much less, if any, excess.

No guarantee this fruit would be the same wine as the Prime Solum $115 Cab of course - could be other excess fruit at the vineyard that the didn’t/couldn’t sell after the bumper crop in 2018 so they decided to make a wine with it.

At least that’s the theoretical logic that makes this make sense to me.
Very good point. Price point on Prime Solum also matches much better. Cam's "well-over $100/bottle price tag you'll pay at the producer's tasting room" eliminates Guarachi as a contender to me.
B r a g a

User avatar
Troy Stark
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 842
Joined: March 7th, 2012, 9:51 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Re: de Negoce offer

#7149 Post by Troy Stark » November 15th, 2020, 9:14 am

MatthewT wrote:
November 15th, 2020, 6:50 am
<hr!s.L wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 11:37 pm
Not wishing to stoke the embers of a dying argument for the sake of drama, but I feel MatthewT could use a little additional defense.
Kris Patten wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 5:53 pm


This statement is absurd.

Myself, I don't know anything about the wine business personally, but someone from earlier in this thread (page 102) wrote the following:

Lloyd A. Kasman wrote:
October 3rd, 2020, 11:48 am
Some of the reason behind the modification may be that winery X says OK you can take our prized juice, but add 2% of X So we wouldn’t know we have 100% exact competing product on the market. I do this all the time by blending in a small portion of another wine when buying bulk from producers in South America

MatthewT engaged in a discussion with Lloyd A. Kasman at the time of his post, and thus learned that a négociant buying bulk wine may be contractually required to subtly alter wines as part of the terms of purchase. (Ironically, this discussion took place amidst an ongoing kerfuffle between MatthewT and another user named Sean.)

So MatthewT's explanation for the 2% alteration of OG 81 is grounded in some seemingly legitimate professional information.
This is amazing. I forgot I had that conversation with Lloyd who is an actual negociant! Thank you Chris for signing up just to post this. I'm sure the trolls will think I'm Chris, Cameron, and Matt, but what else is new.
Yeah that's good recall. The real answer to the question about "why 2%" is "we'll probably never know for sure" and "it doesn't matter," I suppose.
Insta: @lofiwineguy

User avatar
CliffM
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 65
Joined: September 26th, 2020, 5:09 pm

Re: de Negoce offer

#7150 Post by CliffM » November 15th, 2020, 11:02 am

Rodrigo B wrote:
November 15th, 2020, 9:03 am
L Harris wrote:
November 15th, 2020, 6:14 am
Rodrigo B wrote:
November 14th, 2020, 11:25 pm


Yeah, came here to suggest that after doing a bit of digging. It's the closest I can find for now.
First of all a disclaimer in the hopes of avoiding a ‘that post is absurd’ comment. This is pure speculation and I am not ITB so could be totally off base.

Having said that, Prime Solum makes good sense to me, not only because it matches the wine itself pretty well (98% of it at least!) but since they OWN the Brokenrock vineyard. It seems logical to me at least that the owners of the vineyard are the most likely to sell excess product as most wineries buying from the vineyard would only buy what they think they can sell and would have much less, if any, excess.

No guarantee this fruit would be the same wine as the Prime Solum $115 Cab of course - could be other excess fruit at the vineyard that the didn’t/couldn’t sell after the bumper crop in 2018 so they decided to make a wine with it.

At least that’s the theoretical logic that makes this make sense to me.
Very good point. Price point on Prime Solum also matches much better. Cam's "well-over $100/bottle price tag you'll pay at the producer's tasting room" eliminates Guarachi as a contender to me.
Good catch about the tasting room! Definitely changing my official guess to Prime Solum 👍🏻
M a t h i e s o n

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”