Do THE cult wines need scores any more?

WINE TALK
1

As a part of my Wednesday routine, I check on WS Insider, and what do I see, Schrader, and a slew of 96+ point scores. Sigh…

I mean, does this winery need and more great scores? Does Screamer? Does Harlan?

I recall some folks hesitating on Quilceda a few years ago b/c the offer was out, and no scores.

Does it REALLY, I mean REALLY matter? If this wines constantly score over 96 point, who cares? I know that sometimes, and it’s really rare, that one of these wineries will throw up a dud (99 Harlan comes to mind), but not often enough to be alarming.

Would love to hear thoughts from as many as possible. Also, I’m really only talking about the big ticket wines, not stuff like Carlisle or Saxum (FWIW, I think these guys can sell out without scores b/c they are still fairly reasonable by comparison).

2

Do the cults need scores? No.

However, given that the scores will be given, I think the relevant question becomes, “Do THE cult wines need not-low scores?” And, to that question, I would answer, “Yes.” I feel that two consecutive “low” scoring vintages for one of THE cults (or new cults) could/would strip them of their status just as quickly as it was annointed.

3

I honestly don’t know what drives cult purchasers, but I would guess that a sustained slump in critical acclaim could be a kiss of death.

I’d speculate that external recognition is a critical success factor.

4

Schrader got 96+?..that’s all?! Screw that I’m selling my allocation. [wow.gif]
I could care less what score Schrader gets, it’s consistently excellent. I wish it would get lower scores so that I could get a bigger allocation. I wish it wasn’t “cult” because I drink it, not flip it.
Good question and I pretty much agree with what Brian says above…bring on the lower scores!

5

I think scores for these wines are more important for re-sale on the secondary market. Most people on these lists buy year after year. If a Screagle/Harlan, etc. hits 99 or 100 points the value of the secondary market will be high based on the points.

6

Sure they do. If all of a sudden Galloni gives an 89 to Scarecrow and Spectator follows with a 90, it will be hard to move these on secondary as well as the winery being able to ask for $5-600 a bottle. The cults are built on scores.

7

I used to consider “cult” wines as those limited production, (mailing list only type), that consistently garnered higher accolades than the mass produced wines. If that were true, these wines would need to lead the market in scores to retain their cult status. I don’t believe that is true anymore. There are a few lesser known and newer “cult” wines that haven’t been or are not available for ratings that have the wine world atwitter. Levy McCellan came out a “cult” price and a limited production. Ghost Horse has its own following without ever being rated. Derenoncourt is another that comes to mind.

On the flip side Opus One could be classified as an original “mainstream” cult wine. Scores that were nearing poor didn’t stop the sales to the followers or the newbies, who were guided by “connoisseurs” of the day. Worse, as a retailer, we were allocated how many 6 packs we could get, while the wine sat in floor stacks in Costco, for $9.00 less than we paid wholesale. To this day, we run out of our “allocation” of Opus One, while cult wines age in our storeroom, awaiting that person hunting for a Cult wine.

8

Randy,
I’m curious, how often do people walk in or call looking for cult cabs?

9

Yes, they need scores. They might survive without points for a year or two. But their exposure is so limited and price so high that the next round of flash wine buyers won’t know who they are without scores.

Things like Silver Oak and Opus One seem to do well because they are produced in large enough quantity people can actually find them. But the cults can’t do that without diluting their entire reason for existence–to cost 10x their peers and be hard to get.

10

Lots of interesting answers, but what it seems like I’m taking from the responses is above is Big Scores = Big Price tags (either at the on set, or in the aftermarket).

I’ve read the few threads on folks getting on the Screamer list for the first time, or what ever cult list, only to end up passing b/c the price is soooooo high. I’m sure most avid collectors want to try many of these, if not for anything more than academic curiosity, but the price tag (either, before or AFTER purchase, like Schrader), can limit people and the true belief of the quality. Our VP went to a Screamer vertical, and all he could really say was yeah, the wines good, but SOOOOO over priced.

I wonder if the Bordeaux 1st Growths could survive on the same level?

11

It’s a feedback loop. The Critics get to help create the Cults, then the Cults entitle the Critics with tastes/bottles of high-demand juice. The Critics support the Cults with an ongoing parade of points, supported by the knowledge that there’s a 5+ year waiting list before getting on the mailing list. The mailing list members think they’re uniquely priveleged getting to spend only hundreds for a bottle, instead of several hundred. There are a few gadflies who try to highlight that the QPR is heinous. Nobody listens to them. Everybody’s happy, except the gadflies and those at the back of the waiting list.

RT

12

I think the real question is: Are cult wines still cults?

My answer would be no. Prices in the secondary market on California wines have continually been dropping. I wouldn’t buy any California wines anymore for investment purposes.

13

Is that a function of insane pricing though? Or a lack of want for these? I think guys like Harlan and Screaming Eagle cut a lot of the “flippers” right out of the loop when they hit their current pricing structure. I don’t think aftermarket value makes a cult wine. Not sure I would use the word “cult” to describe Carlisle, but the 2009 Sonoma Syrah is selling for like 5X right now, so is that purely a function of “flavor of the minute”? The true cult wines (and I might even down grade Bryant at this point), are those that have sustained a long period of success, have withstood massive price increases (any one remember when Harlan was $75 a bottle???), and still maintain a general reverence amongst wine collectors. I think aftermarket value is an after affect.

On the other hand, Poppy, I’m 10000000% with you, California wine is a terrible investment.

Rich, great post. Would seem true, no?

14

Poppy,

Would Screagle be the exception? I know it’s now $750, but don’t bad vintages get $1500

15

Ian, the Carlisle example you mention is strictly a function of points (WS98).

Otherwise, why would Screaming Eagle be a cult and not Carlisle? Both wineries have a long waiting list. The difference is, I’d say, that anyone who wants badly enough to try a Carlisle can find it somewhere at retail, buy it, and drink it. That’s not the case with ScrEagle, partially due to the initial cost of the wine, and partially due to secondary market appreciation, although there’s more to it than that, because if Mike O. decided to charge $350/bottle, you’d see the waiting list clear pretty quickly.

So, I’d say these are all factors into driving a cult - low production, high demand, high resale, such that the list members find themselves in a privileged position of getting to buy the wines cheaper than people not on the list, to the point where most wine drinkers (i.e. not collectors) will rarely if ever have an opportunity to try the wine.

To the original question, I believe that if the points aren’t there, the cult-seekers will naturally move on to the Next Big Thing, although this could take several years. Cults who manage maintain name recognition will work their way into general circulation, maybe by increasing production, and get consumed by casual wine drinkers in steak houses who will believe based on name (and price) that they are drinking something really rare and special e.g. Silver Oak.

16

Look at the case of Shafer Hillside- Highly sought after, big jagged points, but then points came back to earth and now there is zero secondary market and the stuff can readily be found at retail for less than mailing list. I haven’t looked at production numbers, etc, but would guess that most of these would suffer the same fate if the points slip for a couple of years in a row. A 93 point rating is to a “cult” wine as a 84 is to any other wine.

17

For the moment, yes. But I wouldn’t bank on that to continue. For that money, I’d rather invest in Bordeaux which has a stronger track record and more market stability.

Aftermarket prices for cult wines tend to be best immediately after release and then they usually start dropping down. I price wines every day and I can’t remember the last time I actually raised my estimates for Cali wines. It’s very rare and we are seeing a huge downturn in the Cali wine market. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. Most of my clients just don’t see the value in those wines anymore.

18

Do THE cult wines need scores any more?

Yes, because everyone (except the people who post on wine bulletin boards) chases scores.

These wines’ popularity is based on their positive publicity. If it goes away, they’ll just be another small-production, really good to great wine.

19

Scott, your comment about production numbers, and Larry’s reference to Silver Oak (and the fact that they were bought out post Justin Meyer and turned from family owned winery to bottle factory) are the big reasons here. Silver Oak Alex was in the 40,000 case range under Meyer, and is now around 75,000. Napa is worse, that was around 10,000, and is now hovering around 35,000 cases! And I’m pretty sure they didn’t buy any new land!

Shafer is around 2,300. What I find interesting is that Harlan (up until recently that is) was making over 2,000 cases (2007 and going forward it’s far less), and they didn’t seem to miss a beat. I know that Schrader and Screamer are under 1K.

20

the '09 Carlisle Sonoma County is selling for $100 - $125 these days!?! [swoon.gif] [rofl.gif]