The only info it offers is evidence that the particular wines have already been consumed and that those numbers are no longer viable on the open market. Blacking them out does the opposite of what you are suggesting when the wines are opened. Wine forgers already have every other salient data point to create a fake label. The bottle number (aside from UV symbols) is the only controllable variable and a record of all the bottles that HAVE been appropriately opened can reduce forgeries, not increase them.
1 Like
I highly doubt they are trolling the internet … one of your ‘friends’ here at WB turned you in would be my guess
1 Like
Related: at least one BerserkerDay winery was concerned that their distributors would be upset about BD pricing.
2 Likes
As noted in my original post, the wines sold are not from the restaurant list (as those remain on the list given the small allocation) nor are they from the personal allocation but rather from other private collections and/or auction purchases. Essentially, these are wines that have already been flipped so Marcassin is basically trying to eliminate any resale of their wines which is certainly their right though an exercise in futility if you ask me. But to each their own.
6 Likes
Oh that’s a real thing. And that’s too bad for distributors.
1 Like
I think that’s kind of the point. If forgers know which bottle numbers have been consumed, they can be sure to forge other bottle numbers.
Maybe I’m an idiot, but I’ve seen a few wines of mine on Winebid at favorable prices and tipped off people to go get em. I’m not selling at those prices but no reason someone else shouldn’t be buying.
5 Likes
Sorry, not getting that point. The blacking of numbers was always to prevent WD from knowing which accounts flipped bottles, not prevent forgeries. If a consumers cannot check whether a secondary market bottle was ever consumed, they are armed with less salient info. As WD is the one opening these, there is no risk of upsetting the apple cart. Makes no sense.
You’d be surprised, but the wineries do in fact, read the Wine boards
2 Likes
My guess would be it’s the quantity of wines (not just Marcassin) that are being offered.
I’m not making any assertion as to where they are coming from, but I could see how they might feel it’s not a normal situation.
That said, I wish they had better things to worry about.
How many distributors are sitting on Marcassin wines, losing sales to sorta domestic grey market sellers? Is that really happening? Or are are they pissed because they’re just not getting bigger allocations? More likely scenario.
2 Likes
Certainly used for that purpose, but your assumption that’s the only reason one might blackout serials might be misguided.
Just curious how long the wait list is? I’ve had them a few times and didn’t love them. Was never interested and never even thought about signing up. Is it a long wait?
I was responding to the logic you suggested. I literally stated that I could not figure out why they did it from the get.
It could also be to their benefit that less bottles on the market improves their brand appearance through 1) perceived scarcity and 2) driving secondary market pricing up. This is really one of the few (if not only?) domestic Pinots that truly sees a market value above release price. They must be doing something right.
1 Like
Was the distributor legitimately worried they would be unable to sell what they have on-hand?
I could certainly see that . . . and no, wasnt’ me 
I don’t think so. It sounded more like the distributor might be miffed that they were getting bypassed.
A winery “approving” restaurants in the world of three tier distribution is slimy. I understand the branding and positioning piece but to turn down a retailer or restaurant who wants to offer and share high quality wine to their customers is counter to the ethos of wine.
1 Like
This is a total ITB position. If they don’t want their wine at a certain restaurant that is their right.
2 Likes