Bringing this discussion over from a lively debate on a CellarTracker tasting note thread and wanted to get this group’s take.
To get straight to the point – should producers charge less for their wines in a ‘lesser’ vintage?
Background
The discussion stemmed from a user saying very few wines were worth it in 2022 and during an ‘inferior vintage’ we, as consumers, shouldn’t be paying as much for “inferior wines”. Essentially that lesser wines only ripoff the buyer and there is no reason to support being ripped off.
My Opinion
Personally, I have slimmed down where and who I purchase from, but as a result will continue to support certain producers regardless of vintage, unless there are obvious flaws (e.g., smoke taint). It doesn’t cost producers less to make the wine in a ‘lesser’ vintage and while pricing has certainly gone up, we aren’t charged more for ‘superior’ vintages.
p.s. I’m sure this conversation exists somewhere, but search didn’t help.
Hey Tyler. I was part of that discussion on CT. Part of it depends on price point to me. The wine at issue in the CT note costs 295. I only want to pay 295 per bottle for superior wines from superior vintages. In an off/bad vintage, it makes no sense for me to pay 295 per bottle imo. Im willing to take a flyer on lesser vintages at lower price points, but not at 295.
Everyone has their breakpoint and pricing is absolutely a factor. I’m not passing judgment on anyone, but there’s a difference between passing due to price and saying we should be charged less. A lesser vintage has less ‘value’ to a degree, but charging less seems counterproductive in the long run.
Also, I personally don’t think 2022 is a bad vintage. Perhaps less stellar than 2021 and 2023, but by all accounts it’s not a ‘bad’ vintage.
Lastly, I think there’s also an implied notion that passing on ‘lesser’ vintages will likely mean you’re going to be dropped from certain lists. Perhaps not all, especially in the current climate, and that may not matter to some but there are a few producers I absolutely love and would be devastated to no longer be able to purchase. Buying bottles on the secondary market or through retailers works in some cases, but not for all and certainly not for when the better vintages come around.
The problem is that many folks (no small number on this site) consider a “less than stellar” vintage to be bad, and will totally skip it. That messes with the economics when a significant % of purchasers walk away because it isn’t a vintage of the century.
295 is my top breaking point for me. So paying 295 for “lesser vintages” doesnt make sense for me. I agree it would be hard for wineries to charge less for “lesser vintages”. I simply think it’s just better to pass on them. Ive only had 3 really good wines from the 22 vintage in napa.
At 295 per bottle it needs to be a superior wine in a superior vintage. At 100, im much more willing to take a flyer or buy in “lesser vintages”. Simply put, why would i pay 295 per bottle when im not getting what i percieve to be the “best”.
Mostly disagree–22 wines were essentially determined by when grapes were picked. Most of Napa picks in late Sept or early Oct. Cooked and stewed, the wines showed it.
I had a bunch of 22 cabs from a board favorite and honestly those wines should not have been bottled. So much alcohol, heat, glycerin, super super ripe. Completely stripped of character, energy, or semblance of what wine should be.
Don’t get me wrong, I think $295 is insane even in top vintages, but this is the economic model the wineries live it. If people don’t buy the good but not great wines the wineries will just disappear.
I think we are seeing that really great producers/wineries produced very good 22s (MacD, Jasud, Mowe). Those high end producers will differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Maybe that’s what is needed.
Wineries can charge whatever they want. And customers can choose to buy or not buy. Nobody is making these buying decisions with a gun to the head. Customers are not entitled to lower prices. Wineries are not entitled to customers’ patronage. The End.
I’ve tried quite a few 2022s now and all have been very good (e.g., Jasud, Mowe). If you’re buying from producers you trust in a tough vintage, you’re not going to have bad wine. It’s not going to be as good as 2021 or 2019, but from what I’ve had, it’s objectively not ‘bad’ wine.
A lot of hate was thrown onto the 2017s and some of those bottles drank early and were fantastic. Not as good as 2016 or 2018, but they weren’t bad. I guess that’s my point.
2022 really wasn’t a bad vintage leading up to the heat dome. It created a lot of variability between leaner/lower ABV producers (which turned out very good like Beta/Jasud, Mowe, Dico, etc) and more modern/higher ABV producers (which as Rohit stated, did not turn out well).
Regarding the original topic, I feel like this is just a variation of some of the same topics over the past year or two. The reality is that Napa (and even California/US to a somewhat lesser extent) has a much different economic/cost model than a place like Bordeaux which can be more flexible with pricing based on anticipated demand. Unfortunately, this means that major industry corrections are needed to get back to a sustainable equilibrium.
If a producer drops me off their list for passing in a vintage, for whatever reason I may pass, then it’s their loss not mine. As a consumer I am nit obligated to buy anything from anyone. As a producer I see no reason why they should adjust prices for perceived quality. Their costs did not go down, heck difficult vintages sometimes require more work. Costs could even be higher. There is absolutely no reason for them to lower their price.
In a market, pricing is usually based on what buyers will pay, not on the cost of your inputs. How much more does a $1500 Prada purse actually cost to make than some better quality $80 purse at Ross or Marshall’s? Mostly there is just more demand and willingness to pay for the Prada.
2021 Bordeaux presumably cost more to make than 2019 or 2016, but it isn’t as good and demand is lower, so prices are much lower. 2022 costs are probably about the same as 2021 but prices will be much higher since the quality is better.
But (1) vintage differences are much smaller in Napa than Europe, and (2) this is just kind of how it works here in California. And as long as everyone is more or less okay with that, then it’s fine with me. And anyway, I tend to like the “off” vintages in California like 2011, 2000 and 1998 more than the highest-rated ones.
One other thing – most European wines are not sold direct to consumers off mailing lists and wine clubs. Since they mostly sell through retail channels, there is much more flexibility to adjust pricing to market levels. Whereas if you’re a mostly mailing-list winery, you don’t really want to bounce your pricing up and down based on your guess about how much more and less demand there will be for that vintage.