I didn’t write it and I’m just the messenger. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/dining/17napa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Very interesting read, Bob - common sense would tell you that sales were off given our economy and the reliance of most California wineries on domestic sales. But to see the actual numbers is somewhat eye-opening. I mean, if Grgich has 20,000 cases of unsold wine still hanging around from '09, where do they put the new vintage? Although I guess one of the “benefits” of this economy is that there is probably plenty of off-site storage available if one needs it.
It’s always puzzled me how such a staggering number of mediocre wines, IMHO, could sell for more and more money, seemingly at $40 - $60+/bottle minimum. Is it true that most of the higher end bottlings are bought and consumed within Cali? Stereotypically, several years ago, I remember watching a buyer who seemed torn between lighting his cigar with the C-note needed to buy the bottle he’d just tasted. His tasting technique was fairly interesting, akin to pounding a shot of Tequila…minus the salt and lemon. If recent buying habits become a paradigm shift (as many predict), Napa’s problems could just be starting.