What would you do? I bought two older bottles of Dehlinger Pinot Noir - 97 Goldridge and 98 Octagon to fill out a vertical tasting I did last year and wanted to add these wines to the results. The 97 was fine and impressive for its age. The 98 was corked. I bought the wines recently from an online retailer who does not give replacement bottles or refunds, saying the onus is on the winery. Do you think resellers have a responsibility to replace or refund corked bottles of wine? Do you think the winery should be responsible, and if so, what should they do?
Depends on the retailer’s policy. If the retailer you bought from says they don’t take back corked wine then that’s their policy and that’s fine. Other retailers I know will take back corked wine no matter the age. Guess I do almost all my business with?
Had a similar situation one some GC burg and unlike this situation where you have the opportunity to contact the winery for a refund, I had no recourse. I think anytime the store buys a collection they should be held responsibility for the corked wine.
If there is to be any change in addressing the issue of corked wines, I think resellers/retailers do need to take responsibility - at least for wines within a year or two from issue.
Let me put this in context:
Over the past year or so, I had corked wines from Sineann, Kosta Browne, Rhys and Williams Selyem. With the exception of Sineann, these were all purchased direct. (The Sineann was its 04 Resonance (Reynolds) and used tree bark as the closure.) Each one replaced the wine when asked.
Guess what? I remain a big supporter. They acted fairly; I have become more of a loyal supporter and will likely remain so.
Now for an experience with a retailer - I bought a Girard Cabernet from a retailer that I would frequent fairly often. (They were my retailer for annual stocking of Ken Wrights and Patty Green Pinots). The Girard I bought was badly corked. I brought it back. The response: “No. Sorry. No return. No credit. Not our fault. It happens. Too bad.” Result: I have not been back since. Now, if they had acted differently - took up the issue with the distributor - and then back to the winery - perhaps things might change. Instead, the buck stopped there. Rather, my bucks stopped going to that retailer.
T.
The responsible party sealed the bottle, they must make it right. If an import, then the importer.
This doesn’t mean a retailer can’t pass it back up the chain, but if you bought it from Fred, it’s not Fred’s problem as that’s grey market.
I recently had a corked bottle of '04 Clos des Papes and contacted the store (Vinfolio) for a replacement. No dice, as their policy states they won’t replace bottles past 90 days of ownership since they have no idea how the wine was stored. This seemed ridiculous to me since no matter how I treated the bottle, I can’t make it corked. Unfortunately I can’t contact the winery for a replacement, so I was out the money.
Short answer…I think all corked bottles should be replaced at any time by the retailer as long as I can show proof I bought it from them, and the winery/importer should reimburse them. It’s a spoiled product.
One comment here on the use of the word ‘reseller’ - it implies at an abdication of responsibility. Reseller = Seller.
Where the chain of responsibility ends if there are ‘issues’ is a different discussion; ultimately the one who sealed to bottle could just as as easily say the responsibility lies with the one who sold/produced the cork and I’d have sympathy with that but wouldn’t expect amorim to pay me for my bottle of La Tâche…
Presumably there are legal aspects to each sale although that can vary by jurisdiction. The legal requirements would determine whether the ‘seller’ has any rights to refuse to compensate the person to whom they had sold the defective wine.
I would always go to whoever I had bought it from which is almost always a retailer who is either supplied directly by the winemaker or buys from a wholesaler. If the bottle was ‘corked’ [had TCA present in the wine] I would expect the retailer to accept that he had sold a product that was ‘not fit for purpose’ and to provide me with another bottle of the same wine or, if that was no longer available, something that was mutually agreed to be equivalent or provide a credit with which I could buy something else.
I would expect the retailer to have covered such returns in their business model/margins and for them to have taken whatever steps are necessary to cover themselves with their supplier - that would clearly be their responsibility not mine.
While time plays no significant role in whether wine has TCA in it [from the cork or possibly from winery sources] the retailer could reasonably require proof that the purchase had been from them particularly if some years had elapsed between purchase and attempted consumption. If requested I would have the cork, the bottle with [most of] the wine still present and would expect to make the complaint and ask for redress as soon as the fault became obvious.
However IMO the principle that the ‘the business that sells you the bottle’ is responsible for dealing with you and resolving the issue seems reasonable and would generally be defined by legal requirements that would not be easily avoided or repudiated by a seller’s Terms & Conditions.
This is all on the assumption that the wine is sold without specific caveats that identify an increased likelihood of specific faults and is priced accordingly.
I recently had a corked bottle of '04 Clos des Papes and contacted the store (Vinfolio) for a replacement. No dice, as their policy states they won’t replace bottles past 90 days of ownership since they have no idea how the wine was stored. This seemed ridiculous to me since no matter how I treated the bottle, I can’t make it corked. Unfortunately I can’t contact the winery for a replacement, so I was out the money.
A few points (and full disclosure: I am a former employee of Vinfolio):
Refunding a flawed bottle of consignment wine is different than doing the same thing for new release wine. Vinfolio’s on-site policy reads: “Other than for Vinfolio errors, we generally cannot accept a return if title has been transferred to you for longer than 90 days because the passage of time generally limits our ability to recover credit from our supplier and we have no way of verifying your storage conditions.” The part of that policy germane to this situation is not the storage conditions part, but the ability to recover credit from the supplier. If this was a bottle you bought on consignment (i.e., the “supplier” is another collector, who sold via Vinfolio), Vinfolio has a very short time frame to recover the cost of the corked bottle. For example, if you bought the bottle last September, and the consignment was completed in November, with the final payment to the seller going out on December 1, it’s not easy to go back to the seller now (in March) and say - hey send us a check for the amount of the corked bottle we sold on your behalf back in September last year. In fact, I can’t recall any instances of the pre-ABC Vinfolio ever going back to a seller and asking for refunds for flawed bottles. You may say that was a business choice on Vinfolio’s part, and it was/ is, but somebody’s got pay for that bottle - and when you’re talking collector grade wine, the cost of replacing bottles can add up pretty quickly. Annoy the seller and you don’t get to sell their wine again. Annoy the buyer and you don’t get their business again. It’s a tough choice.
The other thing to understand is that many customers do not understand what corked (i.e., TCA) is, or how to identify it. I’ve personally seen many examples where people confused “corked” with “cooked” (exposed to heat, resulting in oxidization) or other flaws. While its reasonable to assume that posters to this board know the difference, the practical reality is that you’ve got to develop a policy for everyone (including the business) and hope that common sense will prevail in its execution. In my experience, Vinfolio has been (in the past) quite liberal in refunding both accurately described “corked” wine and other flaws. Perhaps that is changing, or perhaps you ran into somebody who was less skilled in the common sense area.
Keeping customers happy is the lifeblood of any retail enterprise, and Vinfolio - in its new form - is very much aware of the work they have to do to rebuild relationships, both with those who purchase wine, and those who sell through their site. At the same time, their new investors have very little interest in repeating the financial challenges from a year ago. Striking a balance is a delicate art, and this is one area where they are trying to manage things carefully. Not saying they got it right in your case, just trying to provide a little background.
Well flawed is flawed to me - corked, cooked, etc. Frankly I’d say a cooked bottle is more the responsibility of a retailer than corked (if consumed in the first few months of purchase, that is) although I’m sure I will get yelled at for making that statement…
I bought a 1990 Ridge MB from a ‘well regarded’ wine shop here in Atlanta for my engagement dinner a couple years ago. Granted a bit off topic as it was cooked, not corked, as confirmed by myself, my soon-to-be-wife, the server, the manager, and the wine steward. The restaurant had spirited the bottle away before I knew it, and I couldn’t get it back to take to the store, or at least the flawed wine in it. Went back to the store, and while I wasn’t expecting a full refund since I didn’t have the bottle, I did expect to negotiate something of a middle ground with the manager of the store. I figured the most fair thing would be something like discounts on future purchases that woudl total up to the price I paid, or something like that. Nope - he was an a@s of the first degree, basically told me to go away, was patronizing about how I probably didn’t know what a flawed wine was, etc, etc. If I had bought a $10 bottle I would have understood, but a $200 bottle of MB is another thing. More than anything I was insulted about how snide and patronizing he was…
Thus it set me on my ‘don’t-mess-with-me-cause-I-will-make-it-hell-for-you’ mode. I contacted the distributor, Empire, who not surprisingly clearly didn’t give a darn either. I then notified Ridge - only to let them know their wines were being represented badly in the market and for them to look into their distributor/retailer network in the area. In no way did I ask for anything nor expect anything from Ridge. Before I knew it, Ridge had shipped out a pristine MB right to my doorstep. Talk about customer service, and a customer for life. Suffice it to say I upped my Ridge club orders right then and there.
As for the retail store, they have never seen another dime of my business nor will they ever in the future. I also plastered the online feedback sites like Yelp about it and happily tell everyone I know about the situation (would probably create a small poo storm here if I divulged who it was - feel free to message me if you are from ATL and truly curious). Suffice it to say the retailer lost more margin on this one deal than they would have given up if they had just worked with me.
And before all the lawyers chime in, screw legalities, I’m talking about customer service and doing right by your customers.
To me, a seller ought to always be the one to take it back – whether the seller is the winery, or a retailer/discounter. Despite the obvious origins of the TCA, your contract is with the seller (as a cost of doing business) – unless of course their terms specifically state ‘no replacements or refunds,’ which seems like a disingenuous policy to me.
If you currently have a buying relationship with Dehlinger, I would contact them to see if they will compensate you with another bottle of something.
Admission: I’ve never returned a corked bottle of wine, except at a restaurant. Not because of my philosophy on who should or should not be responsible, I’ve just never done it.
Question: For those of you who do regularly return corked bottles, how do you do it from a practical standpoint? Do you keep receipts for all your purchases to try to show where you bought each bottle? Do you bring the corked wine into the store to demonstrate the flaw? What do you do with purchases that aren’t local, do you just expect them to take your word for it?
Full disclosure, I work in the customer service industry…
When I read your response I get the rather clear sense that “The customer is always right” is a mantra that you have perhaps taken a bit too seriously. I may be entirely off-base with that assessment, and am fully allowing that possibility, but you wouldn’t believe the numbers of people who come in to small, local businesses demanding the moon because they have long heard the above statement uttered.
It seems to me that if a customer comes in to a small wine shop with no bottle, saying that the bottle they drank was “cooked,” the owner would feel rightly questionable. I can’t speak for the snide attitude (which I also would have taken offense to), but given the slim nature of margins for small businesses, and the abounding dishonesty/ridiculous claims made by a small % of clients, I’d have a hard time expecting to be compensated for something that I have absolutely no proof of. For all he knows the bottle was/is a) delicious, or b) still sitting in your cellar. While both of those positions may seem insulting to the honest customer, you have to be able to appreciate that there are many people out there who attempt to game the system left and right. If you peppered the internet with poor feedback because the guy was a jerk about it, I suppose I can see that, but I’d find it morally questionable of you to launch a feedback crusade simply for the owner not responding exactly how you thought he should.
Obviously there’s a lot of other relevant information in this argument that should also be addressed, such as how he should have probably just taken the loss, accepted your word, and called it “the cost of doing business” so as to not lose your business. I’m just not necessarily convinced that you as customer should feel outraged that he didn’t follow this model. Should he have? Maybe. Should he have been expected to or face your customer wrath? No, I don’t think so. Sort of a, if he had- “bonus,” customer for life, if not, “well bummer, but I guess I can understand.”
Just my $.02
Chris,
I can only speak for myself, but I try to take back my corked wines all the time, but truth is that I probably only bring back half of those that are under $35 (estimate), just out of laziness. But, I try to buy most of my wines from stores I have relationships with, or direct from wineries. The best wineries who respect their customers, will make good on just a phone call…within reason I imagine. Stores like Wine Library, or Chambers Street, to name a couple, will work with you and be incredibly cool in how they handle corked or cooked wines. Other stores, that I no longer do business with due to how they handle these things, get ZERO business anymore. Local, bring it it. Shipped to you, make a call. Then decide from there who you want to do more business with.
From a legal standpoint…
In most places, good are sold with an implied warranty of fitness/merchantability. A truly corked wine is not fit for the intended purpose (i.e., drinking), and thus a corked wine violates the implied warranty. Depending on where you are, implied warranties CAN be negated by a clearly-posted policy. Obviously, your mileage may vary.
I don’t return a lot of corked wine, but I do from time to time. Some retailers operate on a relatively thin margin, and they may be more likely to disclaim liability after X days from purchase. Wineries tend to be more open to accepting the return of a corked bottle, and so most of my returns have been with wineries, not retailers.
Bruce
You know what really sucks? The winery has no recourse for a wine that a staff labored over for a few years and then delicately put into the bottle for said retailer/importer/consumer that is ‘corked’. THAT sucks . . .
It would be wonderful if resellers did take bottles back and replace them from a customer service standpoint . . but then THEY may be stuck with a product that they paid good money for and it’s not their fault this happened . . . so then they should be able to go back to their distributor/winery and have THEM make things right . . . and this just does not happen (at least not often enough). So if a retailer paid $100 cost for a really nice bottle of wine and they have to refund this back to you but have no recourse, from a business standpoint, is this ‘fair’ to all?
Bottom line - the TCA in the bottle was, for the most part, caused by the cork - NOT by the winemaker, NOT by storage issues, etc. And yet there is no recourse . . .
Before you lynch me and say that I am just a screwcap ‘junkie’, please remember that I work with plenty of cork products as well . . . and there is nothing more aggravating then spending a few years babying a wine, making it what we want from a winemaking team, only to have it ruined by a 2" piece of bark . . .
Carry on . . .
I have only “returned” a corked wine on a few occassions. Usually, if the wine is a more than a few months old, I pour it down the drain and, think that it is just part of the nature of the beast (i.e. contaminated tree bark).
I have “returned” wine to a few winemakers who were gracious and kind and that has made a big difference. Their understanding and willingness to (a) both trust my judgement, honesty and integrity by not questioning whether the product was truly “corked” and (b) their return of a replacement, increased my support for their products through subsequent purchases.
The retailer who told me, in essence, “too bad; cork happens” lost my business. Candidly, it had nothing to do with the $40 bottle of wine but rather how they viewed me as a customer. If she had a way to go back up the line to the distributor and then to the importer or producer, perhaps things would change.
I think that an appropriate guideline is (a) current vintage or last vintage, and (b) return within 6 months, seems reasonable. Sure this won’t address the $175 Giacosa you laid down for seven years but understand retailers/distributors/producers need to know when these unknown contingent liabilities have expired.
For purchases from a local store, I take the bottle back to the store – and, because K&L gets most of my retail business, there’s the convenient situation of them keeping track of all my purchases in their computer system.
For wines purchased winery direct and any other non-local purchases: I expect them to take my word for it (or send me a pre-paid shipping label if they want the defective product returned to them); if they don’t take my word for it, that’s fine – I’ll just stop doing business with them, as I’d rather not run the risk of having to “eat” future corked bottles.
If the winery feels it’s getting ripped in such a situation they should seek recourse from the supplier of the defective cork. If that is not possible (and I assume that is NOT possible), then the winery has a choice to make: (1) go with corks and don’t refund customers (and lose customers); (2) corks and refund customers and don’t roll cost of the occassional corked bottle into the price of all bottles; (3) corks and refund customers and DO roll the cost of the occassional corked bottle into the price of all bottles; or (4) screwcaps.
Bottom line here: the customer SHOULD NOT get screwed!! When the wine is sold, said sale is based on the assumption that the wine is not defective. This is only my opinion, but it IS an opinion that I follow-through on by not spending money at retailers/wineries who will not refund or replace a defective product.