It’s unsurprising you don’t understand what I am trying to argue since you do not answer my points, merely respond to them. Let’s go back to Neal’s original objection. His point was that, prior to a certain date, there was good evidence that PC was a reliable business. Note the specification “prior to a certain point.” He stated this, I take it, to note that accusations against Vint had no real evidence and that the PC analogy fails until after a certain point. It is one thing to have accused them of being a Ponzi scheme in 2004 when, unless you had special information, you really had no evidence, another thing to have been right about them after 2010, when it became increasingly clear. You do not answer Neal, you only bring up the example of bad defenses from a later date. It’s not enough to have turned out to be right. You have to have been right for the right reasons. If you don’t see that distinction, and thus the justice of what Neal was saying, then we will just go around in circles.
Premier Cru was started in 1980, and until 1994, was a legit business according to court records. From 1995-2015, it was a Ponzi scheme, as admitted by owner and founder, John Fox.
There is a far greater period of Ponzi scheme than legit wine retailing.
Sorry this thread is getting derail Adam, I’m hoping this post puts a pin in that.
“At a certain date,” refers to when the evidence mounts up. Different people having different views at different times only shows that evidence was variable for much of that period. Ian’s post makes clear that the practices that brought PC down started in 1994. What he ignores is that, between 94 and say 06 or 07, the amount of wine that he sold without ever buying it or contracting to do so was much less than it was at later dates. I expect that there were numbers of people–maybe even the majority of its customers–who bought wine between 94 and say 06 or 07 that duly received their wine. This was not true of Bernie Madoff or Carlo Ponzi. Unless all we’re arguing about at what date what they were doing became clear for all to see, I’m not sure what all this is about.
I’m not sure what this is all about either. But I do know that it’s for sure way off topic for this thread.
I’m ignoring nothing. You are ASSUMING that those wines got delivered. I think you are wading into incredibly dangerous waters here as well. This was a $70 million Ponzi scheme, maybe not the size off Madoff, but one that to this day still has had a chilling effect on how people buy wine in America. You may have gotten out, but I know entirely too many people who didn’t, and most of it was not chump change either.
Any updates from those who purchased from Vint?
Anyone see their purchased wine yet?
As an aside, I looked at a few pages of their CdP offerings and many of those wines are well below market (almost all of the Clos des Papes are well below the $100/btl or more typically seen for pretty much any vintage at this point)
They pop up at the top of the stack on WS with some regularity
This may be covered upstream, but are all of their offerings 6-pack lots? Can’t ever buy 3s?
I think there are a couple people in this thread who are supposed to take delivery in the next couple weeks, so hopefully they’ll confirm receipt.
It is one of the filters… eg 1, 3, 6, 12, etc. though mostly I find 6-12 for the stuff I’m looking at seriously.
Alas, no. That would be very cool indeed. Hoping I will get priority for a tasting appointment someday though!
Appreciate the well wishes, Chris - we fully understand the need to earn trust and will work hard to do so.
a good bit of the ‘long tail’ stock is liv-ex, you are correct.
Do you think pickup is something that you might be able to offer in the future? For those that live in the area, it would be a huge value-add to be able to pick up instead of take delivery.
I do appreciate that you guys have worked on improving the shipping rates, though.
First, I did not assume that everyone got there wine in 1994 or 1995, but rather the opposite. But I will now, since you do in fact seem not to know how Ponzi schemes start and work for so long. At the beginning, the influx of cash far exceeds financial obligations and so those obligations are, in fact met, with plenty of leftover cash to fund the con man’s lifestyle. As long as the next influx of funds continues to be larger than debts, debts will be met–including buying wine at higher prices than one paid to fulfill orders. This system does become unsustainable, of course, but it can take some time. The PC thread on this board starts in 2012. Now, that thread is already aware of theories that they were a Ponzi scheme, but people who didn’t believe it still had a history of fulfilled orders (plus some considerable patience about orders that were unfulfilled, it must be said). The earliest thread I can find, goes back to 2004 on Cellar Tracker. The person who opens the thread has has wine delivered shortly after the thread is opened. And the tenor of the thread is that late delivery is just how the business works. So, I am guessing that the system started to see stresses around 04 and started being seriously tested in 08-10. In 1995, yes, I would guess everybody got there wine. If you gave Madoff money early on, you could withdraw your investments fairly easily. It was only after the system became unsustainable that people realized what was happening. Since responses to this reality seem regularly to elicit moral indignation, I should again make clear that my point is not that it wasn’t a Ponzi scheme, but that, early on, it is impossible to know what is going on without access to the Ponzi schemes books and so there was good reason not to think it was a Ponzi scheme, That position became harder and harder as time went on. But in early days it was buttressed by the fact that.wine was eventually delivered or compensated for. None of this doesn’t mean it wasn’t a Ponzi scheme or that many people, in the end, lost a lot of money. But Ponzi schemes punish the latest entrants the most and the earliest, often, not at all. I’m not sure why recognizing how Ponzi schemes can go on for a long time is somehow denying that they did go on, but I am doing the former, not the latter.
Direct quote from you-
I expect that there were numbers of people–maybe even the majority of its customers–who bought wine between 94 and say 06 or 07 that duly received their wine.
I’m frankly done with this conversation because you are now insulting me, saying I don’t know what a Ponzi scheme is. You’ve completely derailed this thread and done nothing but make crazy claims and insult people.
Jonathan’s point was that this can happen in the context of a Ponzi scheme.
Put another way: the fact that “there were numbers of people–maybe even the majority of its customers–who bought wine between 94 and say 06 or 07 that duly received their wine” does not mean the Ponzi scheme wasn’t already happening.
I don’t know if there is a way for the mods to segregate out this Premiere Cru discussion (which is a perfectly good one to have on the board) from the Vint Marketplace retailer conversation.
It just seems unfair to have the two linked this way and for Vint to be associated with PC, in the absence of any evidence that they should be.
[this is just for you to consider — it’s not meant as a criticism or demand]
Hence my reasoning for ending the conversation. I apologize to Adam for even engaging with it, but it’s out of control, and should not be associated with this thread. It has nothing to do with Vint.
Why waste time on another PC thread when we can rehash decanting, etc.
Yes, I said some people, perhaps most people, did receive their wine. That is explicitly not saying that everyone received their wine. Do you really think that no one received their wine and no wine got delivered?
The argument here isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about PC. As Brian pointed out, my point has to do with the faultiness of the analogy between this case and PC because of the fact that, in its early days, one can’t tell whether a Ponzi scheme is ever occurring since the only evidence, the books of the company, is not visible.