I gather from what some of the screwy winemakers say these days that screw caps are available in a range of consistent permeability, so reduction is no longer an issue. Wouldn’t say I’m personally sold on screw caps for age worthy wines, yet. I’ll be trying all 12 '05 Lorings tomorrow, so that should add some more data points.
Heck ya with Pinot
Rama,
I’m not the best person for the great closure debate but all three varieties can (and do) reduce and the wines would express themselves differently if the closure has permeability that differs from cork.
Dan,
We chose aggregate purchase history because it takes into account both length of time as a customer as well as purchase volume. This means that if someone doesn’t buy all the wine they are offered it is theoretically possible that they will be passed by someone buying more wine but that is less likely since they will be protected by their longer purchase history. This model seems to strike a good balance and passes my sense of fairness but we are always open to customer feedback.
On this point, Kevin,
Slight confusion, and it may be mine: what about the other case, someone who has taken all allocations, but, not having as long a history on the list, by dint of that simply cannot measure up to the aggregate totals of others. I can see the fairness of the system you presently have, but maybe some kind of 2 variable system–wines purchased divided by percentage of wines offered?–might be still more just?
Or maybe, it’s all just a sign we don’t live in a perfect world.
Thanks for all the explanations, and, of course, the wines!
Josh
I believe aggregate purchase history is a running total of past 5 years only.
Also, if Person Awho’s been on the list 5 years longer, and have also purchased everything every offer (thus person B who’s 5 years behind can never catchup), shouldn’t person A always have the more advantaged offer anyways?
If person A doesn’t purchase everything every time, then person B who does buy everything will eventually catchup.
Personally i don’t think i can ever catch some of the folks buying palettes of chard since 2006. 
Hmm… Say one is only interested in the SCM wines, not Alesia or Anderson Valley… The guy who buys cases of those wines would surpass someone buying small allocations of the Home, Horseshoe, etc pretty quick, no?
Also, if Person Awho’s been on the list 5 years longer, and have also purchased everything every offer (thus person B who’s 5 years behind can never catchup), shouldn’t person A always have the more advantaged offer anyways?
If person A doesn’t purchase everything every time, then person B who does buy everything will eventually catchup.
Well, my point was there is a grey area. Sure, if they buy everything they are offered, it makes sense, but what if they buy only half or two-thirds, but are offered more, so in aggregate they still purchase a greater quantity. I see the relevance of the 5 year window, but I’m not sure it fully resolves the problem.
I guess I wouldn’t know how to make the Rhys system even more “fair” yet still simple and transparent. Adding another variable such as percentage purchased of given allocation would be punitive in high yield years.
Josh - patience my man. It really is a virtue. Kevin’s allocation system is as fair as it gets. Hang in their and buy as much as you can afford and in 4 years or so you will be get allocated what you want. Rhys does have some seriously dedicated fans, so this list will be tougher than most, but again, patience is the name of the game.
yah and if he buys CASES of wine each time… shouldn’t that person be offered pretty much everything once they accumulate enough purchases?
i mean i guess we can slice/dice this 100 ways but there aren’t many lists that allocate more fairly in my mind…
You beg the question by assuming that there is a problem to solve. You seem to imply that the fact that those who have supported the winery the longest have an unfair advantage in allocations. But if those with larger allocations don’t buy everything offered, it frees up wine for those with smaller allocations to buy more through wishlist requests, thus having a chance to “catchi up.”
I also find it hard to find unfairness in offering the largest allocations to those who support the winery the most. It’s not as if the allocations of Swan and Skyline are large even for those with the largest allocations. I’ve been on the list since the beginning, and supported the winery long before the critical acclaim. I remember Kevin talking about what he wanted to accomplish with the project on eBob, and I found it compelling and wanted to support that vision. I’ve bought my full allocation in almost every offering since the very first, representing more than 220 bottles of Rhys and Alesia wines.
I could whine that people who didn’t sign up for the list until well after the critics recognized how great the wines are, or who only buy a subset of the wines, get allocations of Swan and Skyline, while with my buying history my allocations are typically only 1 or 2 bottles of each. But that would make me a self-entitled jackass. I’m grateful for every bottle of each and every wine that Kevin allows me to buy. I respect the decision to limit the allocations of the smallest production wines so that more customers get the opportunity to buy them instead of limiting them to a very small number of customers in larger quantities, even though that would benefit me.
I wish the production was high enough that everyone could get as many of each wine as they like, but it isn’t. Given the limited supply and high demand, I can’t think of a winery that has as equitable an allocation system as does Rhys, or that is as responsive to customer input.
Outstanding post. Plus one on that - a self-serving plus one.
Kevin,
“aggregate purchase history”-- is that absolute total, or just the total for the past 5 years? Thanks.
Mike (and co),
In my original post, I specifically stated that
I can see the fairness of the system,
and added
it’s all just a sign we don’t live in a perfect world.
And the case I mentioned, was not yours, where a relatively large allocation is purchased every year. I by no means meant to give you, Kevin, or anyone else, any sh**; and I appreciate his and Rhys’s efforts to be fair very much.
At the same time, your response seems to me a touch fraught. What’s the harm if someone, in this case, me, gently throws an alternative out there? I, too, love the wine–and was aware of it earlier, but as it happened do not live in a state to which they ship, so it took time to sort that out–but I don’t see how their allocation system is one of the pressing ethical issues of our day, or that my kind of questioning somehow smacks of disloyalty, or what this kind of Rhys flagwaving–
I’m grateful for every bottle of each and every wine that Kevin allows me to buy
–really brings to the table. How about less heat and more light–since I still haven’t heard an actual argument against my wholly hypothetical suggestion (I never thought or expected Kevin would adopt it) which indeed takes into account longtime buyers, while also acknowledges the loyalty of more recent wines?
With all due whatever,
Josh
I don’t see Rhys as a ‘limited resource’. More land has been planted and added to through the years and I see this becoming more of a ‘brand’ of different sites throughout the Golden State. I think their case production is around 9-12 thousand cases annually (correct me if I am wrong) which implies enough to go (on a limited basis) for everybody.
I think their allocation system is one of the best in the business and can’t understand people continuing to *itch about it.
2012 and 2013 production were at new highs - around 7500 cases I was told when we visited. An increase of about 50% from prior vintages (not including 2011).
agreed in all respects. these are amazing wines, but the quantities are not minuscule by the standards of some sought-after producers. i guess my biggest concern with rhys, and it probably shouldn’t be one given what i know about kevin’s approach, is over-expansion and over-production. of course it’s also just sour grapes on my part that i have neither the funds nor the space to purchase my full allocations as allocations have gotten larger.
I just want to add to the discussion on the allocation system, that an important factor in establishing and maintaining my own position on the list is to have access to (hopefully) a few extra bottles of the more scarce wines, especially considering that Rhys is still a relatively young project. The vines are still maturing, the vineyards are still being understood, the winemaking is still being tailored to each vineyard, and so as good as the wines are today, the best is likely yet to come. I have only just recently been allocated Swan Terrace, after four years and over a dozen cases purchased. It would be interesting to know if tenure has any influence on allocations, particularly with the advent of the futures program, where newer folks on the list can boost their quantities rather quickly?
Just curious. If there is serious competition out there I may have to increase my loyalty budget! ![[worship.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/9/99a8907a1d5b3c023582052741dc72dc9823c044.gif "worship"){kind=small}
Gary,
We use the total purchases over the last 5 years.