Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t suggest that wines in France are more complex. I specifically wrote that the Cali wines are often of highest technical pedegree (with outstanding complexity and precision in a good structural frame - I have more than 800 bottles from California in my cellar). My point was that the fine wine market prefers lower alcohol, lower ripeness, lower weight wines which is why the prices of Burgundy are in other spheres (as the orginal poster asked why is this 96-97 point wine for 300 to 800 bucks is more of a collectible than the 97 point wine for 89 bucks).
as mentioned above, SQN begs to differ. Cayuse may not get the giant jumps in price, but it has always been a very happy addition to a dinner/tasting with collectors from my experience. I can see Pax becoming a collector’s producer for some vineyards as well.
That’s not to say that your general view on domestic syrah isn’t true, but it’s a small market already for such wines and the whole grape has gone through a few different identities to even get to the place it’s at right now over the past 15 years.
Tastes are subjective. Unless you’re speculatively buying wine to sell later at a profit, it shouldn’t much matter what the market or critics think of wines, so long as you enjoy them and find them worth the price you paid.
Brand usually has indeed a big impact but I doubt that this is the reason for the specifically mentioned example as even no-name Burgundies from more or less lauded parcels cost big bucks these days (and certainly more than the Saxum). Why? Because a huge group of consumers (Asians) found out that they like low weight, ripeness and alcohol Burgundies a lot in the past 10 years and drove all the prices up significantly. As said in the inital post, it’s just demand that drives prices and that demand is just higher for lower alcohol, ripeness wines these days. And of course there is not much Burgundy out there but the same is true for Saxum or the Paso region in general. So to me this seems that higher demand is the main reason.
Collectible, great, good, etc.; it’s all subjective.
And I do not buy $98/bottle wines or higher.
However, I tasted at Saxum a few years ago - all the current releases and then, all the same bottles with ten years of age. The aged wines were remarkable. I am not a fan of them young but the aged wines were impressive.
I guess that means that, for my palate, they are worth “collecting.”
Best, jim
This is a mountain out of a molehill. Look at Wine Spectator’s own definitions. “Highly recommended” means “The issue’s most impressive wines.” “Collectibles” means “Wines that will improve most from additional bottle age and that show the greatest potential to gain in value.” So, Wine Spectator’s own definition of collectible is predicated on appreciation in value. As others have mentioned, that is not the case that for Saxum in the current market. This is not a critique in any way of Saxum or the Paso wine scene, but a reflection of what wines can be collected in order to gain in financial value. Again, not my view, but Wine Spectator’s.
Have to give a nod to subjectivity and some other points above. I buy wine to drink/share but for me JBV is collectable if you get it at release price. The secondary market price will be above release almost immediately and would anticipate the price to go up some over the next several years. Don’t think it has at this point the collectability of top Burgundy or Bordeaux. Apples and oranges. Glad to be on the list though.
Sorry, you are correct. I misread your post. I do not think that it has anything to do with under-ripe, low alcohol, lower weight (I assume you mean in the Sparky Marquis sense) process in Europe. I think it is a function of scarcity - some of the wines are made in such minute quantities that it makes MacDonald look like a factory wine, coupled with tradition and the fact that some people like to eat fermented rotten fish heads because they are told that they taste good.