I’ve seen many lots in auction catalogs with wines described as showing signs of seepage. To me these wines are not worth even a moment of consideration, I just move on. But I can’t help noticing that for top producers in good vintages, ie very expensive wines, the reduction in the price estimates usually ranges between small and none, maybe 5-10% lower. I have no info on where these wines actually hammer.
I understand that it may be the case that wines with SOS can turn out to be fine, but weighing the probabilities it just doesn’t make sense to me. Is there really a point of view that the likelihood is these wines are undamaged and worth purchasing at something near the price of a pristine bottle?
I’ve had plenty of old wines with signs of seepage – especially old signs of seepage. Would I rather they hadn’t seeped? Sure. Would the wine have been better? Maybe, but not necessarily. Most of the 30-40 year old seepers I’ve had were not currently seeping – perhaps a few drops decades ago actually sealed the cork better. For old rare wines that are not available in pristine bottles, I’m happy to give them a try.
I’d say it depends on your price sensitivity. If it’s at a price that you’re willing to accept given the risk, maybe go for it. But if you’re laying out what you feel is a sizable sum, I’d say go for a bottle in better shape.
I agree with all three of the posts above: (1) Probably many bottles with mild signs of seepage are still just fine, though the risk is higher than with pristing looking bottles, (2) it’s really a question of how much discount in price do you expect to adjust for the higher risk, and (3) it does seem as though the discount for SOS bottles is less than I would expect it to be.
There’s probably some selection bias. Prized bottles with seepage will (the auction house hopes) still command a premium. On the other hand, B-list bottles with seepage aren’t likely to move even at lower prices, or even be accepted by sellers.
Yes at a certain discount it would be worth taking the risk, although an $800 bottle “discounted” to $600 might only be of interest to those with a special attachment to the chateau or the particular wine.
Although I haven’t been on the list in a while, I do recall that The Chicago Wine Company used to have auctions with a special section at the end of highly discounted wines that had signs of damage.
I purchase wines with signs of seepage. I look at the fill level (after the alleged seepage) and if it still looks appropriate to the age of the bottle I purchase. Leroy wines frequently show seepage.
I think it also depends on the auction house. Some are incredibly diligent and will note almost any and every flaw (pen marks, slight scratches, etc.), while some will not be as thorough. When you get the wines home and realize your wines have lower fills, cracked capsules, etc. it will teach you who to use/trust, and more importantly, to answer the OP, understand why some people feel comfortable purchasing bottles listed with “signs of seepage” etc.
I think it´s necessary to consider that there can be several reasons for seepage:
the bottle got some heat (during shipping and storage) and the expanding wine was pressed out of the bottle passing the cork - the WORST case.
the bottle was overfilled, and even the slightest increasement of temperature can cause some drops to seep out (quite often with Leroy …) - usually no problem.
The bottle was shipped (or moved for a considerable time) right after bottling … the cork wasn´t yet really tight … and the movement of the (horizontal) bottle back and forth caused the seeping - totally without risk!
and 3) can also happen together …
It´s actually hard to tell what the real reason has been … in case 1) usually the corks protrude from the neck (but a seller would always push it back - but sometimes it can be seen on the deformed capsule).
In any case a lower fill than normal for the age is a sign of concern.
In the few cases where I’ve had signs of seepage, often undisclosed, the wines have been disappointing. Retailers who are not really in the practice of selling older, secondary market bottles seem to be the culprits (at least for me) in that lack of disclosure, rather than auction houses which have reputation to protect in that niche.
But I have had only limited activity in this market for a number of years. This were problems I experienced more when I was younger, and less aware.
I always avoid SOS bottles because it can be caused by heat damage. I’d be more inclined to risk it for bottles with know other causes (Leroy overfilling, sweet wine that have a greater tendency to seep) if there was a larger price differential.
I also don’t understand why many people are willing to pay so much for them given the risk but since they are I understand why auction houses don’t mark them down more.