You are right. When I was waiting to get on the list (10 years ago) I often looked for their wines on the secondary market and the markups were 2X to 3X release price. Wines like The Inaugural went for $1000 and I remember seeing a 2010 Stockholm Syndrome box go for $4000 on winebid. Something seems to have changes with the 2011 releases. Since then the premiums for most of the releases have fallen sharply. Right now the 2013 estate box (rated the same 100/100 score as Stockholm) is going for $1980 on winebid. If that was my box I’d be losing money on the sale.
I used to think SQN was in the same league as cult Napa cabs, but no longer. Not sure why this has happened. Increased production? Shifting tastes?
I think the wines are as good as they have ever been and I wouldn’t flip in any case, but it is curious.
This is correct. The 2014 EBA’s(100 point wines) are going in the $1,600’s for a 6 pak and with the seller’s tax one is losing a few hundred per transaction. I said flipping SQN was no longer a thing to do a couple of years ago and nobody believed me. 2014 Sine Qua Non Multiple types | WineBid
Shows that Manfred has correctly and successfully priced his wines at the exact tipping point to maximize return to the winery without having to deal with storing excess product, shifting the wines to distributors, etc. He has built a good brand with his work and is not getting silly. Wonder is Bill Harlan is listening…
The 2014 EBAs are not 100 point wines, at least not in the Wine Advocate (Grenache 98+, Syrah 96+) or Vinous (both 98). The “regular” Grenache and Syrah both scored 100 in the Wine Advocate.
You know after all these years I still can’t quite reliably taste the difference between 98+ and 100. Must be my old palate. Damn those writers are something special to do that. Guess some people still believe the difference 2 points make. But then again, some people still believe in ghosts.
To say “it doesn’t matter anymore” is factually wrong (or call it bad advice), when these ratings still influence the market, i.e. the availability and price development of the wines (certainly less pronounced than at Parker’s peak, true).
Personally, I think in many cases the SQN wines are “better” and more interesting today than they were a decade ago. The fact that I can buy additional bottles on the secondary market for a lesser price is certainly a win in my book!
I think what he meant was, that one should not be influenced by reviews, since ones tastes and likes might be different than what others think. I am sure that some people cannot wait to try a white wine that tastes like wet stone slate ( from reading a review years ago)
I have been loving Sine Qua Non for years, however, only became active on the mailing list early last year - after a ten year wait. For years I would buy bottles on the secondary market, through others selling their share. I will never sell mine and adore them, and yet I am grateful for others who would sell some, if not all, of their allocations for those of us waiting to get on the coveted list. I philosophically don’t agree with profiting while others like myself are eagerly awaiting a chance to order wines to consume, and not profit from, still, I am grateful to have been able to buy these wines due to others that were trying to turn a profit. It is a catch 22.
In regards to wines that generate a nice financial return, there are not many left. Friends of mine who used to turn a profit from Colgin, Harlan, Schrader, et al… no longer do. Saxum, Andremily, Carlisle…all mailing lists that are coveted, do not have high markups on the secondary market. Sine Qua Non now has less of one ever since Parker stopped reviewing them - Stockholm Syndrome being the last 100 pointer reviewed by him, if memory serves correct. I’m hearing that the only labels where people are making money are Screaming Eagle and Macdonald - please correct me if I am wrong here. As a consumer, I do not feel bitter.
True, true. I guess with complete transparency on availability and pricing (thanks to wine-searcher.com) more and more wineries are pricing their wines to perfection to get most of the value for them, leaving little value to primary buyers. The risky consequence is that as customer you have an ever decreasing incentive to buy every vintage. Especially as there are so much more high quality wines (flight to quality, technological advances, more hot/ideal years due to climate change) these days. One can be very selective.
Out of intrigue how long was it before you started getting offers for the mags?
Wish list every release, still waiting.
But I’ve only been on the active SQN list specifically a few years. So fair enough.