The Garagiste Thread (The Great Enabler) Back to Life

[loren.grossman]

@PeterH

Rick,

Some of the mystery wines are destined to remain a mystery even after purchase, and some come their regular label. I have purchased from each category and have never been under the illusion that I would get a Betz, DeLille, Leonetti, etc. in a Mystery bottle. I never complained if the wine delivered less than I imagined it would.

The issue here is that in buying these wines one has only the taste and reputation of Jon Rimmerman to go on, unless he brings in to play outside critical opinion. In this case Jon seems to have dishonestly attached the WA rating and Cellartracker notes of one wine, and delivered a different wine. It is not the identity of the wine that is the problem, it is the intentional deception.

P Hickner

+1

[PeterH]

Rick,

I’ve considered that I might be over reacting, but it is the principle much more than it is the value of what’s in the bottle. I’ve bought a lot of wine from Garagiste over the years. Sometimes it has been over-hyped, and sometimes it has been an amazing find. I’ve learned for the most part how to read through Jon’s prose and to get an idea about what the wine is probably going to be like. I’ve learned that if the wine is in a style that Jon does not profess to personally enjoy, I should stay away. (eg. anything from Barossa).

Unless Jon shows otherwise, it stands that he made false statements on MW #22. His “defense” posted on this board appears to be in defense of his right to intentionally mislead. I hope that both you and he can see that.

FWIW, is Garagiste not a local shop? That’s where I pick up the wine.

P Hickner

[loren.grossman]

@Rick Gregory

However, Loren’s not the only one who seems to want to know precisely what you bought and it simply strikes me as silly to want to know that when buying a ‘mystery’. Bottom line, you bought a $20 wine. Open one. Is it good for the price? Yes?? OK then. No? Hey, those are the breaks.

I think you have misunderstood. I only want to know what precisely I got within the context of being sold one thing (per description of the seller) and received another (per description of the acknowledged winemaker). The 2 do not jive, creating an air of deception…something that a guy like Jon who often asks his clients to take a flier on an unknown wine from cahors based on his description cannot allow, I would think.

I think your argument applies to other “kinko label” mystery wines where there is no public second party. This is not one of those. Btw - Sam the winemaker could have simply said - when asked directly - that the contents of wines under this label were a mystery and left it at that. He did not. He has, in essence, said the wine that Jon is describing is not the wine in the bottle. Hence the issue.

[Rick_Gregory]

Peter - fully understand the concern about potentially being lied to and how the reaction is about principle. I’m not defending that part. I just guess that I’ve always found the Garagiste emails to be over the top and rather full of hyperbole. Yes, there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed but even if it was here the actual damage seems minimal to me. Still wrong, but not really, for me at least, worthy of all of the sturm un drang we see here.

Oh and yes, they’re local to me. I was writing to the WB community in general though and for most of the folks here Garagiste isn’t. My point is just that most people here have local merchants who would probably like the business and that people should consider working with them so that they can benefit from the interaction and feedback (why you liked A but didn’t like B) and get actual personal recommendations vs hypey copy in emails.

[Rick_Gregory]

@loren.grossman

I think your argument applies to other “kinko label” mystery wines where there is no public second party. This is not one of those.

Ah!!! THAT I didn’t realize. Thanks for the clarification… that’ll teach me to come in late.

[brianmcbrearty]

@PeterH

It is not necessarily that screwy, Brian.

A couple of the Mystery wines were from Nicolas Cole, a winery that was being folded up.
Others, like the Karl Lawrence and Pirouette are good wines that are often discounted, but not to a price as low as the Mystery wine offering. In that case, it helps the winery protect its regular distributors.

Some of the Mystery juice was probably over-run from regular production. Even top notch wineries have had too many grapes recently. I’d prefer to see the wine in a second label bottle, but I have to admit that to a limited extent Jon is right about the Mystery concept about having fun trying to analyze and identify a wine from taste alone.
P Hickner

Yeah, I get all that, but it’s touchy. Like you, I think it’s a lot cleaner if they do a second label as a remedy. I’m taking a harder stance than Rick. If you sold a bunch at $75, and now you can’t. It’s not $75 dollar wine anymore than the house down the street is still a million dollar house. I wouldn’t want my brand trashed by a dip in the economy either. Of course I see why they do it.
So fine – let that go.
But the retailer wants as much attachment to the original as it can get away with! And there the combination of incentives gets dicey, I think.
WA scores, CT scores. The more detail you push, the more you’re insisting on something that some here describe as a deal only a gullible customer would believe, a 75 dollar wine for 19.99. Tell me that’s not how it’s sold.

(Trying to be fair, so I’m reminded, I can remember the words coming out of Cameron’s mouth, something like, “Is it the same as the $$$ wine? No. But it’s a great deal.”)

[Rick_Gregory]

@brianmcbrearty

@PeterH

It is not necessarily that screwy, Brian.

A couple of the Mystery wines were from Nicolas Cole, a winery that was being folded up.
Others, like the Karl Lawrence and Pirouette are good wines that are often discounted, but not to a price as low as the Mystery wine offering. In that case, it helps the winery protect its regular distributors.

Some of the Mystery juice was probably over-run from regular production. Even top notch wineries have had too many grapes recently. I’d prefer to see the wine in a second label bottle, but I have to admit that to a limited extent Jon is right about the Mystery concept about having fun trying to analyze and identify a wine from taste alone.
P Hickner

Yeah, I get all that, but it’s touchy. Like you, I think it’s a lot cleaner if they do a second label as a remedy. I’m taking a harder stance than Rick. If you sold a bunch at $75, and now you can’t. It’s not $75 dollar wine anymore than the house down the street is still a million dollar house. I wouldn’t want my brand trashed by a dip in the economy either. Of course I see why they do it.
So fine – let that go.
But the retailer wants as much attachment to the original as it can get away with! And there the combination of incentives gets dicey, I think.
WA scores, CT scores. The more detail you push, the more you’re insisting on something that some here describe as a deal only a gullible customer would believe, a 75 dollar wine for 19.99. Tell me that’s not how it’s sold.

(Trying to be fair, so I’m reminded, I can remember the words coming out of Cameron’s mouth, something like, “Is it the same as the $$$ wine? No. But it’s a great deal.”)

Eh. Again, way too much worrying about something that’s not that hard to figure out. The retailer will push the juice as the same as the $75 wine because it is. It’s the same wine that, a couple of years ago, sold for $75. If the wine got a good score and it’s the same wine (not a different vintage, but the same wine as what was scored) then that’s fair too.

Let me be kind of blunt… if you were selling wine that has been recently selling for $75 and getting low 90s scores and you didn’t mention that in the sales copy you’re not a good sales person. Of COURSE you’d say something like "the last few vintages of this wine retailed for $75 and up and scored between 92 and 94 points in TWA. This vintage is just as good in our estimation (or “this vintage received 92…”). The purpose of sales copy is to SELL. Lying about a wine would be wrong, but as long as those are verifiable facts you’d be an idiot not to use them as incentive to get people to buy.

[Chris_Blum]

@Rick Gregory

. Doesn’t that strike you as, well, silly?

Yeah, except if the wine is represented as being superior to what it actually is. I may be a fool for believing that I’m getting DRC overruns at a village priced mystery burgundy, but that does not mean I wasn’t lied to.

I’m not particularly bent out of shape over a $20 wine, but don’t ignore the fact that Jon’s whole business model is “trust me, you are gonna love this wine”.

[R_yan_C_omaz_zetto]

… so has anyone actually tried mystery wine 22?

[Josh_Beck]

@brianmcbrearty

This whole MW business is a little screwy.
Wine maker insists that they make $75 dollar wine, even though they can’t get $75 for it.
Wine seller insists that it’s $75 to $95 dollar wine, even though it’s yours for $29.99.
Under the best of circumstances this is a deception from the get go.

Only if you’re deceived by the above circumstances…

[Tom_Moore]

@R yan C omaz zetto

… so has anyone actually tried mystery wine 22?

Please somebody try the wine so we can crucify him or praise him already…

[Scott_Ho11owe11]

@Chris Blum

@Rick Gregory

. Doesn’t that strike you as, well, silly?

I’m not particularly bent out of shape over a $20 wine, but don’t ignore the fact that Jon’s whole business model is "trust me, you are gonna love this wine".

Well, except for the Huet and the JJ Prum… and the Cedric Bouchard… oh, and there was the Pegau…and the Pierre Peters…and maybe the Rieussec. The business model there is usually "Damn, I hit reply within :04 why didn’t I get any?! – ok, I kid, most of those I got, but I’ve still missed the boat on other occasional gems he offers.

As indicated, I tired of MW at #3 or so. So to me, I agree a lot with Rick over not getting upset over the juice, but I do agree with everyone else on principle of real or perceived deception. So it is tough knowing he offers wines like I listed above at decent prices and service, and there is this situation with MW that erodes the confidence in a retailer. I’ll continue to buy from Garagiste on occasion when a known wine I love comes in at a great price, and for the food items I love, but that is about all.

[Rick_Gregory]

@Chris Blum

@Rick Gregory

. Doesn’t that strike you as, well, silly?

Yeah, except if the wine is represented as being superior to what it actually is. I may be a fool for believing that I’m getting DRC overruns at a village priced mystery burgundy, but that does not mean I wasn’t lied to.

I’m not particularly bent out of shape over a $20 wine, but don’t ignore the fact that Jon’s whole business model is “trust me, you are gonna love this wine”.

I understand all that. But let me ask you this… why are you buying wine that you have no information on except as a lark? And if it’s a lark (the mystery wines), then… try one. If you love it, yay. If not, oh well. The claim that “you’ll love this wine” might be true even if the details aren’t.

Once again, I don’t get the Garagiste phenomenon though. I’d never buy some obscure wine I’ve never heard off online just because someone I don’t know tells me it’s great. But thousands of you do…

[Rick_Gregory]

@Mike Heyse

Rick, I think the fraud issue validly is on the table because a lot of us do a lot of business with Jon; it’s not just about this one transaction. I’ve spent thousands on his wares, all based on a tenuous trust that he’s a fair-dealer. This is not fair dealing.

OK… but look at what you’re saying. You’ve repeatedly done business with him. Presumably, you’ve repeatedly been satisfied. But if he has erred ONCE it calls everything into question EVEN THOUGH you have no other complaints? Sigh…

People always expect others to be perfect. If Jon’s delivered for you 50 times and screwed up once (and remember the wine itself might be fine), then he’s beyond the pale? For the umpteenth time I’m not excusing any lying that might have happened… but the word overreaction keeps coming to mind.Is there reason for concern? Yes. Caution? Sure. Perhaps you might not feel comfortable buying mystery wines. Completely understandable. Especially given the reply above. But I think some of the “I can’t eveyr trust Jon again, I’m DONE” replies above are, yes, an overreaction

[Mike_Heyse]

Taste is a matter of opinion. Lying is not.

[Rick_Gregory]

I’m not even sure what you’re talking about now, Mike. No one here is saying lying is OK. I AM saying that this feels like a lot of overreaction to what appears to be a single occurrence of something. Note that you’re all assuming Jon’s lying. As I read his claim it’s that the juice in the bottle isn’t what the label says. Presumably, he’d contend that the wine in the bottle does match the description. There’s no real way to prove or disprove that though I can’t imagine the TTB is OK with selling a mislabelled wine.

[Mike_Heyse]

Rick, dios irmao says it sold juice to Jon. Jon says mw22 isn’t that wine. mw22 is labeled as 2008 dios irmaos pinot. Something has to give. My prior transactions involved trusting Jon’s palate, not his business integrity. This flips that on its head. If you don’t get it, can’t help you.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@Mike Heyse

Rick, dios irmao says it sold juice to Jon. Jon says mw22 isn’t that wine. mw22 is labeled as 2008 dios irmaos pinot. Something has to give. My prior transactions involved trusting Jon’s palate, not his business integrity. This flips that on its head. If you don’t get it, can’t help you.

So, you’re completely ruling-out the possibility that Jon emptied the bottles of 2008 dios irmaos, and filled them with another wine? Similarly, are you completely ruling-out the possibility that dios irmao isn’t telling the (whole) truth?

[Mike_Heyse]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@Mike Heyse

Rick, dios irmao says it sold juice to Jon. Jon says mw22 isn’t that wine. mw22 is labeled as 2008 dios irmaos pinot. Something has to give. My prior transactions involved trusting Jon’s palate, not his business integrity. This flips that on its head. If you don’t get it, can’t help you.

So, you’re completely ruling-out the possibility that Jon emptied the bottles of 2008 dios irmaos, and filled them with another wine? Similarly, are you completely ruling-out the possibility that dios irmao isn’t telling the (whole) truth?

Not ruling anything out, but as I said before, something has to give. The first scenario seems illegal to me. The latter is more plausible or possible, but why would they do that? What is their motivation? All we have are the facts I liste above, plus Jon’s kiss-off posting here.

[brianmcbrearty]

Let’s hope we get the facts eventually. All this back and forth over righteous indignation vs overreaction is flimsy till then. And if we never get the facts, as I kinda expect, I’ll continue to believe as I do – that the mystery wine model itself has broken down as it was bound to.