That’s true. Hard to please everyone that’s for sure!
And I do agree. As a consumer I hold the ultimate decision power. So it does fall on the consumer in the end. We are just debating the theoretical for the fun of the hobby!
I recall really enjoying the 2011 Myriad GIII on release. Mike later told me the Petit Verdot saved the vintage. Obviously not a typical vintage.
I like to see when wineries acknowledge that a certain SVD or high tier wine wasn’t up to their standards, and blended it in with their appellation blend instead.
For example, there is no 2011 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard, and the Heitz Napa Valley is VERY good in 2011.
Not saying that Mike should have done that here - I’m sure a move like this has severe financial implications, and his Dr Crane is already priced VERY competitively compared to others - just an example of what others have done in this situation.
i think 2017s are going to suck (for the most part)
when i evaluate wine it’s impossible to not consider price, unless it’s gratis.
with regard to loyalty, i have no problem buying every vintage, but i think price should vary based on the quality of the year, and perhaps other factors.
i think i (like many here on this board) can point out several wines i’ve tasted which retail for over 150,250, 350, and taste no better than a wine retailing for 20% of the price. does that make it a ‘bad’ wine or not tasty? certainly not necessarily.
do i like a wine more if it is a qpr killer? sorta yea.
is a ‘great’ wine at $100 twice is good as a great wine at ‘$200’? obviously not. but would i rather have two of those $100 wines rather than the $200 one? probably.
Avoid 2017s then Steve.
I find it amazing how people feel they can call the shots on how someone runs their business so that it benefits their needs rather than those of the business owner. Part of buying Beckstoffer fruit and having the Beckstoffer name on the label is a minimum retail price. Beckstoffer has a brand to protect just like the vintners do. Mike already sells his Dr Crane lower than anyone else. If he dropped the price he would lose access to the fruit.
The price of the fruit does not drop in perceived “bad years” but you expect the vintner to give the wine away to appease your crabbiness? Don’t buy wine in years you think will not be good. Funny, Imdon’t hear people complain when the scores come out and the secondary market price jumps. Flipping for profit is OK but those damn greedy winemakers bilking you on bad vintages has to end. 
Great points, Brian.
As I said above, I don’t think a winemaker like Mike would put out a wine that he would consider ‘sub par’ and stand behind it.
I can understand consumers feeling like certain vintages may be ‘better to them’ than others, but at the end of the day, not every vintage will be the ‘vintage of the century’ and not every wine may blow your socks off - and that’s true of any wine from any region anywhere in the world.
Cheers.
That’s what Lewelling did in 2011. No Wight . But the regular wine still sucked . Wasn’t worth 1/2 the price I paid for it.
Eric - a lot of people do that. Togni has done it in the past and so have others. That sometimes results in really great wine too.
But Brian is right - maybe people could tie their pricing into scores? And since scores aren’t done blind, Beckstoffer could make sure his vineyards always get 93+. That’s why I’d never buy multiples of something until I’ve tasted it.
And Larry - I thought Napa doesn’t have vintages of the century because they are all vintages of the century except for those that aren’t once in a while. Like 2011. It’s the reverse in Bordeaux, where they only get a vintage of the century every four or five years.
But as I recall, 2011 was cool and wet and even had botrytis so the OP’s description is the opposite of what I’d expect.
It does correlate to my own impressions though.
I shared that wine with a couple wine makers from Europe a few days ago and their comments were that it didn’t have any Cab character but was a very soft, rather generic wine. We didn’t get any herbal elements at all. I didn’t think it was particularly oaky, just that it was pretty soft. It was a bit surprising. I haven’t had much of that but expected 2011 to be exactly the opposite of what it actually was. And these guys aren’t biased against US wines in any way - they’ve had plenty of CA wine before and have a better take on what’s going on in the world than I ever will.
i hope you dont think i felt that i can call the shots on how someone runs their business. i said how i would want it go, but i want to occur and what actually occures are generally never the same.
consumers and business owners are entitled to their opinions. both can decide what’s best for them.
the game is the game.
I don’t think anyone thinks they can call the shots. And I don’t think anyone expressed that so I’m not sure where Brian got that from.
Good pt on the Beckstoffer fruit. That’s a clear limitation. I guess the thread isn’t just address mike’s wines but more the industry in general.
Larry- I guess we will just disagree and that’s ok. But I don’t think 2011 in Napa is a “some people likes A and some people likes B. Just a matter of opinion” type of vintage. It’s a pretty clear cut bad year in general. One of the worst in the past many many years. I’m not saying prices should fluctuate based on points or if there’s stylistic terroir driven differences due to weather conditions. But when you have the widely accepted worst vintage with known quality decreases across the board, it might not hurt to Lower prices. Again not calling any shots. Just expressing an opinion on a wine forum. 
To Greg’s point. That’s exactly why i posted this in the OP. I expected it to be the opposite of what it was! I thought it would be lean and green. But nope.
I think part of the issue that goes hand and hand with the pricing dilemma is one’s status on these lists - especially on the very thinly allocated producers. I’m thinking of Cayuse (I’m sure there are several others) here, where if you skip a vintage - you’re dropped. I’ve certainly purchased wines in off-vintages from producers, sometimes at a premium to previous year’s prices in fear of not receiving an allocation in the future. What will people do if they receive an allocation from Scarecrow for the 2017 vintage? I’m thinking many will but despite the price and concerns around the vintage. It’d be nice to know that once you’re on, you’re on for a couple of vintages before getting dropped and not just for this reason but for others as well; eg say I decide to buy a house etc and want to limit spending this year.
At least with European wines I am able to shut off buying without any worry about being able to source future vintages.
General consensus that 2011 as whole is not showing well. So what is everyone doing with the 11’s they own - drinking up? holding and hoping?
Any input from some of the wine makers here? Merrill? Larry?
TIA
Jason,
As I mentioned, 2011 was not a horrific year every where. The rhone varieities that I produced down here in Santa Barbara County are some of the best I’ve ever produced - but our weather was different than Napa, and rhone varieties ripen differently than bordeaux so we are talking apples and oranges . . .
Cheers.
But if we limit the conversation to where it WAS pretty generically bad in 2011 - Napa… specifically Napa Cabs…
What would the winemakers suggest? what are people doing? drink these early?
I sold most of mine… got 3 btls total left - one more of this Dr Crane, and 2 EMH (although there’s usually pretty good acidity in Merrill’s wines)… i figure i’ll use them as early drinkers while the rest ages?
Who knows, could start seeing some nuance with age. I listened to a Galloni interview with someone from Ch. Montelena and they said they think the vintage will eventually go down as a more restrained, elegant year. Could be true or could be PR spin.
And that is why we play this game, isn’t it? Sometimes things turn out totally different than what we think they’re going to be. And only time will tell.
It is very challenging to say where things might go with these Wines in the future. My concern would be that if they don’t have a nice structure and good acidity, what will keep them Lively in the future?
There is no magic formula which will tell us how something will age these days so I guess we will just have to wait and see.
I don’t know who messed up the quotes in post #29. They have me saying Steven’s words and Steven saying mine. Either Brian or Steven…can you fix that, please?
My 2011 Special Selection showed extremely well shortly after release and onward, so let’s say early 2014. The regular 2011 was a little slower, but I sold a bunch of it, and a bunch of it after actually enjoying it with others. It showed very, very well. Then, starting perhaps a year ago, if I showed it with other vintages of mine, it came in last. But one of them has to come in last, so I did not get overly worked up about it. I don’t have any recent experience either of my 2011s. I’ll pull some later in the week and be open with my comments on what I think.
Mark - see my answer to Dr. Hemming above.
I have had some excellent 2011s, and some awful ones. Some of the best came from Cimarossa, which is mountain fruit (picked up a case for $40 each, which may go down as one of my best buys ever), but I also had some excellent ones from valley fruit, such as Greer. I haven’t had many bottles made by Mike Smith, but the Quivet Kenefick Ranch ones I have had have been nowhere near the other vintages.