Why are folks penalized for not buying a full allocation?

I never understood it. OK, one might not be given the chance to buy more sort after, low production wines that are reserved for good customers I get it, but why cut down regular allocations if the buyer is cash poor, taking a break, letting others have a chance to buy, etc.? That is just more wine for everyone else, no? New customers for the brand, no? It’s like going to a restaurant and NOT ordering the Surf & Turf ONE time and then not being offered it the next time you go in. Kinna crazy, no? Just give an allocation to someone who’s been waiting for years, let the buyer buy what they want, and give them the same allocation next time. If they buy all, increase it. If they stop buying altogether you can drop them, but why are partial buys so frowned upon?

Why? Why? Why?

Curious who you are sub-posting here? I don’t think I’ve ever ordered a full allocation from a mailing list, yet I still see my allocations increasing on the ones that I regularly order from.


I’m not sure it’s a “penalty”, but anyway, as to the general approach, two reasons:

  1. If you pass on some bottles and those are taken by a new customer, presumably the winery will want to be be able to offer that person continued access. That means absent expanded production those bottles have to be “deallocated” from you.

  2. Putting aside that problem, allocations reward loyalty even in down years. If you proceeded by your “no downside” system, wineries might have a harder time selling their production in “down” years.

Also, have you ever approached a winery with an explanation like “My income is way down this year because of a tough sales environment/health issue/family crisis - can you cut me a break?” and been rebuffed? Some posters here have reported success with that approach.

Just remember there is always other wine to buy.

It’s sort of “glass is half empty” to put it that way. It’s not really that you’re penalized, it’s that the allocations are adjusted to reflect who has been buying more and less. If you’re a case or two each spring and fall from a winery, they’re going to expand your allocations into the future. If you’re buying four bottles once year, your allocation is going to be smaller.

Which is more fair, doing it that way, or doing it based on who signed up earlier in time? I guess it’s subjective, but it’s not hard to see from the winery’s standpoint that they do it based on buying patterns.

Anyway, I doubt any of us or many of us suffer from there not being enough good wine out there to buy.

smells like an Aubert move

There was a thread below(Albert? Saxum? I think it was Saxum) that someone said “You better order the full allocation or look out!” Update: It was Saxum. Exact quote:
“But get your Credit card ready, you get the motherload but they expect a full purchase”
That I don’t understand. Why would they expect a full purchase? Would they cut you off/down if you didn’t? This is my point.

Your #1 makes a lot of sense. Unless of course the wine is simply allocated to a current customer via wish list. Therefore, no need to cut allocation of customer 1.


I have had to contact several of my favorite wineries and request that I not be dropped because I couldn’t get my allocation for a particular release. The gentlemen/ladies I do business with are good folks, and they have always been kind and understanding.

Perhaps some wineries want to give themselves an air of high demand and unavailability and if they cannot sell out, that aura goes away?

What is sub-posting?

Who told Neal about the secret forum?

I have done this a few times with Bedrock, RM, Myriad, Quivet and a few others due to money or space, I have never had my allocations reduced. I have put off my purchase of Drinkward by a few months twice and they are always happy to sell me some. Some times I email and tell them I am on hold for a release or two and sometimes I don’t, never an issue.
I used to buy Linne Calodo from time to time, I was not a member of the club and they would still sell me almost anything I wanted.

You remember the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld??

I have never taken a full allocation from any mailing list and have never been dropped. Allocations continue to increase.

There is an absurd amount of wine out there to buy. The idea of scarcity is all marketing.

I have never had a problem with any winery buying less than my allocation. Rhys, Rivers Marie, Myriad, Bedrock, etc. Always allocated 12-18 bottles and lately taking just 6 so I can diversify my holdings to non-list wines in Italy and France. Too much good wine out there to be buying full allocations of 18 or 24 bottles from any producer.

I am about to stop buying Rousseau- what I can I replace it with that is as good ?
seriously I would appreciate any feedback
preferably burgundy

From where I stand, folks are penalized for buying full allocations. You end up with hundreds of bottles from just a handful of producers!

I am about to stop buying Rousseau- what I can I replace it with that is as good ?
seriously I would appreciate any feedback
preferably burgundy

“As good” is the problem. You may think nothing is as good, others may think that there are hundreds of wines as good. So if you like that wine, you’re their ideal customer.

OTOH, you can not be on any lists, never worry about an allocation, and not have any problem drinking “good” wine. But again, we all have a different sense of “good”. I’m drinking a “good” wine right now that may not blow everyone’s hair back but it’s pretty nice IMHO. It’s a Crozes-Hermitage that runs around $15 US.

If you buy into the idea that you need to have a particular wine, or that you’re willing to allow someone else to determine when you buy and what you buy, that’s certainly your privilege. It seems to have worked for a lot of wineries.

So I guess the answer to “Why? Why? Why?” is because it works.