Wine Pricing at Auction - MENTAL

The top 1% in the US also account for approximately 40% of the taxes collected. I guess that they aren’t paying their “fair” share.

You have a data source for that, Paul?

Which taxes are we talking about? And are you sure we want to go down this road? You might want to think about that before defending the upper percentiles with politically-charged canards, which is exactly what you posted - a politically-charged canard.

That said, if you’re the dude who bid 1k+ on the 2004 Leroy, sorry for being a bearer of bad news!

A bit old…but you get the idea.
EDBC0D58-506E-4D39-B491-B7C326504A67.jpg

Many points to consider here:

1.Price-inelasticity: Those who are bidding for Romanee-conti or Petrus: have discretionary spending that is unaffected by any stock market swing.

2.Fed bailout: Fed has bailed out airline ceos and hedge fund managers by printing 2 trillion. They can continue with their summer in hamptons sipping Montrachet even if by a no-name producer.

3.Group thinking: Rest of people buying feel they are getting a “good deal” hence piling into auctions.

4.Trickle down effect: Those who used to typically buy-art have now moved to wine. They still want to bid and experience the thrill of wining! Was with a friend who works at Christie’s where the data showed this effect.

I would stay on the sidelines and see how this plays out in 6 months; if we do have a protracted recession, wine prices are the last one to fall (not the first). However the geniuses at Fed might be flying helicopters throwing money away, leading to even higher prices!

So, admittedly, some big-name lots ended up going for pretty significant prices at Acker, but when bidding closed plenty of things were still trading at reasonable levels.



I’m not Phil, but here’s an analysis of federal tax data from the Tax Foundation to corroborate that (approximately):

The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell slightly to 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes fell slightly, to 37.3 percent.

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

04 Leroy pricing is beyond idiocy. Lalou declassified everything for a reason.

Exactly- the Bourgogne in 2004 has a lot more high end juice than usual. There is also the rarity factor. I do not think she made much wine in 2004, and so by virtue of sheer supply any 2004 Leroy becomes incredibly valuable regardless of the quality of what is in the bottle.

This kind of “brand” thinking has become very common in high end wine. Mouton was the pioneer in this realm- once an off-vintage gets about 30 years old the value skyrockets because so many people try to collect one of every art label going back to 1945 (and sporadically further back where applicable.) 20 years ago, a bottle of 1946 Mouton, if you could find one, was going for almost double the price of 1945 regardless of condition.

It is the same reason off-vintage first growths are so much more expensive now and also why there is shockingly little difference in the hammer price of DRC Assortiments across vintages unless you are going after the 1990 or 1999. Simply put- it is a further evolution of the concept of financial value that is driven by brand and prestige over and above what pleasure the contents of the bottle are likely to provide.

As for the OP, I am not familiar with those burgundies- but a lot of lesser known, or previously less-regarded, names have suddenly gotten super expensive in the past decade. It is a function of demand outstripping supply- and all it takes is one or two tastings where a couple of high rollers are really smitten with a given Domaine for the hype to begin. The supply of bottles for most individual bottlings is just too small for there to be rational behavior in a high demand market. And even 20 years ago there was a certain irrationality to the burgundy market in that inferior bottlings of famous vineyards often sold for a price pretty close to the top wines. The nature and impact of the insanity has evolved- but not its source.

Funny how wealthy individuals, who may be very well respected in their profession, all of the sudden become the chosen idiots, because a wine bulletin board has decided what the proper value of a bottle of wine is.

Well said. Not popular but reality.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/

While this is probably trending towards political and I realize I’m not exactly preaching to the choir here, it’s an excellent summation of the BUT 40% OF THE TAXES!! canard.

The problem also isn’t just tax rates year after year, it’s the amassing and hoarding of obscene amounts of generational wealth and the progressively worse income inequality that it creates.

ANYWAY, people can buy whatever they want at whatever price they want to buy it at at auction or anywhere else. Nobody’s forcing them to click the button and wine auctions were not made for the workin’ man.

Oh, I don’t think anyone is saying overvaluing a bottle of wine was the moment they became idiots.

Boisson has been $$$ for a couple years now. Definitely undeserved. But the pre 2013 stuff has been even pricier since the post 2013 stuff isn’t nearly as good.

not too different from Arnaud Ente. Pricing is bonkers for the quality.

You are forgetting the existence of Cellar Consultants. I was bidding on Riesling in this auction and got some incredible values on older bottles with the exception of the one blue chip name which was bid way up by “s***y”.

Cellar consultants tend to pay anything for a wine if they are building out that part of a collection. Boisson has a connection to Coche. I remember ordering one of the wines for $100 at Per Se 10 years ago as it was unknown then and only insiders knew of the Coche connection.

Before this heads to Politics. Here’s the GOAT explaining why the ‘Rich’ are not ‘hoarding’ money. Fast forward to the 36 minute 20 second mark

Pretty incredible how in 1979 the most popular daytime television show, the Phil Donahue show, devoted 2 full episodes to a Q+A session with the greatest economist of his time, Milton Friedman, and got huge ratings. People wanted to learn and think. Can anyone see that happening today?

And btw for those who have thoughts about wealth inequality, taxation, regulation but haven’t watched the 10 part ‘Free To Choose’ series from 1980, Milton Friedman debating people from both sides of the political spectrum, you may learn a whole lot from what things were like 40 years ago.

:Blushes with embarassment and raises hand:

Of course in my case I got into a bidding war that went all the way up to $80 a bottle before I dropped out as opposed to 1000s of dollars but I presume the same psychology applies to people with more money than me.

i always found the previous vintages to be borderline permanently reduced. 15 at boisson vadot are some of the best 15s i have tasted.

Seconded. I had the 15 Meursault villages last week and it was stunning.

I will say, you should always be a bit leery of a report that claims US taxes (even if income) are “very progressive” if it only takes into account income taxes and not capital gains (which is where the real disparity, both on rates and actual amounts arises).

To be clear, not aimed at you John - the numbers aren’t wrong.