But how old was your Mazis? I’ve drank good wines from bottles of terrible ullage but they were 50 years old. We knew what we were getting into and that gamble was part of the fun. Because we know bottles of that age can get to poor ullage from normal aging or even something like not perfect but passable storage.
A bottle of terrible ullage that has barely been in under cork(hopefully) for a year comes with a whole host of different questions. None of them involve evaporation from aging. That’s where the difference lies for me. How did that bottle get that way?
Really? I have to take you at your word, but I personally find this hard to believe. I cannot ever recall seeing a young bottle with ullage like that.
If it does happen as Will mentioned upthread, towards the end of the bottling line, I could see those last couple of cases and an under-filled bottle being used internally for tasting samples, but I find it hard to believe bottles with such low ullage would make it into distribution/retail channels. That would be a complete and total lapse in QC procedures (at multiple points in the chain).
I don’t own a coravin so I cannot attest to how large the holes are, and what it would take to spot a cork that had been breached by that system. That said, there are very likely bad apples out there who coravin bottles and send faulty (such as TCA contaminated) bottles to auction/consignment. Absent of something like seepage I think it is reasonable to assume such ullage of a young bottle would be caused via coravin.
Are suggesting that if I die from taking JYQUIKZOL ™, the 20’second legal disclaimer on the tv ads isn’t going to keep my estate from winning a judgment against the maker?
Thank you Ian for stating what I was thinking - and in a much more appropriate manner.
@Jesse_W I apologize for reacting as strongly as I did. I have removed one comment that was excessive and did not contribute to the discussion, but otherwise have left my posts unedited since I said what I said, and need to own it.
FWIW- this is a super sensitive topic for me right now because my own side venture, after 10 years in operation, is finally going to make some really good money this year. And that was partially derailed over the summer when in a Facebook group a competitor made some truly slanderous remarks that led down a very dark path- more for him than me, but still it was really bad. And it is something a lot of us small business owners discuss regularly- how, especially on social media, we get attacked or beaten down on a regular basis online- and often by people who are not even customers.
In any event, your post came nowhere near that kind of a scenario, and again I am sorry for letting that personal experience cloud my response. Not an excuse, but a reason.
Sorry for the thread drift- but after blowing up publicly, I felt this needed to be put out here as well.
To give some context- and this is anecdotal admittedly- when I worked in retail during college and graduate school, in any given week I might put about 100-150 cases of wine on shelves. And every week I would notice a handful of bottles with various issues- seepage not related to heat exposure, low fills, missing labels etc. And that is how I am defining uncommon- far less than 1%, but still something observed with regularity.
In this case we are talking about a 2022 wine with 5.5 cm ullage. No doubt that raises immediate questions and even if the bottle left the winery like that- I certainly would not cellar it long term.
But what about 1946 Chateau Mouton Rothschild? That is a ridiculously rare bottle and 30 years ago when 1940s bottles came more frequently to the auction market, it was not uncommon for the 1946 to sell for more than the 1945. According to Michael Broadbent, it was actually a pretty good wine- he gave it 4 stars if memory serves, but at that price point it was clearly more in demand by those seeking to complete a collection of Mouton art labels from 1945 to the present. And so in that context, would it not be okay to sell bottles with low shoulder or lower fills as long as you disclosed it?
Further to that point, I once saw in person a collection of Mouton bottles from 1945 to the present (which was the 1995 vintage at that point in time) and most of the older ones were very likely undrinkable- hideously bad fills, signs of seepage etc. And it would not surprise me to find a few other examples of that vertical in similar condition. To that end, a bottle that is likely undrinkable but still intact is actually a good thing because it will not only be cheaper, but the collector does not face the dilemma of whether to drink it for its intended purpose or let it fade away into oblivion as part of an art collection.
This is perhaps the most extreme example, but shows the outer boundaries of the dilemma.
And it does not necessarily have to be expensive wines. For those of you who remember the wine boom of the 1990s, the poor man’s version of a Mouton art label vertical was a collection of Marilyn Merlot labels. Not sure what they are worth now, but at one point those bottles were very heavily chased and provenance or condition were of little concern as long as the artwork itself was undamaged or not badly damaged.
Then you have the blue chip wines. Even 30 years ago when the wine appeared at auction regularly, there was demand for low fill bottles of 1945 Mouton. About 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a bottle with HS or better fill as I recall. Some of that label collectors surely, but also people who wanted to take a chance without spending the big bucks on a better-filled bottle.
It gets even more complicated in the art world when famous paintings come up for sale for which positive attribution is in dispute among various art authorities.
The great thing about auctions is that they are supposed to be a place where you can go to find just about anything that can come to market. And that means at some level there is risk because unless something can be definitively established as counterfeit or defective, at some point along the spectrum an auction house decides to put out all the information it has and let the buyer decide.
It does not mean that should always be the answer- quite the contrary. We saw 15 years ago quite broadly in the auction and resale markets what that kind of attitude can create. But still, sometimes it can be difficult to know where to draw the line provided one has done their basic homework on provenance and inspections of bottles.
Amazing that a $55 bottle of '22 Merry frickin Edwards Olivet would cause such a polarizing thread I paid about $70 for the same wine (and the chard) in the 20-teens after tasting it at the winery and it was some good juice.
I hear you, and perhaps my mistake in this was starting with the assumption that WineBid inspected, knew it to be coravin’ed (seems obvious), and listed it anyway—a practice I felt worthy of calling out. To your point I have no clue how their process works, and if this was indeed just an oversight (which was immediately corrected when discovered) that’s a far far more forgivable offense.
My best guess, and this is only a guess, is that they noted the fill level, posted it for sale, then someone reviewed the notes and said “wait a second, 2022 vintage and a 5.5CM fill?”
Lotting is a painful process, and given the fact that it is all done by human, things can still get missed even though they are looking out for all the little details they can.
If you read any terms of service of an auction house, if the notes don’t match the conditions, the auction house is responsible and would need to resolve with the buyer.
This was my assumption, too. Human error during processing the 1500 bottles they did that week or whatever their volume is. Whatever the number is it is a lot and this sort of thing would be an obvious place to trip up the process. They likely very rarely get such young bottles with extreme fill issues. Taking it down once it was called out was the right thing to do.
I’ve been looking at wine auctions for 25 years and often wonder when I see lots of white wine which are apparently oxidized, (such as multiple bottle lots, where some of the bottles look better than others) who buys those white wines which are really dark.
I get wanting to protect people but this is where I think sellers and buyers lose out. With their model, lots typically reduce in price until it hammers through. Sometimes it can take several months to a year.
Back in the day, I might’ve put in a bid when a bottle of this type hit $10-15. It would’ve been low risk, high reward if it were sound. Based on the bottle notes, if I saw there was seepage after taking delivery – which would be evident because the capsule was pulled – or if I saw needle marks, I would’ve put in a request for refund. But, even before then, I probably would’ve reached out to the auction house to get more info on the bottle. The seller would’ve gotten something for a wine he does not want and I would’ve had a chance to buy a wine at a steep discount.
Back in the good old days when the Chicago Wine Company was about the only readily accessible wine auction in the US (Christie’s and Sotheby’s were in place but not exactly easy to deal with), 2-3 times a year they would have a caveat emptor auction of off-vintages, ullaged and otherwise risky bottles. The auction was specifically labeled as caveat emptor and a great many of my off-vintage tasting experiences came from such sales.
The trouble now is there is very high demand, there remain still many ignorant customers who think more about saving a few pennies than about provenance, and there is a thriving market to counterfeit. And so every bottle now has value- regardless of its condition- and so there is no short term financial incentive for a highly selective selection process.
Remember too that the more auctions take a role in guaranteeing or direct authentication- the more liability they assume, which would mean higher costs and a less efficient market. Saying yes or no on accepting a consignment is a pretty simple line to draw- but from there it gets tricky and I personally am fine with the higher risk and greater access. After all, there is another option- buy at full retail from a broker or retailer that guarantees provenance. Trouble is, a lot of people want the auction price and the full retail customer service.
I am not sure everyone knows how to evaluate such bottles. With my experience in retail and appraisal, I have a good memory of whose glass looks like what and when it changed- if it did- etc. And so, like you, I can readily spot a likely premoxed bottle. But I think it is a tougher call for most collectors- even thinking about that is not something most people get to until they have collected old white burg for a while.
Norlin is the venture- we sold a couple of times on BD Fest. We do luxury accessories- right now that is high end wine totes made from exotic leathers and with full Chill-N-Go interiors/reusable ice packs, and also UV and daylight sensitive UK Fluorite specimens. Basically it is a slowly growing business populated by certain of my hobbies where I have excellent sourcing or original designs and a desire to have something to do in my retirement one day.
I paid about $70 for the same wine (and the chard) in the 20-teens after tasting it at the winery and it was some good juice.