Found it, it was in Feb’s edition of Decanter too
There are enough foolish oligarchs with so much money and time on their hands that life is all about splashing the cash about. Obviously most of us wine lovers do think “what would I get if I had far more money to spend?” I’d still rather buy something that would have a decent chance of being in prime condition.
Bloody hell, it’s Pinot, a £100 bottle probably tastes as good,some people are nuts
I’m in two minds about the Ronaldo story. It is, on the one hand, a little obscene, but that’s a wider societal discussion. On the other, 9k for a 1982 Petrus is no more to him, in relative terms, than a bottle of house red I might buy in my local pub. Probably less. So is he really an idiot for being in an enviable position where he can buy any wine he chooses in any venue without having to worry about the cost? I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that there should be some kind of minimum level of knowledge and experience for someone to be able to buy the best wines. It sucks somewhat to be an enthusiast who will never try such things (but really appreciate them if I did!), but that’s just life. And capitalism.
As for the Jefford article, he seems to have a bit of the grumpy old man about him when talking about social media
I actually didn’t think that was a massive mark up either !
Why not? It’s an investment, not for drinking.
A finite amount was made, its a birth year wine for many of those who could afford it. Keep it a few years, then auction it and buy some decent Bordeaux with the profits.
For me this is missing the point of what wine is all about. It’s precisely for drinking, sharing, enjoying… But perhaps that’s why I will never get ahead in Wall Street.
For me too.
But that price is not for a wine for drinking. It’s a trophy for trading.
|How many people here would enjoy a 1945 Burgundy, or find someone who’d enjoy sharing it?
This only begs the question - how can something ephemeral such as wine, an agricultural product, beautiful and beguiling - but ultimately designed for consuming, be traded at such a ridiculous, over-inflated, disproportionate price for what it is.
This is a rhetorical question, of course. I know the answer includes the words ‘market’ and ‘free’ and ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ , but for me this remains an utterly ludicrous state of affairs.
I would give the money to the Poor.
Not to mention a hot potato: what if it’s corked?? The fear would drive me to sell it onwards!
No, I’d never pay more than a half a million for a bottle with a manky label.
When i started drinking wine many years ago the idea was to annually buy two cases of good claret. When mature drink one case and sell the other. The by now price you got would pay for both cases so you were drinking good wine for no cost.
Like you, my philosophy was and is that wine is for drinking so I never played that game.
But your question
raises the fundamental question about price. The one above is exceptional but many wines have limited production and there are more people wanting them than there are supplies, so the price goes up to meet demand.
Many wines are priced well above the cost of production purely because of demand.
Classed growth claret for example…
Where do you draw the line?
When I started drinking wine we frequently had classed growth claret, the price wasn’t that much more than ordinary. Now there are many more drinkers, not only in UK but especially in USA and Asia, and the price has shot up.
It doesn’t costs that much more to produce but people are willing to pay more.
Well, you answered my rhetorical question, of course. But this sort of logic will never satisfy me. The idea that a bottle of wine is ‘worth’ half a million dollars just because someone can and will pay this much for it just seems like madness to me. I am naïve, perhaps - but I believe there are better things to do with half a million dollars.
Of course, I’m the first to concede that the world doesn’t work this way.
So what is the most you have paid retail for a bottle of wine?
Sounds like a good topic… except it will be trolled to bits if started
I see where you’re going with this, @peterm!
The most I ever paid was £47 - and yes, it’s all relative, and someone living in dire conditions will consider £47 for a bottle of fizz indulgent and frivolous… BUT - surely one has to draw the line somewhere. Common sense and all that…? Otherwise we just live in a boring Post-Modern sort of world…
Just read this article that fits in this topic…
I happen to own a bottle of this very wine… unlucky for me not one of the limited release magnums in the article, but a half bottle worth a fraction of the price.
But what if you had a product, let’s not call it wine for now, you bought it for £50 and someone is willing to give you £250 because it is sold out and no longer available! You wouldn’t sell it ? I most certainly would … beats saving interest rates .
You mean like Chave Hermitage Rouge 2015?