01438 741177         thewinesociety.com

The Society's Community

$558,000+ for a bottle of 1945 la romanee-conti


Good question. I guess it depends on the product. The thing about wine is that it’s ultimately about drinking. But like anything in our Capitalist world, it can become a trophy, an icon, a thing beyond its original purpose. Lots of things can become that - a work of art, Axel Rose’s pants, Jesus’s finger - whatever; but wine is a single-use commodity, and elevating it to something which costs as much as something more durable, just seems mad.

I appreciate what you say, though. I got no easy answers. If I had a pair of shoes that you were willing to pay 3 times their price for - yes, I’ll probably sell them to you (unless I was very attached to the shoes- which I usually am!!).

I guess my question is - at what point do these exchanges become ridiculous and out of proportion. Maybe no one can answer that - because we’re destined to think in terms of supply and demand, profit and free market.


I like to think of DRC as Schrödinger’s wine. Until the cork is pulled it is both a drink and a trophy. Depends on how much you have to waste which one you go for.


I’m very much in @Inbar’s camp on this one. Someone commented above ‘what if it’s corked’ but that question is, I think, irrelevant as it is unlikely the cork will ever be removed from this bottle. Assuming it never gets broken it will probably continue changing hands for the next century and for ever more obscene amounts of money. It is no longer really a bottle of wine it is a high valued antique and I suspect the problem here is that we are all continuing to think of it as a bottle of wine.


Completely agree with this.

I’ve always regarded wine for drinking, and not for paying silly money as in this story, but each to their own i guess.



First off: It is VERY unlikely to be drinkable - so that is not it’s purpose any more.

So it’s a speculative investment - plain and simple. With almost zero intrinsic value except as an antique (as another poster points out). The new owner is now waiting for an even bigger fool to come along and buy it on

. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Good luck to them. The only down side is this kind of activity fuels Burgundy price inflation, making even the ordinary Premier Cru bottles beyond my wallet.


Reminds me of “The Bottle Imp” :laughing:


I agree with Leah: Buy rare whisky instead because it remains drinkable for MUCH longer (once bottled), and is possibly even more desirable - especially for the far eastern market.

Which brings me to my hobbyhorse: why is TWS allowing it’s Whisk(e)y offer to wither on the vine? surely if Berry Bros can do it successfully, and TWS USED to do the same… why not now?

nb: I’m not talking about simply flogging Glenfarclas / Deanston own label (anyone can do that) but ADDING VALUE; buying casks then bottling and selling them further down the line.


If I win it i shall open it and use the liquid to clean the loo . Maybe i would keep the empty bottle. There are lots odd things like this kept in bottles. I understand that parts of Napoleons anatomy are preserved in jars. Even Einsteins brains are kept in jars. Sometimes its a blessing to be ordinary.


I’m with you on this one! :+1::+1:

This reminds me of the poem Philip Larkin wrote to his friend’s Kingsley Amis’s daughter:

Born Yesterday
Philip Larkin

For Sally Amis

Tightly-folded bud,
I have wished you something
None of the others would:
Not the usual stuff
About being beautiful,
Or running off a spring
Of innocence and love —
They will all wish you that,
And should it prove possible,
Well, you’re a lucky girl.

But if it shouldn’t, then
May you be ordinary;
Have, like other women,
An average of talents:
Not ugly, not good-looking,
Nothing uncustomary
To pull you off your balance,
That, unworkable itself,
Stops all the rest from working.
In fact, may you be dull —
If that is what a skilled,
Vigilant, flexible,
Unemphasised, enthralled
Catching of happiness is called.

… it always gives me goosebumps… :heart:


Another angle to consider is that wine as an investment used to be exempt from capital gains tax. This is probably at least part of the reason that wines that are probably undrinkable are still increasing in value, because people still assume that this is true.



The argument is that they aren’t taxable as wine is a wasting asset - which is certainly ultimately true as far as its drinkability is concerned. Not sure that the tax treatment is necessarily linked to them increasing in value, more just the hoarding/scarcity value angle. Either way, it’s a shame for genuine wine drinkers.

I would be more worried if I was a rare whisky collector @Leah as ‘wasting asset’ is a lot less applicable there. However, as you need to make a chargeable gain of over £11k on disposal before CGT kicks in, it might be a nice problem to have…


Am I right to assume that number is per annum?


Yes you are correct. So if you sell one bottle a year from your collection you should be fine @szaki1974:wink:

…not much help for the Romanee Conti though…


that is a problem I would like to have… on the other hand I have a few bottles from a guy called Jean-Yves Bizot.

EDIT: In any case, there are plenty of wines in the ‘investment portfolio’ that are looking like making some loss. Overall I am not expecting to make a profit anywhere near the tax free limit in any year…