Most expensive wine in the world
Posted by: rodwsmith on 04 June 2011
Today I sold these two bottles, for consumption tonight.
A truly great vintage of the rarest wine in the world.
Well, it is his birthday.
Have a guess how much.
David,
What I think Sniper's not accepted is the amorality of the market place. He hopes the buyer of the two bottles of wine is also a big philanthropist.
I have no such hopes and am delighted someone bought them - though probably not as chuffed as Rod is - just as I would be if they or someone else bought an entire 500 system.
Chris
Chris,
Just because the marketplace is amoral - and I probably agree that it is - doesn't mean it's OK for people to behave amorally when they participate in it. It may be common, it may be widely accepted, but that doesn't mean it's OK.
My position - and this is my answer to Rod as well, I think - is that Sniper has raised a genuine dilemma with which we all have to struggle. Some moral questions are pretty easily resolved, but in this society, at this time, on this planet, I don't think the question of how much it's OK to spend on oneself and one's friends and family is one of them. Clearly you can't make a rule that one mustn't spend more on anything than the poorest person on earth could afford, but equally clearly most people are going to be uncomfortable about someone who spends the equivalent of the GDP of a small country on shoes while children starve (or are hunted by armed vigilantes) in the slums down the road.
Faced with such a dilemma I think our responsibility is first of all to take it seriously and work out our response as honestly and thoughtfully as we can. None of us can know whether the person who bought the wine has done this - as Sniper said, he may be a generous philanthropist - and none of us are entitled to judge his position until we know what it is. We are justified though, I think, in highlighting the moral questions such a purchase raises. When I say that I care more about the quality of Rod's moral thinking than I do about what he buys (or sells), I mean it. I don't think I'm being hypocritical at all.
I think there is always real value in stating a genuine moral dilemma as clearly as you can; which is why I support Sniper's post and why I find it interesting that it's met with such resistance.
A very kind rich bloke donates 25k to a Wine Merchant, who in appreciation gives him two free bottles of wine.
So what’s all the fuss about?
Debs
It is both more likely, and more the point, that governments take action about poverty than individuals. I'm no great fan of Sarkozy, and I am ignorant of my customer's philanthropy or otherwise, but I fancy that more good will come from this chap's purchase of these bottles than if the money had stayed in his bank. Which was the point I was trying to make, although apparently it's bullshit.
He's a Rusian billionaire, which suggests that paying tax may not be his favourite hobby, and we've just done so on his behalf. So there.
Anyway, I was just gloating about having sold something really expensive, which is my job.
I do find it most odd that the high horse that seems to get jumped on every time anything about wealth gets mentioned here is so at odds with this being the forum of a super-high end hi-fi manufacturer - surely no more a necessity in life than wine.
Currently I am drinking a bottle of Rioja Tempranillo Joven 2010, from the fridge (as young red wine often should be) and it is delicious. €2.75 cost price.
Rod,
"the money is, or will be, probably closer to getting donated to poor people in consequence as it trickles down the system"
"A proportion of the tax paid on the purchase may benefit the poor"
Do you think these sentences say the same thing?
FWIW I agree that:
"more good will come from this chap's purchase of these bottles than if the money had stayed in his bank"
That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been better if he gave the money to charity directly, but this is his choice and his responsibility, not yours. It should be clear by now that I'm not criticizing you for selling wine to him or to anyone else. I don't expect you to care whether I approve or not - why should you? - I'm just trying to be clear.
Don, Chris,
If you read Sniper's post again, I think you'll find he makes pretty much the same point.
Nope,
I re-read his post after his first comment, and I have re-read it again following your comment.
Sniper is quite clearly stating that his standards are acceptable whilst those of the person who bought Rod's wine are not.
My point is that Sniper's standards will be considered immoral by many, many people. Sniper is no more justified in setting "acceptable" standards than the wine-purchaser, nor should he state that others would be happier if they donated to the poor.
If this is not Sniper's view, then his choice of words apprears somewhat starnge, but a clear statement to that effect would be more helpful than telling me to read his post (yet) again.
Cheers
Don
Don,
You're like a dog with a bone once you get started aren't you?
I think there's enough self questioning in Sniper's post for anyone even slightly less uncharitable than you - when you're in this mood - to come to a more generous conclusion. Yes he does offer a spending limit he feels would be acceptable, and it's clear that the chap in question doesn't come close to sticking to it, but then he also concedes that he doesn't know the full story.
I seem to recall you've crossed swords with Sniper on more than one prior occasion. I suspect that does more to explain your hostility than the arguments you propose.
I think there is always real value in stating a genuine moral dilemma as clearly as you can; which is why I support Sniper's post and why I find it interesting that it's met with such resistance.
Sorry David, I just don't see the moral dilemma. Liberal capitalist economies produce inequalities, so not everyone can own Naim or drink Romanee-Conti. Somebody bought something at what was presumably agreed to be a fair price and Sniper seems to object.
I'm not claiming the system's fair or equitable, just that no one's yet thought of a better one.
Chris
Chris,
If the system is unfair and inequitable, that should give you quite a clear indication of where the moral dilemma lies.
No, fairer systems giving more uniform outcomes have led to greater unhappiness.
Chris
Chris,
I'm not talking about a different system. I'm saying that no system absolves individuals of the burden of moral choice.
David,
I haven't any more to say. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Best,
Chris
Golly, what a lot of heat this generated.
My only two observations are, that I am not especially worried what people spend their money on. [They may have different prioities to me and that is fair enough].
And secondly I wonder if the money spent was ill-gotten! The big mistake most of us make in life [if we really wanted to become rich] is to be too straight forward. This is not the way to fortune in financial terms. For that you must know how to harnass others to do the work for you, and then manage the finances. A different concept altogether to that which motivates most people.
ATB from George
Don,
You're like a dog with a bone once you get started aren't you?
I think there's enough self questioning in Sniper's post for anyone even slightly less uncharitable than you - when you're in this mood - to come to a more generous conclusion. Yes he does offer a spending limit he feels would be acceptable, and it's clear that the chap in question doesn't come close to sticking to it, but then he also concedes that he doesn't know the full story.
I seem to recall you've crossed swords with Sniper on more than one prior occasion. I suspect that does more to explain your hostility than the arguments you propose.
David,
Sniper can easily clarify his position himself if he so wishes.
Cheers
Don
PS no need for you to decend so quickly into your usual personal sniping,
Don,
Sniper is indeed a big boy and can look after himself.
Your PS is just silly but than you knew that. Just as you know there was a lot of truth in what I said.
Chris,
I hope very much I have misunderstood your position. Perhaps if we could actually talk face to face we'd understand each other better, but under the circumstances I agree there's no point in further discussion.
http://www.vanityfair.com/cult...ard-poisoning-201105
Oh dear, how sad that so many here can’t read basic English.
Don – the part you have missed and which I included
especially for people like you is the following:’ Obviously you could say the
same thing to me if I had that Aston martin and place in the South of France
and a top of line Naim system and you would be right - I'd have no defence at all’.
I will write it slowly to give you time to understand ‘....I'd have no defence
at all.’
As you and some people like you here are so utterly
predictable I thought I would include that sentence to save you the trouble of
pointing out the totally obvious but as usual, despite my efforts on your
behalf you persist in making yourself look less than halfway bright. No doubt
we will shortly be treated to one of your tedious ‘Brain Teaser’ posts so you
can feel better about yourself.
Fixedwheel - Nowhere
in my original post did I ‘castigate’ anyone. Please re-read it with a grown up
to help you with the big words.
My original post in no ways castigates anyone
for having money and spending it – far from it – I went out of my way to say I
would happily live in the South of France and have an Aston Martin etc. I
merely pointed out that the (predictably Russian) buyer of the wine was buying
it because it makes him happy and then I asked would he not be more happy
donating that money to save the lives of children and where do we draw the
line? It is an interesting question sadly lost on those who would rather have a
moment of selfish pleasure than the totally intoxicating thrill of helping others.
I wonder what kind of people could sit drinking that wine with pleasure if they
had to do it front of African orphans born with AIDS? And some cretin here
thinks I’m twisted? I feel no bitterness whatsoever towards people who are
fabulously wealthy and nor do I feel envy. I only hope (as I said) that they
give some portion of their wealth to charity. They would be happier and the
world would be a better place
http://www.vanityfair.com/cult...ard-poisoning-201105
That is an interesting read.... but seems to me that rather than suffer media coverage by convicting 'Jacques Soltys' though the courts they simply had him covertly bumped off while in custody, and made to look like a suicide.
Although, easy to believe he may have hung himself, being banged up in a French prison after a crime like that he may have gotten graped by enraged oenophiles.
Oh dear. It’s really sad when people resort to personal attacks.
However, let me try yet again to assist.
“Where do we draw the line ?” - you are about to make a subjective judgement.
“Obviously you could say the same thing to me if I had that Aston Martin and place in the South of France and a top of line Naim system”
Well, far more to the point, we CAN ALREADY say the same thing about you because you DO have an expensive hifi system.
You see, setting any level of acceptable/unacceptable wealth is subjective and arbitrary. I have just done it as well – and you are already in the “super-rich” category.
“I would draw the line at say £500 for something very special for a very special day (certainly not my birthday) otherwise I can't imagine spending more than £100 on a regular basis.”
There you go again, setting arbitrarily acceptable/unacceptable levels of morality.
To many, many people IMHO, your hifi set, your £500 gift and your £100 bottle of wine will be perceived as extravagant and they will consider that you would be much happier gifting these funds directly to the poor. AFAICT, you haven’t. Please feel free to set the record straight if you have ceased these excesses and have donated these funds so blind people in India can have their cataracts removed so they can see their grand children for the first time or to sending street kids in Brazil to school or put a roof over the head of orphans in the Philippines who live on rubbish dumps and who make a living by sorting through trash 16 hours a day.
The point I am attempting to help you perceive is that you have arbitrarily set a standard of what is and what isn’t morally acceptable. You do not have the right to exercise this power over others.
By all means discuss it. But please try to accept that YOUR perception of what is morally justified eg your £100 bottle of wine, will be just as repugnant to others as somebody else’s £10k bottle of wine is to you – and the tone of your first post makes it abundantly clear that you found it repugnant.
Cheers
Don
Hands up those who think Sniper and David Scott are one and the same.....
fixedwheel,
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but I use my real name on this forum and I try to say what I think as clearly and honestly as I can. I wouldn't pretend to be someone else or use two identities. That kind of game doesn't really appeal to me.
How anyone chooses to spend their money is a matter for them alone. What anyone else thinks is obviously irrelevant.
What's left is a "I am more moral than you" type argument.
now now children... a few facts:
25,000 Euro to a Billionaire is akin to £1.25 to someone on £50k per annum (even assuming only £1bn)
Some of you are assuming that this guy doesn't already donate to charity
One of you is wondering whether his money is ill gotten!
like a kindergarten in here these days...
Phil