Most expensive wine in the world

Oh, I'm sad to hear that Booths has gone downhill, but thanks for letting me know. I often get asked about things in the UK and I am a bit removed from it.

The Co-op, whose wine buyer is called - I kid you not - Paul Bastard (and never was a name so far from reflecting its owner's character), has made great strides in trying to purchase (only) ethical wines, and for the right reasons rather than only those irritating 'good with...' John-Hannah voiced adverts*

I'm really not sure how Fair Trade works elsewhere in the world, and you hear the occasional horror story about coffee production and so on, but I can testify that in some places - South Africa especially - it is making a real difference to deserving people's lives when it comes to wine.

Although Tony Laithwaite is a good bloke I find their apparent business model of selling cases of wine with 2 good ones (no margin) 4 okay ones (small margin) 4 substandard ones (good margin) and 2 known duffers (almost all margin) on the basis that people will remember the good ones, and ignore the disasters, rather than sending them back - to be rather cynical and exploitative. All a bit DFS to me in their advertising.

You are of course free just to order the good ones from then on, but they figure that there are enough people who live only on 'introductory offers', or who don't know the difference, to make the business work. And it certainly does. Every mail order wine company you care to think of - Avery's, Virgin, Sunday Times, British Airways, everything that ever falls out of a credit card statement, is them - it's all one organisation.

Guigal's wines, to echo Chris' suggestion, are always reliable and dependable. Small producers may offer better value for money sometimes, but there is a different value in reliability and lessened risk.

Rod

*wouldn't the Co-Op funeral care adverts be better if he has to say "Good, With death" at the end of them?

Chris

Looks like your "vanilla" Guigal's is already a hit !!

Cheers

Don

Don, I'm delighted to hear it!

A Cobra beer here.

Cheers, Chris

Who spends this kind of money ......  Mystery solved !

Danny Baker interview -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi...ker-cancer-interview

Then there was the time Evans spent £10,000 on a bottle of wine, just for the hell of it. "He said, 'Should we get it?' and I said, 'Nononono', but he said, 'We'll never know, we'll never know', so he ordered it." He pauses for some water. "Chris says I learned him how to spend money. The one thing nobody in my family can stand is mean people."

Interesting interview actually.

Our other customer for this wine (who spend nearly half a million with us last year. On wine. What a bastard!) has decided this year to build an even bigger new yacht.

His current yacht is this size:

And that one cost €90million. What a super-bastard. Just think what else he could do with all this money. Spend it on wine with me, that's what. What a mega-bastard.

Sorry Rod,

He should have spent it on an aeroplane and flying - far more enjoyable than either sailing or wine.  IMHO of course.!!

Cheers

Don

I suspect he's got one of those as well Don!

Swine...

I rather suspect you're right Tony..........

Cheers

Don

Jeeze that wine at a guess is something like £500 a slurp, that's a Hi-line for every slurp!

I read yesterday about a gambler who splashed out on a few mega-sized bottles of "expensive" champagne.

ISTR something like £250k for one of the larger bottles of the more costly variety.

Cheers

Don

Ooh ooh don't get me started on these loopy Champagnes...

The two bottles of Burgundy I sold are expensive because they come from a single 1.63ha (under 4 acre) vineyard that, over the course of around 1,500 years, has distinguished itself as producing the finest Pinot Noir grapes from which to make wine that are imaginable, by common (relatively) agreement. Because this back-garden sized vineyard only produces a tiny amount of fruit (it could produce more but the yield is limited to increase the quality), the number of bottles made is no more than 3,500 in a good year. Each grape is assessed individually before being allowed to make it into the fermentation vat.

More people want it than there is of it. Production cannot be increased. It is very expensive in consequence.

On the other hand, the truly dreadful [URL=http://www.angelchampagne.com/]Angel Champagne[/URL] is expensive because it is 'endorsed' by Mariah Carey and covered in diamante (or something).

I have no qualms about selling the former (and I mean actively selling as opposed to just supplying), but I take great pleasure in having talked people out of buying the latter. Even though we could have made more margin for ourselves by doing so.

Rod

Bear with me but I'm not sure I see the difference between the two products; one the hallowed product of generations of careful management, the other an ultra-modern take on style, bling and celebrity association. Genuinely!

Buying into each is buying not just into flavour; surely in both cases the purchaser is buying a brand, an elitist association and an exclusivity that is partly directly associated with the cost. Each (likely extremely different) purchaser presumably feels they get value from all those nebulous 'add-ons' that makes the purchase satisfying to them (and perhaps their peers too). Buying these different bottles is partly about buying into a lifestyle.

I think we are being a bit sniffy. Do you genuinely think every purchaser of your superwine is doing so purely for the actual flavour?

I had a debate with a friend recently about two works of art that we own. One is a first edition, signed by the author. The other is a limited edition lithograph, again signed by an artist of some reknown. We debated why they felt special. She contended that the book is pointless, it has the same content as any old copy from the chairty shop, yet I'm excited by it. Similarly I think the picture has a greater impact because it is signed and rare, even accepting that it could be copied almost perfectly and therefore appear the same. I get a kick from knowing each is rare, yet the pleasure I get from looking at/reading each one should in truth be completely identical even if 10 million other copies existed.

Would the purchasers of your superwine get the same pleasure if it was decanted into a cheaper bottle? Would they get the same pleasure if it was cheaper? Would they get the same pleasure if it was produced in vast numbers-yet tasted the same? I suspect the answers to these questions is no and therefore I'd argue that knocking the 'Angel Champagne' for it's marketing is unfair. The product is the whole package surely, not just the way the wet bit tastes.

Bruce

PS I am highly amused at the idea of 'each grape being asessed individually'. Nice one. Are they also crushed between the silken thighs of selected local damsels? Like I said way back, I don't do wine!

Bruce

I see exactly what you are saying, and you make some very good points, but I think there is a difference. The red wine has achieved its celebrity and price because of its quality. This reputation has taken centuries to prove. That the only people these days who can afford to buy it are - in all probability - the same kind of people who would buy the hyped Champagne does not really alter this. (Although as you point out, this is the real shame of it).

Yet the Champagne's price tag is pure artifice. In every blind tasting it (and there are several similar others) is outperformed by wines costing factors of several tens less (whilst the Romanée-Conti cannot 'taste' of its price tag, it costs what it does because people think it is the best, and it is always highly rated by those knowledgeable people who do get to taste it).

They will make as much of the Champagne as they can sell. The celebrity endorsements are handsomely rewarded. In just eighteen short months they are selling a magnum of fizzy wine for £188,000. It's not as good a wine as Salon (about £300 a magnum). In fact I know that Salon actually said 'no' to the fruit that went into Angel.

Easy to claim that DRC is not worth the money, but no one claims that this is because the wine is bettered (as an example of what it is), just that it cannot conceivably be 'worth' what it costs. There's no marketing apart from word of mouth. These days, the bottle now has all manner of hidden security features like holograms and laser-etching, but the label hasn't changed one bit since the war.

I'm sure there's a hi-fi parrallel in here somewhere...

And yes - if you want to make the very best wines, you need to eliminate the berries that have imperfections - insect picks, mildew spots etc, and only include the perfectly ripe, throwing away the over-ripe slightly shrivelled ones and the under-ripe green ones. Easily and profitably accomplished if you sell the end result for hundreds or even thousands a bottle. Might sound extreme, but this is surely believable? If you only ever drink cheap wine, with the best will in the world, you will be drinking the fermented extract of mud, leaves, insects and mould as well as the fruit.

Thigh-pressing is out, but I have foot-trodden quite a few vats of grapes in my time (warning: leads to purple legs for quite some time...), these days a gentle pneumatic (if automated) or a hand-operated basket (if traditional) press is de-rigeur for all but the most mass-produced of wines.

But I do see what you mean. 

Rod

Rod

Thanks for answering in good spirit(s). My post was a little tongue-in-cheek, but only partly.

How do you feel about those three tests though

Would the purchasers of your superwine get the same pleasure if it was decanted into a cheaper bottle (one with a less well-known label)? Would they get the same pleasure if it was cheaper? Would they get the same pleasure if it was produced in vast numbers-yet tasted the same? 

I'm sure you are absolutely right about the results of blind-tasting etc but my point is partly that wines like these are not bought 'blind' but bought by somebody absolutely aware of the provenance, scarcity and acssociated 'style' or celebrity associations and this is a vital part of the perceived value. Hence, to sum, maybe to all of us the package is part of the deal, wether it is the 'bling' or the 'heritage'.

Surely part of your job is selling exactly that whole associated package, the mystique and exclusivity of such high value wines. After all, they never get to taste it before they buy it!

Bruce

PS I believed you about the grapes, just way it is phrased conjours a vision of rows of elderly men with monocles dilligently examining each grape, perhaps nibbling the edges and discussing its merits in committee before adding it to the vat, or ejecting it to a sad sticky end. Partly I think this way because I've always thought all wine to be totally over-rated, having a totally 'tone deaf' palate for the fruits of the vine and therefore any whiff of wine-related pretention just makes me smirk.

Fair enough.

To answer:

Would the purchasers of your superwine get the same pleasure if it was decanted into a cheaper bottle (one with a less well-known label)?

No, but that is the fault of the purchaser, not the wine. I like to think that I would.

They wouldn't get as much pleasure from a Van Meegren as a Vermeer. For precisely the same reasons.

Would they get the same pleasure if it was cheaper?

Some would, some wouldn't. I would. Some people buy Ferraris to look at. In fact, quite a lot of our customers haggle on price (you don't get to be a billionaire without being mean in some way.)

Would they get the same pleasure if it was produced in vast numbers-yet tasted the same?

For simple production reasons (limited yields, manual harvesting, single grape assessment and so on) this isn't in fact possible. The largest production fine wine is Champagne Dom Pérignon, and it is very good (and a fraction of the price of 'Angel'). But they make a lot of it by scaling up the whole hand-made thing rather than by economising in bulk.

Talking of which, the sorting tables that the grapes go on to be assessed and chosen/rejected are of necessity staffed by skilled people, as the whole process has to be accomplished very quickly (the fruit starts to deteriorate the moment it is picked, unless you use eye-wateringly nasty amounts of chemicals). A preliminary assessment of whether or not to pick the bunch is, of course, made in the vineyard. It's just a more extreme variant of the process through which the bananas you buy in Tesco have to go. Probably a similar thing applies for transistors at Naim, and machined parts at Lamborghini. If you want the best you need to be selective and eliminate anything not up to the job. Not pretentious, but important. The costs are as much in what gets thrown away as the price of the labour.

Surely part of your job is selling exactly that whole associated package, the mystique and exclusivity of such high value wines.

A more important part, though, is helping my customers avoid the producers that want their money in exchange for rip-off tat. 

After all, they never get to taste it before they buy it!

Well, quite. And if I sell them something that costs a fortune but tastes like crud, they won't come back to me again.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'tone deaf' palate. Are you sure it might not be that you have only ever drunk ropey wines? :-)

Rod

I appreciate your answers, and your enthusiasm. I also really sense your deep feeling and respect for this product that so bemuses me. I'm vaguely bothered by the fact that the person who really should be drinking these beautiful wines is actually you rather than an ignorant billionaire. I'm sure you agree too!

As for me and wine, I just find that whatever I have tried never tastes more than 'so what'. I'm not interested in the alcohol effect, in fact alcohol in even modest amounts generally makes me feel a bit grim so the taste has to be the thing and I've just never been interested or intrigued by what I have tried. I have never found it augments a meal for example. My palate can appreciate (and differentiate) a few malts but in general I'm happy to have other things to spend my money and time on. I genuinely doubt I'd have a 'eureka' moment with any wine somebody could suggest. Incidentally that is not a challenge.

Anyway you'd probably hate the abstract painting on our wall that has fascinated me for so long.

Bruce

Bruce,

I'd be curious to know if the aforementioned Cotes du Rhone made by Guigal* elicits a 'so what' response from you.

Please bear in mind its sub £10 price.

Chris

* I've no interest in this company

I thought it was "pleasant".

I could justify spending £20 (even up to £50) on other wines for taste, but for accompanying a modest evening meal, or a Sunday bread and cheese lunch, I found the Guigal "pleasant".

I have only ever bought wine because of its taste. Either based on my recollection or somebody's recommendation. I think Rod also chooses his wine based on taste - its just his tastes are (probably ) more refined than mine!

Cheers

Don

Changing the subject to "art"

I have a small collection of signed, limited-edition prints by Rob "Shoe" Glenesk from his "from above" collection.

Art, in all its forms, is so subjective that you probably like something or you don't. Clearly, I happen to like his work. However, I am more than happy to hang high-quality prints of his work on my walls, and can quite happily live without the painstakingly crafted originals.

However, if he only ever produced originals, I would probably cough up for one, perhaps two, and accept bare walls elsewhere!!

Cheers

Don

Without referencing the thread I would guess that a similar phenomenon applies to our bikes - I have a relatively expensive carbon bike which definitely is better - but only marginally - than my scandium winter bike..........

I'm sure I will sip a glass, discover it on the table top a few days later unfinished and end up cooking with the rest of the bottle. Just like all the other bottles I've opened over the years.

Not liking wine is a sort of social sin, and people seem amazed that somebody could not like wine generally. Some probably suspect I'm a reformed alcoholic making excuses, or just a health zealot. Posh restaurants get noticeably sniffy when I fail to order wine too.

Actually I do very occasionally (ie Xmas) buy a half bottle of dessert wine. That is pleasant enough sometimes, but the bottle never gets finished and is chucked out by January!

Bruce

Bruce,

You've contributed an awful lot to this thread for a man that, I now realise, wouldn't even spend £5 on a bottle of wine!

Chris

Chris,

To be fair.....and at the risk of patronising Bruce, for which apologies in advance......

Bruce made one post on page 1 (where he clearly stated his view on wine) and then four posts on this page. Hardly a prolific post count and IMHO each of his posts were well considered and relevant to the subject of high-priced niche products where taste (in the broadest sense) and subjectivity are paramount.

Cheers

Don

^ No problems Don. I'd long since forgotten about Bruce's page 1 contribution when I read his later stuff on taste on subjectivity. 

It's just that as a former Oddbins man, I believe there's great wine drinking to be had in the the £7 to £12 bracket which is why I communicated my enthusiasm for, in this instance, Guigal CDR.

The rest I can leave to the oligarchs

Cheers, Chris

Cheers Don

You have picked up my theme correctly.

I promise not to contribute to a 'wine thread' but I thought the debate here had broadened into a discussion about the morality of spending and also the value of luxury items where the material cost is relatively trivial.

Bruce