This is just my observation and it may be influenced by living in a small city like Hobart but from observing the lack of turnover on local bottleshop shelves and reading commentary from wine writers and forum contributors I have come to the following conclusion.
80-90% of wines priced between $45 and $80 are not worth the price. 80-90% of them should be priced in the $25 - $45 bracket. Even when they are eventually shoved in the bin end box at 30% off there is little interest n them.
There are wines like Mamre Brook and Chalambar available at $16 - $20 that are 1/3 of the price and 95% of the quality. Now that the export boom on Aus premiums has busted some chickens may be coming home to roost.
However even Mamre Brook and Chalambar got dragged along. They used to be $13 - $16 wines that in the space of 12-18 months had their RRP increased to $24 - $26. They are now back at realistic prices on sites like the Auswine shop.
I could list dozens of wines priced $45 - $80 that just don't seem to sell and don't seem to justify the pricetag.
Over priced wines
damned straight Ratty.
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
Funny you should reply seeing as you haven't hitched your train to the spiralling pricetag wagon. I wanted to buy stuff from you almost whether I liked it or not. (It's a bonus that I like it)
The examples that pi$$ me off are the ones who used to make a good honest range of wines that were worth a few years in the cellar in a good vintage that you could buy by the case and drink over a few years.
But when the boom for flagship reds came along they introduce a new premium wine or even premium range. Strangely they had all been in business for several years so where these new sources of premium grapes came from I don't know, but fair enough, if they want ot put a special effort into a few hundred or thousand cases and it's a significant step up from the initial range then good luck to them. Especially if it doesn't detract from the quality of the base range.
I get really cheesed off when this isn't good enough, they get greedy and introduce a mid range that they expect people to pay $40+ for. At this stage I start to think that they are expecting an extra $25 per bottle for what is essentially the $15 wine with maybe $2 worth of winemaking tricks thrown in and a snazzy label and they've sucked all the good fruit out of the base range leaving the crap but still expecting the punter to pay $15 a bottle for that wine based on it's reputation from 5-10 years ago.
Companies (and it usually is companies rather than individuals or families although not always) who have done this have lost my loyalty forever unless they redeem themselves by offering good QPR wines over a period of several years, then I might go back to them.
The Johnny -come - latelys annoy me too. How can some piddly little producer in some marginal climate really expect their flagship with maybe a 4-5 year track record to compete with wines that have a proven track record over many years, especially when the quality of their flagship fluctuates dramatically from vintage to vintage. Honestly their marketing people must be able to sell any idea to them.
So many people think so short term, it infuriates me. (not just in the wine business)
Rant over. Sorry.
The examples that pi$$ me off are the ones who used to make a good honest range of wines that were worth a few years in the cellar in a good vintage that you could buy by the case and drink over a few years.
But when the boom for flagship reds came along they introduce a new premium wine or even premium range. Strangely they had all been in business for several years so where these new sources of premium grapes came from I don't know, but fair enough, if they want ot put a special effort into a few hundred or thousand cases and it's a significant step up from the initial range then good luck to them. Especially if it doesn't detract from the quality of the base range.
I get really cheesed off when this isn't good enough, they get greedy and introduce a mid range that they expect people to pay $40+ for. At this stage I start to think that they are expecting an extra $25 per bottle for what is essentially the $15 wine with maybe $2 worth of winemaking tricks thrown in and a snazzy label and they've sucked all the good fruit out of the base range leaving the crap but still expecting the punter to pay $15 a bottle for that wine based on it's reputation from 5-10 years ago.
Companies (and it usually is companies rather than individuals or families although not always) who have done this have lost my loyalty forever unless they redeem themselves by offering good QPR wines over a period of several years, then I might go back to them.
The Johnny -come - latelys annoy me too. How can some piddly little producer in some marginal climate really expect their flagship with maybe a 4-5 year track record to compete with wines that have a proven track record over many years, especially when the quality of their flagship fluctuates dramatically from vintage to vintage. Honestly their marketing people must be able to sell any idea to them.
So many people think so short term, it infuriates me. (not just in the wine business)
Rant over. Sorry.
Over here at least, there's a regular process (particularly with the corporate giants) to play the discount game and wines are often intentionally overpriced, so they can later be reduced by 1/3 or similar. The "sale" stickers are such a common feature in retailing now, but have lost a huge amount of impact as the punters are getting wise to the overprice/reduce tricks of the trade.
I suspect for large volume wines, that it's easy enough to get it on "special" and that's in effect the true price of the wine. Maybe Tassie draws the short straw on prices - even more reason to use Gavin!
The major point you raise certainly has a lot of evidence to support it, and I fear the more brutal evidence of wineries going out of business will follow over the next couple of years. Part of the issue is WET/GST, but I sense some business models need to be adjusted to meet the wine glut we keep hearing about. Maybe the "super-premiums" are (some of) the wineries response, to try and lift themselves out of the price competition and into the aspirational...?
Interesting times
I suspect for large volume wines, that it's easy enough to get it on "special" and that's in effect the true price of the wine. Maybe Tassie draws the short straw on prices - even more reason to use Gavin!
The major point you raise certainly has a lot of evidence to support it, and I fear the more brutal evidence of wineries going out of business will follow over the next couple of years. Part of the issue is WET/GST, but I sense some business models need to be adjusted to meet the wine glut we keep hearing about. Maybe the "super-premiums" are (some of) the wineries response, to try and lift themselves out of the price competition and into the aspirational...?
Interesting times
-
Shiraz Man
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:23 pm
Ratchatcher,
Everything you say is spot on. I have just under 500 botles in my collection, and most of them are under $20.00. I have pulled out a few bottles lately from my collection, and they have all been under $20.00, and have given me great enjoyment.
Those johnny come lateleys also p*** me off, charging $30.00 for their first vintage with no track record.
Thankfully some wineries have some common decency. One in particular that comes to mind is Water Wheel. The RRP if there shiraz is under $20.00, and often puts to shame wines at $30.00 and $40.00. I read an article with the owner/winemaker of Water Wheel, Peter Cumming, who refuses to launch a reserve wine as he feels that he would then be ripping off the customers of his existing shiraz or cabernet by diverting some of the better grapes from these wines into a reserve. Having gone to the Bendigo regional tasting at Fed Square (Melbourne) recently, the Water Wheel Shiraz 2004 put to shame many other Bendigo wines $25.00 and over. This wine was not far off being the best wine of the tasting. An absolute blinder. Water Wheel has not changed the RRP of its shiraz or cabernet for more than 6 years.
Another bargain that comes to mind is the Hardys Oomoo Shiraz. You are getting $25.00 quality for low teens.
Everything you say is spot on. I have just under 500 botles in my collection, and most of them are under $20.00. I have pulled out a few bottles lately from my collection, and they have all been under $20.00, and have given me great enjoyment.
Those johnny come lateleys also p*** me off, charging $30.00 for their first vintage with no track record.
Thankfully some wineries have some common decency. One in particular that comes to mind is Water Wheel. The RRP if there shiraz is under $20.00, and often puts to shame wines at $30.00 and $40.00. I read an article with the owner/winemaker of Water Wheel, Peter Cumming, who refuses to launch a reserve wine as he feels that he would then be ripping off the customers of his existing shiraz or cabernet by diverting some of the better grapes from these wines into a reserve. Having gone to the Bendigo regional tasting at Fed Square (Melbourne) recently, the Water Wheel Shiraz 2004 put to shame many other Bendigo wines $25.00 and over. This wine was not far off being the best wine of the tasting. An absolute blinder. Water Wheel has not changed the RRP of its shiraz or cabernet for more than 6 years.
Another bargain that comes to mind is the Hardys Oomoo Shiraz. You are getting $25.00 quality for low teens.
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
Ian,
The same thing happens here, at least in the common retail outlets. You're a sucker if you pay the full retail price at most chain stores. They seem to count on the fact that most people just buy 1-2 bottles the day they want to drink it and don't keep track of prices. They aren't interested in people who want to buy wine to cellar, thank God for people like Gavin.
Water Wheel is a good example. Thankfully there are plenty of others.
I guess it's up to the wineries and the companies to make their own corporate decision and their business lives or dies on those decisions. I don't have to buy their wines if they don't represent good value. I just hate that some of my favourite wines have either almost doubled in price or the quality has declined and the price stayed the same.
I just think marketers and managers in companies only look at achieving the figures to obtain thier bonuses in the upcoming year and have no regard for the long term survival or reputation of the wine. If things hit the fan they take a package and move on to the next position in another company and are never accountable for what happens.
I thought I said rant over before.
The same thing happens here, at least in the common retail outlets. You're a sucker if you pay the full retail price at most chain stores. They seem to count on the fact that most people just buy 1-2 bottles the day they want to drink it and don't keep track of prices. They aren't interested in people who want to buy wine to cellar, thank God for people like Gavin.
Water Wheel is a good example. Thankfully there are plenty of others.
I guess it's up to the wineries and the companies to make their own corporate decision and their business lives or dies on those decisions. I don't have to buy their wines if they don't represent good value. I just hate that some of my favourite wines have either almost doubled in price or the quality has declined and the price stayed the same.
I just think marketers and managers in companies only look at achieving the figures to obtain thier bonuses in the upcoming year and have no regard for the long term survival or reputation of the wine. If things hit the fan they take a package and move on to the next position in another company and are never accountable for what happens.
I thought I said rant over before.
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
One example of what I'm talking about.
Sheep's Back Old Vine Shiraz 2001 is in my local at $42.99.
2001 was a fairly average vintage and this brand has what, 2 vintages under it's belt as a track record?
It's probably a very nice wine but......what gives this wine the ability to compete at this price point with wines like Bin 389, Best's, Majella, Charles Melton and various Seppelt and Yalumba wines that all have a history of high quality.
Fair enough it's old vines and a good winemaker but surely it's got to earn it's place at that pricepoint with wines like the one's I've listed. Or surely you would want to build your brand and reputation and get a few bottles sold and drunk and raved about before you wanted to compete with those wines.
Anyone who wasn't a wine zealot would walk into a bottleshop and compare this wine with the other wines listed and think: Well $42 is a fair amount of money, I know those other wines are good and I've never heard of this, so I'll go with the safe bet.
Sheep's Back Old Vine Shiraz 2001 is in my local at $42.99.
2001 was a fairly average vintage and this brand has what, 2 vintages under it's belt as a track record?
It's probably a very nice wine but......what gives this wine the ability to compete at this price point with wines like Bin 389, Best's, Majella, Charles Melton and various Seppelt and Yalumba wines that all have a history of high quality.
Fair enough it's old vines and a good winemaker but surely it's got to earn it's place at that pricepoint with wines like the one's I've listed. Or surely you would want to build your brand and reputation and get a few bottles sold and drunk and raved about before you wanted to compete with those wines.
Anyone who wasn't a wine zealot would walk into a bottleshop and compare this wine with the other wines listed and think: Well $42 is a fair amount of money, I know those other wines are good and I've never heard of this, so I'll go with the safe bet.
Whilst I agree with much that's been written, perhaps there's a risk if the wines are priced too low.
I'm thinking now of Cullen, who used to provide great quality at a fair price. Over recent years the price has shot up and I equate the wine as a £20-25 wine, but not a £30-35 wine. Looking at it on quality alone, the current price might be fair, but maybe we like to bracket wines and resist price rises...?
Just a thought - and not a challenge to the comments that have gone before.
regards
Ian
I'm thinking now of Cullen, who used to provide great quality at a fair price. Over recent years the price has shot up and I equate the wine as a £20-25 wine, but not a £30-35 wine. Looking at it on quality alone, the current price might be fair, but maybe we like to bracket wines and resist price rises...?
Just a thought - and not a challenge to the comments that have gone before.
regards
Ian
Handy wrote:Interesting too that you can pick up lots of wine cheaper at auction than what they sell for at cellar door. Or from retailers. Irritates me sometimes to see the prices I could buy the wines for now at auction away from the newsletter hype.
One that gets up my nose is Langmeil 'The Freedom', selling at cellar door at $100, but going at auction (I sold some 2001 recently) nett around $30. Oldest vines in Australia I'm sure, but that does not guarantee a better wine and high prices. Hats off to Turkey Flat with their (partial) old vine shiraz at realistic prices.
cheers,
David M.