The Auswine Forum

Heard on the radio this morning that a bottle of the first vintage of Grange, a 1951, just sold for $53k. The most interesting part about this story was the comment that the wine is no longer considered drinkable and is only now value as a collectors' item.

I thought it would be interesting to know how many people on this list, all being avid wine drinkers, would consider buying a wine just for its collectibility, knowing it was undrinkable or close to it. Even for a small amount, say $100 a bottle, I couldn't see myself bothering to buy a wine for a collection only and not to drink. I would rather spend the money on something worth drinking.

1) Agree. No chance that I even want to buy it for anywhere near that price. However, for $100, I would as a collector's item though. I still have footy cards that are probably worth more than $100.

2) $53,000 sounds cheap compared to previous prices paid for this wine.

Adair

I bought a wine that I was fairly certain was not drinkable - the auctioneer even commented that it was a 'collectors item only'. It was, however, the 1964 Krug upon which I reported in these pages (on these screens?) a few weeks ago.

Predictably, it was quite buggered. I expected that. But it was fun anyway. Of course it didn't cost me $53,000. Actually it cost me $13. Perhaps if I was worth $100m I wouldn't blink at spending $53k on a probably-stuffed Grange just to complete my 49 year vertical. But I figure if you can afford to buy it you should be able to afford to drink it...

cheers,
Graeme

The problem at this price point is we are no longer talking about wine at all in any sense of possible appreciation but only as an investment commodity - quite sad but brutally real I suppose.

I recall being at Langtons auction in the early 90's when a guy next to me bid $3000 for a 52 or 53 Grange and recalling how outrageously overpriced I thought it was then, and what I would do with the $3k. Who's laughing now though and after all you can always buy a lot of wine, and other nice things with the proceeds.

Suppose its always a case of opportunity cost with everything in life.

NN

GraemeG wrote:...Perhaps if I was worth $100m I wouldn't blink at spending $53k on a probably-stuffed Grange just to complete my 49 year vertical...

cheers,
Graeme

I'm with Graeme here. Why not? If the return on my funds employed will exceed the cost of capital then its a damn good investment (note to self: Must stop talking analyst-lingo and reading these bloody financial accounts)!

Agreed, if you figure out a strategy for which wines to buy then the return can be much higher (and infinetely more fun) than investing in other resources.

markg wrote:Agreed, if you figure out a strategy for which wines to buy then the return can be much higher (and infinetely more fun) than investing in other resources.

I suspect there is a strong relationship between age and Grange prices. I call it the 40 year rule. People, particular men, want to drink a bottle of Grange on their 40th birthday that is from the same vintage as their birth date... and they are willing to pay for it. This seriously drives up the price. My tip, stock up on the 1966 Grange - quality and age.

Adair

P.S. I don't have any 1966 Grange and have no intension of doing so. If I had the money I would though. I reckon $500-$600 for this wine is very seriously undervalued.

Adair wrote:P.S. I don't have any 1966 Grange and have no intension of doing so. If I had the money I would though. I reckon $500-$600 for this wine is very seriously undervalued.

I'm with you - 2nd best Grange I've ever had after the 71.

Of course I'd buy an proven investment wine that I couldn't drink (If I had a spare $53 lying around). It's like buying a 1930 penny that you can't spend. It's not the point when you're buying that wine of that vintage. It's purely investment in a rare commodity. You'd be mad to even think of drinking it as then it suddenly becomes worth nothing.

There's no way I'd spend $53K on a wine I WAS going to drink though.

Are there any 50's Australian table wines still drinking well?

I have a few early 50's Mt Edelstones that may have long gone. Was going to draw the cork on the 54 when the Western Bulldog's won a premiership in the 90's-did not happen!

People are getting richer and these wines are getting rarer-the inexorable rise will continue. The first Grange is a real piece of history now. Belongs along side of Phar Lap!

JamieBahrain wrote:Are there any 50's Australian table wines still drinking well?

Lindemans, Saltrams and some others...

markg wrote:

JamieBahrain wrote:Are there any 50's Australian table wines still drinking well?

Lindemans, Saltrams and some others...

1959 Shiraz in the Hunter!

Recently tasted wines by a "renowned" taster that showed extremely well:

* 1908 Yalumba Muscadelle - 98+/100
* 1934 Yalumba Riesling - 94/100
* 1944 Mt Pleasant Henry Claret - 95/100
* 1955 Yalumba Galway Claret - 91/100
* 1958 Seaview Claret - 93+/100

Adair

Adair wrote:Recently tasted wines by a "renowned" taster that showed extremely well:

* 1908 Yalumba Muscadelle - 98+/100
* 1934 Yalumba Riesling - 94/100
* 1944 Mt Pleasant Henry Claret - 95/100
* 1955 Yalumba Galway Claret - 91/100
* 1958 Seaview Claret - 93+/100

Adair

Interesting... any idea how the 1961 Galway Claret is faring ?

markg wrote:

Adair wrote:Recently tasted wines by a "renowned" taster that showed extremely well:

* 1908 Yalumba Muscadelle - 98+/100
* 1934 Yalumba Riesling - 94/100
* 1944 Mt Pleasant Henry Claret - 95/100
* 1955 Yalumba Galway Claret - 91/100
* 1958 Seaview Claret - 93+/100

Adair

Interesting... any idea how the 1961 Galway Claret is faring ?

I reckon our Prime Minister might have an idea.

Adair

Adair wrote:

markg wrote:

Adair wrote:Recently tasted wines by a "renowned" taster that showed extremely well:

* 1908 Yalumba Muscadelle - 98+/100
* 1934 Yalumba Riesling - 94/100
* 1944 Mt Pleasant Henry Claret - 95/100
* 1955 Yalumba Galway Claret - 91/100
* 1958 Seaview Claret - 93+/100

Adair

Interesting... any idea how the 1961 Galway Claret is faring ?

I reckon our Prime Minister might have an idea.

Adair

I was actually thinking of this one:



as opposed to the more famous one you are talking about (which I beleive is still very good according to Winestate magazines recent tasting of The Signature)

Baby Chickpea wrote:

Adair wrote:P.S. I don't have any 1966 Grange and have no intension of doing so. If I had the money I would though. I reckon $500-$600 for this wine is very seriously undervalued.

I'm with you - 2nd best Grange I've ever had after the 71.

The 71 is sublime..i was lucky to be given 2 bottles of 71 (my birthyear) for my 30th a few years ago..opened one and was blown away..still have the other one stashed..

The 71 Grange is the best local wine i've ever tried.

Cheers

Paul

I have a friend celebrating his 60th birthday - loves Aussie wine.
I'd love to be able to get him an anniversary wine - Europe's a bust in 1944!
Any help welcome.
Nigel

G'day Nigel Bruce - far and away the best option (and pretty much the only Oz 1944 you're likely to find for less than insane prices) is the Seppelt 1944 Para Port. This is a tawny style bottled in the 1960's, but is still remarkably fresh & potent. It's a regular wine auction item. Must look for examples where the level is above the little round vintage date label on the bottle. Shouldn't have to pay more than $60. Last had one 2001, was amazed at its power, concentration and length of finish.
regards, Mark S.

GraemeG wrote:I bought a wine that I was fairly certain was not drinkable - the auctioneer even commented that it was a 'collectors item only'. It was, however, the 1964 Krug upon which I reported in these pages (on these screens?) a few weeks ago.

Predictably, it was quite buggered. I expected that. But it was fun anyway. Of course it didn't cost me $53,000. Actually it cost me $13. Perhaps if I was worth $100m I wouldn't blink at spending $53k on a probably-stuffed Grange just to complete my 49 year vertical. But I figure if you can afford to buy it you should be able to afford to drink it...

cheers,
Graeme

Hmmm, a vertical tasting of 49 vintages of Grange? That's almost 38 litres or 294 standard servings of 125ml (6xglasses to the 750ml bottle - any less would be a bit paltry). Assuming you've not just collected these wines to try to gain the multipier factor at auction, you'll need about 25 people at a full vertical for all to have a taste of each vintage. Although there may be 5 or 10 bottles that are undrinkable so you could need only 15-20 people; $5,000 per head?

daz

Anonymous wrote:
Hmmm, a vertical tasting of 49 vintages of Grange? That's almost 38 litres or 294 standard servings of 125ml (6xglasses to the 750ml bottle - any less would be a bit paltry). Assuming you've not just collected these wines to try to gain the multipier factor at auction, you'll need about 25 people at a full vertical for all to have a taste of each vintage. Although there may be 5 or 10 bottles that are undrinkable so you could need only 15-20 people; $5,000 per head?

daz

Let me clarify - I wasn't offering! And I was speaking with my hypothetical multi-millionaire's hat on - what probably means I'd never consider drinking them anyway - just arrange them on a long shelf for others to drool over.

In real life, my 49-Grange vertical is about 48 vintages short at the moment...

cheers,
Graeme

I could put together a decent Grange vertical. Unless, of course, you put the bottle on its side.

Kieran

$5000 for a full Grange vertical tasting.

I'm in. A bargain.