Punting on a wine with significant ullage

[wgilson]

Hey campers. I've an opportunity to snap up an ultra-rare bottle of something that I've been dying to try. To get it, I'm going to have to pay a lot of money - and I mean a LOT. In four years of looking, I've never had one of these bottles cross my path before, and given that it is over 60 years old, I may never get the opportunity again.

The only problem - it is ullaged below shoulder level.

So, my question to the forum is: can anyone report any good experiences from wines with significant ullage? I'm prepared to take a punt if there's a shot at a decent wine locked within, but if the wizened drinkers of this forum can't offer me any hope of a good outcome then I think I'd best save my money.

[dlo]

Just don't do it. Way too risky.

[tarija]

I'd look at it from 2 perspectives:

1. Sentimental: if you have some sort of sentimental reason to buy, then MAYBE go for it.

2. Quality: if you're wanting to buy because it is a good wine to drink (eg. Mouton 1945), then pass. At this age, quality of bottle is paramount...and below shoulder is a poor fill level for a 60 year old wine.


EDIT: if the wine is significantly ullaged, then the expected asking price is going to be considerably lower than a bottle in excellent condition - a bottle below shoulder would probably have an estimate of 10-20% of a bottle with an in-neck fill level (unless EXCEPTIONALLY rare, eg. Grange 1951). If you decide to pass, can you let us know what it is that you are considering to buy?

[TiggerK]

There is always hope of a good outcome, but the lower the level, the less hope, generally speaking, and at 60 years, below shoulder is very marginal. I've enjoyed amazing old wine in bottles with level well below shoulder, but most people avoid them for very good reasons. I wouldn't be paying big money for one personally. Like taking a $1000 shot on the 100:1 place chance in the Melbourne cup, it does happen, but chances are against you, so be prepared to lose the money graciously.

[camw]

Pretty sure I've seen the bottle you are talking about and the level is much too low, I won't be going for it.

[wgilson]

I do know my chances aren't great, but there's a sentimental / aesthetic reason for wanting to lay my hands on this. The valuation is significantly lower than what I'd expect for this wine, so I'm factoring the chance of being positively surprised. I'm also prepared for the risk that I'll send hundreds of dollars straight down the drain - but probably not for a 100:1 shot.

Thanks for your replies so far, and I'll keep pondering for a couple more days I think.

[AaronL]

Pretty sure I've seen the bottle you are talking about and the level is much too low, I won't be going for it.

Just don't do it. Way too risky.

These are the people who will be bidding against you (but I'd take their advice over mine any day of the week)

I have no idea what bottle you are talking about but perhaps Schroedinger's cat may be helpful.

[wgilson]

I have no idea what bottle you are talking about but perhaps Schroedinger's cat may be helpful.

^^ I love a good Schroedinger's cat analogy.

[TiggerK]

Well the cat isn't really much help as the state of the wine cannot be known until actually tasted! But uncertainty is certainly involved!

[dave vino]

Same deal with the cat you don't know if it's alive or dead unless you open the box.

Although a Coravin might help

BTW if it is the bottle I think it is, you are a game man and I'd be bidding only for the bottle not what's inside it.

[Mike Hawkins]

At 60 years of age, I'd expect that would be the appropriate ullage level.

If you can afford to take the hit, I say go for it - as the bottle in question may not come up again. OTOH, if you really can't afford it, abort....

[dan_smee]

By below shoulder, do you mean completely below the curve, or not quite mid shoulder?

[sparky]

Personally (and based on professional experience) I wouldn't touch it as a drinking proposition at that level.

As a collectible it might be an entirely different proposition. Perhaps like buying art that you don't particularly like because it's by a recognized artist.

[dave vino]

By below shoulder, do you mean completely below the curve, or not quite mid shoulder?

A good 2cm below the shoulder into the straight bit of a Bordeaux bottle.

[odyssey]

That's a bit like pouring 2 glasses out of a bottle of wine, jamming the cork back in and hoping it does not oxidise.

[Panda 9D]

Why can't you say what the wine is? Doesn't sound like it's one that Gavin would be selling? Doesn't sound like anyone else would want it either

[dave vino]

He may not want to, to try and minimise potential competition

[phillisc]

He may not want to, to try and minimise potential competition

This could turn into one of those nice guessing games...name that wine

53 Grange at 2 cm below shoulder about the same price I would pay for a RR...could it go to a recorking clinic and have its level topped up?
An old Maurice O'Shea
A Woodley treasure chest series or
something from Hardy's, Orlando, Yalumba, Seppelts etc etc. Wynns 55 Michael perhaps

Stay tuned

[redstuff]

If you are prepared to spend +$10999 on a 53 Grange you could probably afford to buy one in better condition.

[AaronL]

If you are prepared to spend +$10999 on a 53 Grange you could probably afford to buy one in better condition.

No, it's over 60 years old, so I reckon it's a 1948 Grange How an I meant to show sarcasm in my posts??

[damonpeyo]

I personally rather gamble on vintage ports of that age than wines.....without killing your wallet too much or counting your loss... Plenty out there on the market.

[daz]

Sounds like a "trophy" wine. Just blow the money on it, put it on display - wouldn't recommend drinking it though.

[TiggerK]

O"Shea.

[dan_smee]

SO, has enough time passed? Can we know what it was, how much it was listed for etc? I'd be interested to know if I'd have thought twice about it...

[mark as]

There is always hope of a good outcome, but the lower the level, the less hope, generally speaking, and at 60 years, below shoulder is very marginal. I've enjoyed amazing old wine in bottles with level well below shoulder, but most people avoid them for very good reasons. I wouldn't be paying big money for one personally. Like taking a $1000 shot on the 100:1 place chance in the Melbourne cup, it does happen, but chances are against you, so be prepared to lose the money graciously.

Really? Did you mean below neck (into the shoulder) or actually below the shoulder, ie where the bottle straighens out?

I've had many sound, and a few great, bottles with levels mid-low shoulder, but never below the shoulder itself.

[TiggerK]

Most of the low ullages I recall were a bit above the shoulder, so mid/low shoulder as you say, but I had one old (birth year) Bin 389 1970 from auction below shoulder (around $30 in 2006), assumed the worst, worked out for the best! OK, not ideal and fresh, but definitely not completely past it. So it's rare, but not impossible.

Mind you these days, there's no way I'd bother bidding on such a low ullage, but just saying miracles can happen!

[wgilson]

Sorry, didn't mean to be rudely slow with a reply. It was an O'Shea Pinot Hermitage that came up at auction. I passed. Someone else didn't. Ah well, I'll wait for a better one. I actually thought it would go for a lot more than the $350 that it sold for.