The Auswine Forum

Mahmoud Ali wrote:

Polymer wrote:

Mahmoud Ali wrote:I'm reminded of the apocryphal story of the man who walks into a Rolls Royce dealership and when he asked the salesman about the mileage he can expect from the Rolls was told that if he needed to know the fuel rating then he likely couldn't afford a Rolls Royce.

And this is true. If you're buying the Rolls Royce or Ferrari of Wines...then you don't care about storage costs (and I actually said that long time ago).
But you're not (from what I've seen) and I'm not and most people on here are not buying the equivalent of wine. For those on here that drink 3 figure wines for their daily drinker and buy multiples of 4 figure wines on a regular basis, they don't care about this. We (you and I and most people on here) regularly buy and drink the Toyota of wines..maybe the Lexus of wines...We're not drinking the Yugo of wines but we're certainly not at the point where the little things are just a rounding error.

The point of the story was affordability, not being so rich as to not care. Wine is no different really. Cellaring is about buying more wine that you need to drink and to pay for the storage. Each person can decide for themselves if they want to do it.

Polymer wrote:

Mahmoud Ali wrote: The cellaring and drinking of fine wine can be an expensive hobby and nobody is being forced. It is a voluntary activity freely undertaken by those who choose to do so. It is absurdly condescending to keep hearing people go on about how adults who chose to spend their money in thsi way are somehow unwitting dupes and need lessons on accounting and forensic economic analysis about the future value of their wines.

I am not telling people how to spend their money. I'm showing them what the opportunity costs are..and if you think everyone understands what those were, you're wrong. If you have then there is nothing to be offended about but honestly, the way you've responded it is like saying "what difference does it make what the numbers say?" which means you haven't thought about it to that level..and most people haven't, including myself before.

What I'm talking about is an alternative backed by information and data...people can choose to agree or not to agree.

You are not telling people how to spend their money, I never said that you did. What you are saying is that people don't understand what it costs, therby implying that had they known they would not choose to cellar wines. That is an arrogance that you continue to display. I'm sure everyone on this forum knows how much they spend on wine, after all the cost of wines in not a small part of the discussion here. They also know what they spend on cellaring because it is a monthly fee. What you insist on repeating is that people would be making different decisions if only they would listen to you and do otherwise. Indeed, you are suggesting that that people should reconsider their spending on cellaring.

Perhaps the most galling thing to me is your idea that, once a person decides to cellar wine, he/she should use cost factors, present and future, to figure out which wine is "worth" cellaring. A person should cellar the wine they want to drink - period. The fact that a wine has limited availability or might increase in value is most certainly an added incentive. It makes no difference if the cellared wine cost $10 or $100. There is no point cellaring a wine you don't want to drink no matter how limited the bottling or much it will appreciate in value unless you are in it for an investment and plan to sell it for profit. In that case you can lump your calculations and costs along with pork belly and gold futures.

Mahmoud.

+1

Cheers craig

Mahmoud Ali wrote: The point of the story was affordability, not being so rich as to not care. Wine is no different really. Cellaring is about buying more wine that you need to drink and to pay for the storage. Each person can decide for themselves if they want to do it.

I don't know, what sounds more like the wine situation? In your example, the little things don't matter because they're so rich they can (or not rich enough so they can't) afford a Rolls Royce.
An equivalent wine situation is being very expensive wines...where cellar cost (which is similar to running costs of a car) are a nothing because if you're spending 5k on a bottle of wine, who cares if it costs you 5/bottle per year to cellar?

But realistically our situation is a person buying a Toyota or Audi, etc...Where the wines/cars are nice but people still care about the small things...

At the end saying people can decide for themselves..of course they can..and they do. But then the rest of the story has no value because it isn't saying anything....

Mahmoud Ali wrote: You are not telling people how to spend their money, I never said that you did. What you are saying is that people don't understand what it costs, therby implying that had they known they would not choose to cellar wines. That is an arrogance that you continue to display. I'm sure everyone on this forum knows how much they spend on wine, after all the cost of wines in not a small part of the discussion here. They also know what they spend on cellaring because it is a monthly fee. What you insist on repeating is that people would be making different decisions if only they would listen to you and do otherwise. Indeed, you are suggesting that that people should reconsider their spending on cellaring.

Ok here are the facts then. Jamie mentioned the Platagenet..but he didn't calculate the true cost of the wine. He even said he'd not cellar much of it. Other people (now I'm sounding like Trump) have mentioned they hadn't thought about the true costs of cellaring wine. Nearly every response has only thought of the costs of cellaring from a very superficial level which is the basic I bought the bottle for 20, my costs to cellar was 2/bottle.

Mahmoud Ali wrote: Perhaps the most galling thing to me is your idea that, once a person decides to cellar wine, he/she should use cost factors, present and future, to figure out which wine is "worth" cellaring. A person should cellar the wine they want to drink - period. The fact that a wine has limited availability or might increase in value is most certainly an added incentive. It makes no difference if the cellared wine cost $10 or $100. There is no point cellaring a wine you don't want to drink no matter how limited the bottling or much it will appreciate in value unless you are in it for an investment and plan to sell it for profit. In that case you can lump your calculations and costs along with pork belly and gold futures.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm using the numbers to represent some of the true costs as well as to represent what the opportunity costs were to cellar a "meh" wine...which is a wine that sure, it was nice to cellar but it isn't making a big difference either way. I'm also providing many good alternatives to cellaring fewer meh wines...I have not suggested buying or cellaring wine you don't want to drink.

I'm not disagreeing with your very basic idea of "cellar what you drink" idea...at its core, its right...but I'm providing some other ways to think about it to tweak that strategy so it provides you a better overall outcome...which is to me gets you older wines, gets you wines that will be harder to get because they'll have increased too much, get you wines you want to drink in general...and nets you more money in your pocket (or the chance to buy more expensive wine). If you think those alternatives are not for you then obviously don't use it. But trying to disagree using a very basic understanding of what I'm trying to say, just proves my point but what I find ironic is the one person you're agreeing with (Jamie) is basically doing exactly what I've advocated - I'm not really sure you see that or not...

Mahmoud Ali wrote: The point of the story was affordability, not being so rich as to not care. Wine is no different really. Cellaring is about buying more wine that you need to drink and to pay for the storage. Each person can decide for themselves if they want to do it.

I don't know, what sounds more like the wine situation? In your example, the little things don't matter because they're so rich they can (or not rich enough so they can't) afford a Rolls Royce.
An equivalent wine situation is being very expensive wines...where cellar cost (which is similar to running costs of a car) are a nothing because if you're spending 5k on a bottle of wine, who cares if it costs you 5/bottle per year to cellar?

But realistically our situation is a person buying a Toyota or Audi, etc...Where the wines/cars are nice but people still care about the small things...

At the end saying people can decide for themselves..of course they can..and they do. But then the rest of the story has no value because it isn't saying anything....

Mahmoud Ali wrote: You are not telling people how to spend their money, I never said that you did. What you are saying is that people don't understand what it costs, therby implying that had they known they would not choose to cellar wines. That is an arrogance that you continue to display. I'm sure everyone on this forum knows how much they spend on wine, after all the cost of wines in not a small part of the discussion here. They also know what they spend on cellaring because it is a monthly fee. What you insist on repeating is that people would be making different decisions if only they would listen to you and do otherwise. Indeed, you are suggesting that that people should reconsider their spending on cellaring.

Ok here are the facts then. Jamie mentioned the Platagenet..but he didn't calculate the true cost of the wine. He even said he'd not cellar much of it. Other people (now I'm sounding like Trump) have mentioned they hadn't thought about the true costs of cellaring wine. Nearly every response has only thought of the costs of cellaring from a very superficial level which is the basic I bought the bottle for 20, my costs to cellar was 2/bottle.

Mahmoud Ali wrote: Perhaps the most galling thing to me is your idea that, once a person decides to cellar wine, he/she should use cost factors, present and future, to figure out which wine is "worth" cellaring. A person should cellar the wine they want to drink - period. The fact that a wine has limited availability or might increase in value is most certainly an added incentive. It makes no difference if the cellared wine cost $10 or $100. There is no point cellaring a wine you don't want to drink no matter how limited the bottling or much it will appreciate in value unless you are in it for an investment and plan to sell it for profit. In that case you can lump your calculations and costs along with pork belly and gold futures.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm using the numbers to represent some of the true costs as well as to represent what the opportunity costs were to cellar a "meh" wine...which is a wine that sure, it was nice to cellar but it isn't making a big difference either way. I'm also providing many good alternatives to cellaring fewer meh wines...I have not suggested buying or cellaring wine you don't want to drink.

I'm not disagreeing with your very basic idea of "cellar what you drink" idea...at its core, its right...but I'm providing some other ways to think about it to tweak that strategy so it provides you a better overall outcome...which is to me gets you older wines, gets you wines that will be harder to get because they'll have increased too much, get you wines you want to drink in general...and nets you more money in your pocket (or the chance to buy more expensive wine). If you think those alternatives are not for you then obviously don't use it. But trying to disagree using a very basic understanding of what I'm trying to say, just proves my point but what I find ironic is the one person you're agreeing with (Jamie) is basically doing exactly what I've advocated (Not because of what I've said but that's what he's doing anyways) - I'm not really sure you see that or not...

Polymer wrote: ... but what I find ironic is the one person you're agreeing with (Jamie) is basically doing exactly what I've advocated (Not because of what I've said but that's what he's doing anyways) - I'm not really sure you see that or not...

There is no irony here at all. I posted this on the second page of this thread:

Mahmoud Ali wrote:Seems like buying early and cellaring under known conditions is the best strategy.

And Jamie seemed to agree with me by posting this right after my post:

JamieBahrain wrote:Yes, that's one wonderful issue not expressed as far I recall. The joy of sound cellaring versus the expectation of an old label of unknown provenance and then the dread when you taste a cooked wine.

So lets just say Jamie and I agree about cellaring and good provenance.

Then you go on to say:

Polymer[/quote] wrote: Ok here are the facts then. Jamie mentioned the Platagenet..but he didn't calculate the true cost of the wine. He even said he'd not cellar much of it.

Mind blowing: "He didn't calculate the true cost of the wine." Really, really? Are you actually going with that as a fact? In the very post where Jamie mentioned the Plantagenet Cabernet he clearly states his cellaring cost of the bottle per year and the total cost over twenty years.

JamieBahrain wrote:Using your scenario as an example, 20 years ago I bought cases of Plantagenet Cabernet Sauvignon 1998 & 1999 for $20 a bottle. Professional cellaring costs me $1 a year per bottle. I could find this wine for under $30 on the secondary market probably, though the chances of it being professionally cellared are slim. So my pristinely kept bottle has cost $40 in the long run? Drinking the cases now they are completely different wines to the passive stored ones over a number of cellars ( I had a liquor license and sold the wine to friends ). Lots of baked and cooked plum notes though a Mt Macedon passive cellar the best- but nowhere near as good.

Please note, his "pristinely" cellared bottle was better than those from other cellars. Again, the confidence derived from known provenance. Yes, Jamie and I basically agree about cellaring - put that one in the books! (Hee, hee). Jamie, like others here on the forum, are no fools. They know what they're doing and it behooves you to pay a little more attention.

As I've said before, buying early and cellaring under known conditions is the best strategy.

Over and out .................... Mahmoud.

Gentlemen, this is a friendly informative wine forum, not a cross examination in a court of law. Let's please not drill down to perceived incorrect statements, and add to the discussion, not detract.

Mahmoud Ali wrote: Mind blowing: "He didn't calculate the true cost of the wine." Really, really? Are you actually going with that as a fact? In the very post where Jamie mentioned the Plantagenet Cabernet he clearly states his cellaring cost of the bottle per year and the total cost over twenty years.

It's an absolute fact.

He clearly stated how much he paid for the bottle 20 years ago and how much it cost him per year to cellar it. I even re-quoted the values... None of that considers time value of money. Given he's comparing what he would pay TODAY on the secondary market for that wine, you would absolutely need to use time value of money.

$20 20 years ago
1/year for 20 years.

He said that's $40..it is not. Only if you look at it from a very simple point of view....Just from a dollar value perspective it is more like 61. You can argue a few dollars here or there because you have to use some sort of JUSTIFIED number to calculate it..but just using a flat number is just wrong. If you want to argue $20 20 years ago is the same as $20 you can try...but I know you know that's not true..so why think it is ok in this case?

So that's just comparing what your costs were vs what you could spend today...while I don't think most people realistically get their bottle costs to 1/year per bottle, we still went with that.

So that's one calculation based just purely on time value of money. Now you could say you'd rather have one you cellared yourself. That's a perfectly good reason. Although Jamie said he wouldn't buy it the same way today as it just isn't worth it and you can find these on the secondary market in good enough condition.

The other side of this is opportunity costs...which is if you bought 500 bottles of similar quality as the 98 Platagenet...which you could buy now for less...what could you have bought instead? You'd still carry some storage costs for your other wines but you've spend a significant amount of money for what is a very middling wine. Now again, you could say that's exactly what you want because you love the wine and you don't care. That's fine too...but ignoring the opportunity costs completely (as in not recognizing they're there) is the exact problem, because people don't really think about it...

So if those 500 bottles of something like Platagenet suddenly were 1000 each, you'd feel you did alright because you aren't having to replace these bottles at 1000 each..instead you have stock to drink..

But otherwise those 500 bottles cost you between 20000 (if you don't count value of money) - 30500. It wouldn't be 30.5 either because in theory you would've bought bottles over the last 20 not just 20 years ago and you would've spent other money before. So lets take an average of 25k.

So if you had to go back and do it again....for those very middling wines...would you rather have 25k of OTHER wine today...or those 500 bottles of middling wine? It might be someone's answer is a combination of the two..but that valuation is how you assess your strategy. What your strategy is your own assessment..and what you value is your own. I'm saying for ME, this is what I think is right...but if you're immediately discounting the talk it means you haven't really thought it out.

And to go back to what you said..No..I don't think people have thought it that far through...I hadn't in the past....Other people have said the same type of thing..because it isn't something you really evaluate very well...it isn't something you necessary want to think about too much because it might scare you to think about it...but either way, if you're talking about coming up with a good strategy for yourself, of course you'd want to consider the information out there, that doesn't mean we all come up with the same conclusion..

Hacker wrote:Gentlemen, this is a friendly informative wine forum, not a cross examination in a court of law. Let's please not drill down to perceived incorrect statements, and add to the discussion, not detract.

Agreed,
sounds as if the castigator either needs to fall into the 99% camp and drink all of his wine within 24 hours of purchase or cellar it and treat it like a motor vehicle...petrol is the cheapest thing you will ever put in a car.

I don't have Pythagoras's theorem on storage costs but in the 20 years I have paid for cellaring, it has gone from $800 to $2000 pa. In the same time the cellar has gone from 120 to 330 dozen...everything from meh wines to some that I think are OK...I am pretty sure that I am doing alright

Cheers craig

Except that isn't what is being said.

If you're comfortable with your cellaring strat, that's great. But if you don't understand what others are saying that doesn't mean it isn't viable, just means you don't understand it.

A close buddy of mine is fast catching me up with his wine collection. He's gone from zero to warp speed pretty quickly across the board. In a lot of cases I've been able to point him in the right direction in terms of possible styles he might like, vintages and pricing. In other words I've saved him from making a handful of rookie errors. Particularly in the $$$ stakes. He's fairly impulsive and after first visiting and reviewing what I spied in his cellar I was able to throw a few words of advice. I've included him in on a few of my mailing list purchases and we've done a few tours of local regions. Far be it from me to instruct his palate, but I think I've helped him hone in on the wines that most suit his tastes. He was a bit 'points whacked' at first but thru tasting and some more tasting, he's really coming to grips with what he likes, how much he should pay and the best way to assure decent provenance. Although his budget is a non issue ( I think this has been part of the problem as his pockets are extremely deep), he's really starting to take the time to seek out what he wants with a little more thought. I don't want to corrupt his pathway as such but a few little tugs on the reins here and there have assisted in the collection process. I would consider myself to be mid tier at best in terms of wine knowledge, particularly compared to some of you folks on here, but i've definitely helped him from making some of those early wine collecting mishaps. End of the day, with a near limitless budget, access to all sorts and my advice ringing in his ear, the journey is his to make and enjoy.

Good god Polymer, you are so very much showing the accountant side! And being a pedant as well. Let me ask, are you sure you have factored all the costs? Surely you haven't forgotten the petrol used when storing and retrieving wines, the opportunity cost of the time spent doing that, and the wear and tear on the vehicle. Also, as a person with over 1,500 posts you mustn't forget to consider opportunity cost of time spent on the computer writing about wine. Poor Jamie, he knows all about wine but is alarmingly deficient in finance, accounting, economics and mathematics. Please don't go on, be considerate and don't "scare" him from enjoying his hobby.

"Middling wines", now there's an interesting concept. Yes, when it comes to cellaring only trophy wines need apply. None of this middling, inexpensive stuff without sufficient street cred and cachet. Apparently it's more important to impress and have bragging rights. In this and another thread Sicilian wines have been predicted to increase in price so in this context I suppose the wise decision (and of course the accountant position) is to buy Sician wines and not touch Sardinian wines. In this world view content doesn't matter, only price and prestige.

I must say that all this is an alarming, snobby, and niggardly way to view wines and all the pleasures that it can provide. Wine is meant to accompany food in all its breadth and variety, to be matched as best we can so that each enhances the other as they are consumed. Good wines, lowly, middling, and high end, each serve their purpose in this journey over time as they evolve in bottle. Points, medals, awards, and yes, even the price, are all adjuncts. Yes, there is value in tasting, spitting and evaluating wine, but this is a side show to the very real pleasure of enjoying it at the time and place of ones choosing. Price also plays a role but only so far as it is the cost of entry. The knowledgeable wine lover can make his or her own decision as to which wines thay can afford, an educated guess as to which ones to cellar, and for how long, knowing all the while that it is an inexact science full of surprises and rewards as well as disappointments. It is all part of the pleasure and satisfaction of owning a collection of wines and chosing when to open them and with whom to share them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to the real world, is the 1998 Plantagent Cabernet a "middling wine"? Apparently Jamie was able to sell it at roughly twenty years of age. I've never had it but one fellow on Cellartracker rated the 1997 at 94 points when he tasted it in 2017. Meanwhile the 1999 vintage had an average score of 92 points based on reviews from 2014 to 2018.

Mahmoud.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:Good god Polymer, you are so very much showing the accountant side! And being a pedant as well. Let me ask, are you sure you have factored all the costs? Surely you haven't forgotten the petrol used when storing and retrieving wines, the opportunity cost of the time spent doing that, and the wear and tear on the vehicle. Also, as a person with over 1,500 posts you mustn't forget to consider opportunity cost of time spent on the computer writing about wine. Poor Jamie, he knows all about wine but is alarmingly deficient in finance, accounting, economics and mathematics. Please don't go on, be considerate and don't "scare" him from enjoying his hobby.

To answer your question..I'm 100% sure there are other costs factored in there. If you'd like to take it a step further you can...But that's a lot more effort for a marginally different number..

I'm not scaring Jamie..he already does this.

But yes, I've considered why am I wasting my time explaining this..

Mahmoud Ali wrote: "Middling wines", now there's an interesting concept. Yes, when it comes to cellaring only trophy wines need apply. None of this middling, inexpensive stuff without sufficient street cred and cachet. Apparently it's more important to impress and have bragging rights. In this and another thread Sicilian wines have been predicted to increase in price so in this context I suppose the wise decision (and of course the accountant position) is to buy Sician wines and not touch Sardinian wines. In this world view content doesn't matter, only price and prestige.

Nope...It isn't just those types of wines. It is just those types of wines that tend to be harder to find later on, generally because of money. But of course, if you cellar a cheap wine because you know it will be impossible to find later on, that's the same thing right? You have no alternatives..you either bought/cellared or you don't have it at all. Most wine doesn't fall into that...Most wine that does has increased in value because of basic supply/demand (Hard to find and in demand = higher prices). But there are some lesser known regions where the wine is just too hard to get and that's a good reason to get it. I could've used a better word that middling but it is meant to say a wine of very ordinary value (for wine geeks) that isn't overly difficult to obtain.

Mahmoud Ali wrote: I must say that all this is an alarming, snobby, and niggardly way to view wines and all the pleasures that it can provide. Wine is meant to accompany food in all its breadth and variety, to be matched as best we can so that each enhances the other as they are consumed. Good wines, lowly, middling, and high end, each serve their purpose in this journey over time as they evolve in bottle. Points, medals, awards, and yes, even the price, are all adjuncts. Yes, there is value in tasting, spitting and evaluating wine, but this is a side show to the very real pleasure of enjoying it at the time and place of ones choosing. Price also plays a role but only so far as it is the cost of entry. The knowledgeable wine lover can make his or her own decision as to which wines thay can afford, an educated guess as to which ones to cellar, and for how long, knowing all the while that it is an inexact science full of surprises and rewards as well as disappointments. It is all part of the pleasure and satisfaction of owning a collection of wines and chosing when to open them and with whom to share them.

Whatever you want to do is fine. However someone wants to enjoy their wine hobby is up to them. But I'll say this again..Most people don't feel what they've done to cellar their wine is ideal. Which I've given many many examples of. Read the number of times people have ran out of cellar space, said they had too many wines, made new years resolutions to buy fewer (and better). We have people that have basically said at their current consumption rate it'll take them 20+ years to go through their wine.
What I'm saying is rather than jump into this headfirst with a real basic strategy..which we have all done...There are better ways to do this...not in that it saves you money but the alternatives can actually net you other wine or better wine or wine you might never have the chance to buy normally...

Mahmoud Ali wrote: Back to the real world, is the 1998 Plantagent Cabernet a "middling wine"? Apparently Jamie was able to sell it at roughly twenty years of age. I've never had it but one fellow on Cellartracker rated the 1997 at 94 points when he tasted it in 2017. Meanwhile the 1999 vintage had an average score of 92 points based on reviews from 2014 to 2018.

That all depends on what you think of as a middling wine...and each person will have their own opinion on what that is/means.

Polymer wrote:Except that isn't what is being said.

If you're comfortable with your cellaring strat, that's great. But if you don't understand what others are saying that doesn't mean it isn't viable, just means you don't understand it.

Run that past me again Polymer, what don't I understand exactly...and see if it can be done in one sentence, not sure I mentioned anything re viability??
For the punishment of cellaring wine seems like I should be sent to jail

Cheers
craig

phillisc wrote:

Polymer wrote:Except that isn't what is being said.

If you're comfortable with your cellaring strat, that's great. But if you don't understand what others are saying that doesn't mean it isn't viable, just means you don't understand it.

Run that past me again Polymer, what don't I understand exactly...and see if it can be done in one sentence, not sure I mentioned anything re viability??
For the punishment of cellaring wine seems like I should be sent to jail

Cheers
craig

If I had a to make a list of what you don't understand it would take a lot more than a single sentence.

Yawn....

When people are trying to prove points by quoting others and saying, "no this is what you mean" we really have lost the plot.

Move on already. You are all correct. You all win. Okay?

Next (wine) topic please......

Cheers

Michael

Seconded.

100% screw cap.

2 bottles of 1997 Grosset Polish Hill riesling last night corked ! The only wines corked in a line-up of another dozen foreign wines. What hurt the most was the mockery made of Australian wine after the incidents ( I'm trying to up perceptions ).

Thirded
There are no winners in a post
Any chance we can stop throwing sand in the sandpit?

And this, my friends, is why I don't post here much.

FFS.

I'm now sorry I started this thread.

Wizz wrote:And this, my friends, is why I don't post here much.

FFS.

I'm now sorry I started this thread.

You said it Mr Wizz

Have you noticed how the threads turn into ‘Territorial Pissings’
By Nirvana

https://youtu.be/bm6Iz-I5OmQ

michel wrote:

Wizz wrote:And this, my friends, is why I don't post here much.

FFS.

I'm now sorry I started this thread.

You said it Mr Wizz

Have you noticed how the threads turn into ‘Territorial Pissings’
By Nirvana

https://youtu.be/bm6Iz-I5OmQ

Wizz wrote:Here's a hypothetical question for some fun.
Suppose you could empty your cellar and start again. Same budget, and you could buy wines of the same age.
How closely would this hypothetical cellar resemble your actual cellar?

Wizz wrote:And this, my friends, is why I don't post here much.
FFS.
I'm now sorry I started this thread.

I smiled broadly when I read your last post, really. And going back to your original post I have to say it was a very interesting question. Although I originally said I would like to have bought more Burgundy and Barolo, in reality there isn't anything that I originally bought that I wouldn't want to have, everything from the cheapest to the most expensive. The most expensive would have been a $62 1982 Leoville Las Cases and the cheapest would have been a $5 1980 Sella & Mosca Canonnau di Alghero from Sardinia (Grenache) that was drop dead gorgeous opened when almost two decades old. Every bottle is an adventure and an education if thought and consideration is part of the original decision to cellar.

I apologize if my ramblings have made you reconsider your original post. It should not have. Your question is both interesting and valid. The very reason that made me want to start cellaring is still valid today, in that I cellar to have a wine that I hope will be better tomorrow than it is today. Not all decisions will be successful but there is only one way to find out. Interestingly, thinking about what critics said, more often than not I do not regret buying what Parker may have advised (before the Aussie shiraz phase) but I do regret not buying wines he advised not to buy. Funny isn't it?

Don't stop posting, I'll try and behave, promise.

Mahmoud.

JamieBahrain wrote:100% screw cap.

2 bottles of 1997 Grosset Polish Hill riesling last night corked ! The only wines corked in a line-up of another dozen foreign wines. What hurt the most was the mockery made of Australian wine after the incidents ( I'm trying to up perceptions ).

The 97 PH is a weird wine... girl with the curl stuff. Very very good or horrid....

michel wrote:

Wizz wrote:And this, my friends, is why I don't post here much.

FFS.

I'm now sorry I started this thread.

You said it Mr Wizz

Have you noticed how the threads turn into ‘Territorial Pissings’
By Nirvana

https://youtu.be/bm6Iz-I5OmQ

On the contrary Wizz, keep posting don't be sorry, maintain the rage, others surely will, whatever
Not sure of territorial pissings, (a good drum and lead guitar beat), but perhaps more like 'just because your paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.'

Maybe its 'you can't always get what you want?'

Something to talk over when picking grapes tomorrow for Roger Pike

cheers craig

I don't understand how folks get worked up over other folks getting worked up. Ignore it.

Mike

Ah I wish I knew that earlier. Its been a disaster. Two corked and two auction bottles in bad condition despite claiming sound provenance ( hope the asshole wasn't a forumite )

JamieBahrain wrote:I don't understand how folks get worked up over other folks getting worked up. Ignore it.

Mike
)

I suppose it is about generosity of spirit, warm receptive comments without judgemental egotism.
It is very confronting to existing members and new members when some forumites are decidedly judgmental & nasty.

michel wrote:

JamieBahrain wrote:I don't understand how folks get worked up over other folks getting worked up. Ignore it.

Mike
)

I suppose it is about generosity of spirit, warm receptive comments without judgemental egotism.
It is very confronting to existing members and new members when some forumites are decidedly judgmental & nasty.

Ok I'll bite.

Are my comments nasty? Are they judgemental? I don't think they're either and maybe you're not referring to me but I'll explain this again anyways...

Stating a position is neither. Surely people can't actually think stating a reasonably thought out argument is confronting..if so then there is no point in joining a forum. Especially not one that is mainly based on people's opinions...

A number of people seem to be put off by opinions....But there are no reasons to be. Whether opinions on wine or opinions on things related to wine, there is nothing to be upset about...The idea behind the forum is to share ideas...share experiences and share opinions....but it isn't about being kumbaya about everything. It isn't about being nasty but if you can't have an open and honest discussion about stuff then the forum is pretty much useless.

So yes, this means sometimes some discussions will cross that line a bit...but without risking some of that you lose meaningful discussions on the forum. A good example is WB. Probably the best and and factually the biggest/busiest forum about wine on the Internet (at least according to several publications). It can get heated more than a little bit..and more than a few threads have degraded down into personal insults...but you also have a wealth of information shared on there both in depth and breadth...You just have to learn to shut out the discussions you don't want to see (I mean why read them to begin with if you're not interested?).

I spend $4000 a year on professional cellaring. Your views on the sense of it were confronting. I'm not upset at you and I enjoyed the discussion and my path has changed. Not because of your opinions but because the wine world is so dynamic ( screw cap and access to information etc ).

So we were always in a little bit of agreement. Others not so due different circumstances or emotions on the topic of cellaring.

Anyways I hope everyone carries on.

JamieBahrain wrote:I spend $4000 a year on professional cellaring. Your views on the sense of it were confronting. I'm not upset at you and I enjoyed the discussion and my path has changed. Not because of your opinions but because the wine world is so dynamic ( screw cap and access to information etc ).

So we were always in a little bit of agreement. Others not so due different circumstances or emotions on the topic of cellaring.

Anyways I hope everyone carries on.

Thanks Jamie...I think having the discussion is interesting..whether we agree or not doesn't really matter but at least we're having some sort of discussion.

Ozzie W wrote:

felixp21 wrote:wow, $1 per bottle per year is incredibly cheap for a climate controlled cellar, even in Australia. Lucky you!! Costs are more like $2 a bottle in Melbourne.

Currently costing me $1.89 per year per bottle at Kennards, up from $1.52 in 2015.

This thread has gone on for a while, so my 2c worth. I have HAD to go to a commercial cellaring location recently as my cellar at home is over full. I am happy with both passive and commercial options. Kennards, like OzzieW, is costing me about $1.90/b/yr atm. If I really fill the space it might average at about $1.65. I'm comfortable with that as I have to have it for the time being. It's a pretty good facility, bottles stored there are more recent good quality purchases that I'm not going to touch for 3+ yrs. I like older wines and my strategy is a mix of stuff I've had since "birth" and some limited secondary market purchases (selected with as much care as possible). Works for me.

If I was starting again, with long term cellaring, I would probably cellar all expensive wines (certainly $100+) in a commercial environment.

I too took on board Polymer's point of view, but agree both sides have their merit. It all depends on the individual, as with so many things, no approach is 'the best'.

Thinking about it more... and maybe I said this a while back..

Given I haven't got a big climate controlled cellar at home, I'm happy to still pay for commercial cellaring, but would have fewer wines of certain types/styles/middling price points, and more variety of other cellar friendly world regions. And many more higher end wines!! 6 pack of xxx, or 2 of these for the same price?? Now would be the latter choice all the time, other than weekly quaffers or 'cellar defenders' for when non-wine friends visit!

Quality over quantity, but still a good selection of the 'budget' wines that I love with an extra bit of age, albeit ones that now more align with my preferences for less fruit, more acid, good structure and hints of funky or more savoury notes. More Cab Sav, Pinot Noir, Riesling and Chardonnay.

Getting there slowly!!

Cheers
Tim