Faulty Oxidized Wine

[gpk]

Who is responsible for the replacement of an older faulty oxidized wine when it is purchased from a retailer, the retailer or the producer? In this case I bought a select doz of different wines that were advertised as having been cellared at temp controlled conditions by the retailer since purchase and all with tasting notes. One of the wines was clearly oxidized and completely undrinkable and did not match the advertised notes. The communication from the retailer has not been the forth coming but after a couple of repeated follow up’s they have simply replied that “We all take risks with aged wines and it would be impossible to seek recourse from the producer as the wine is now 16 years old”. I am not out to make a big deal with the retailer on it, but would be interested to know what the true obligations of the retailer is.

Cheers Gerry

[Rocky]

Caveat emptor

There is an 1982 Petrus for sale at my local wine cellar. It is going for $1500 and has been there for over a year now, at least. Do I ever consider buying it? No, because i consciously know the risk is mine.

[Michael McNally]

Sorry Rocky, I think that caveat emptor the general principle with auctions, and possibly retail (though less so - think about discovering a mouldy loaf of bread you just purchased from Woolies), but given the retailer has made specific claims about the storage then it is arguably their lookout. If the retailer thinks the fault lies with the winery, as they have stored the wine in controlled conditions since purchase (as they allege) then they should be able to get a replacement/refund from the producer.

Consumer law says something like fit for purpose. If this has been purchased recently by Gerry then he has been given cause to think the wine should be fit for drinking. If it's not, it's not and it's certainly not Gerry's fault.

My 2c

Cheers

Michael

[Polymer]

Pretty sure in Australia, the retailer will have to replace it.

They can't sell something not fit for purpose....

If it is an Australian wine, they can probably go back to the producer themselves for a replacement..or you can...Very few of them will ever hassle you about it. If it is an imported wine..the retailer is still responsible...

Now, I'm not sure how much time you're allowed...Eg. If you had it in your possession for years, maybe this doesn't apply...If you just received them, it should.

Australia has very strong consumer laws...some might argue too strong..but either way if you just bought it, no way you should be wearing that...

[gpk]

[quote="Polymer"]Now, I'm not sure how much time you're allowed...Eg. If you had it in your possession for years, maybe this doesn't apply...If you just received them, it should. quote]

Thanks for the replies. The wines have been in my procession just under a year and we have consumed the majority of the others, and in fairness the rest were excellent. I was just a tad disappointed with the retailers response especially when they state proudly their cellared temp and also make the statement “Many old wines are on the market, but how many come with a Certificate of Provenance and current Tasting Notes”. After their response I did suggest the value of the bottle is deducted of any subsequent orders but have not had a response.

Cheers Gerry

[Polymer]

Can you post which wine it was?

[Luke W]

Does it also depend on the nature of the seller and the type of licence? I'm aware that DM automatically replace recent acquisitions even if they are part of their Langton stock but would assume that some of those that advertise their "kept at 12 degrees forever" slogans may believe that they can pass on faulty wines (and many are from lesser years anyway). Although in Qld if u buy something from a retailer that is faulty it must be replaced, it's hard to prove who caused the fault or when it got in the bottle (unless we're talking TCA). The retailer could say that u left it in a hot car the day u bought it. Maybe we should clarify who replaces what before we buy it. I think u should also let us know the name of the retailer if u get no satisfaction so we can avoid dealing with them!

[maybs]

Polymer and Luke are correct. In NSW, and probably the other states though I haven't checked, if you buy something from a retailer it has to be both 'fit for purpose' and 'of merchantable quality'. Query whether being oxidised makes wine not 'fit for purpose' if it can still be drunk but doesn't taste great. What is the purpose of wine? To get intoxicated, to enjoy the flavour etc. Not sure. I haven't thought about it in the context of wine before (drilling rigs, ladders, chairs, horses, lots of other things, but not wine!).

Either way though it would not pass the merchantable quality test, which means something is "not as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as is reasonable to expect having regard to their price, to any description applied to them by the seller and to all other circumstances." If they advertise it as a wine of excellent provenance and sound condition then tough luck to them when it is not. They are charging you as if it were. If they offered it to you are half price and said we can't confirm it has been stored well etc etc, then that MAY be a different story.

The tricky thing as pointed out is proof. Where it is TCA, that is easy because we know how that happens. Where it is oxidised or heat damaged and you have had the wine for any period of time then it could be very tricky and you are really relying on the retailer taking your word for it and not being painful.

[Chris H]

What the legality is, and what you can enforce with "faulty" wine are two different things in practise in my experience. Tends to depend on the goodwill policy of the seller as much as anything. Oxidized wine is often a cork failure but proving that is not easy if the seller won't co-operate and there is no obvious leakage.

[gpk]

Appreciate all the replies. Let me start by saying that the retailer advertises their wines as being cellared at 12.5 deg c and are all bought on release. I think this is absolutely true and that there is nothing false or misleading in their advertisement and they are a very passionate and genuine retailer.

The wine was a1999 ROSEMOUNT Chardonnay HILL of GOLD Mudgee 13.5% and had the following note with it “Made in the days when Rosemount was a very reputable label. Deep gold in the glass, pleasant nose of honeydew melon and oak. The wine reminded us mostly of a French Chablis, rounded, complex, and dry. Excellent, and still lively.”

There was nothing lively about this wine, it was dead and the deep gold in the glass was a tawny color and it tasted more like a $2 bottle of cheap sherry!

Would I have normally bought this wine…No…..and if I had and purchased it without the advertised storage conditions and accompany note I would expect the worst and call it my bad luck or stupidity for purchasing it in the first place. However in this case it was purchased as part of a select doz which could not be mixed and came with accompanying notes and advertised conditions. Therefore I thought it was fair to go back to the retailer and ask them how they handle a faulty wine that was clearly stuffed when they sold it. Their lack of communication and overall one line response has let them down and got me a tad ticked off. The bench mark has been set by other retailers and producers who have I found always respond very quickly on a faulty wine and have either replaced the wine or issued a credit.

It could be argued when did the wine become oxidized and difficult to prove, but this wine should not have been included in the select doz and was a risk the retailer took when they decided to sell it knowing that some of them could be faulty. Based on the responses and my past experience they have simply failed to back up what they sold.

Cheers Gerry

[Rocky]

Gerry

I can sympathise with you as when I was living in Singapore I learnt my lesson early buying aged Chardonnay, in my case white Burgundy. A majority straight down the sink and when I complained to the retailer all I got was a shrug of the shoulders.

To be honest I would have struggled to believe that many Aussie Chardonnays could go that distance, in your case 1999, temperature controlled or not.

Good luck in where this ends up.

Regards

[TiggerK]

Pretty sure I know the place you got it from, there are not too many places advertising that 12.5% concept here in Oz. I had good service from them a while back, but it was a bit tricky to get hold of them at times. I'll PM you a contact name/number in case it helps.

Personally, I would just keep at them until you get a result. They sold you a faulty oxidised wine, it happens. OK that wine isn't really worth much but they should at least offer to send you either another bottle of it, or even just a bottle of a decent $15-$20 chardonnay as a gesture of good faith.

[pc79]

Hi Gerry,

A bit of a tough one as maybs details. Your first port of call would be the retailer and they should, but won't always honour a replacement/refund/credit and can somethimes be a bit prickly as you have discovered. For mine, they have sent you a good that isnot representative of the description advertised. In this case, we're talking about a $15-$25 bottle of wine here. If it were a top shelf something that you'd spent considerable money on, then I would be inclined to pursue it harder.

It might just be best to take this as lesson learned. The retailer, their response and they way in which they have dealt with this has left a sour taste in your mouth (like the wine) and you will most likely not purchase from them again.

[sjw_11]

No offence, but why did you keep a 1999 Hill of Gold chardonnay for "just under a year" after you got it?? It doubt this made the difference, but its still pretty optimistic for a 15 yr old Aussie mid-tier Chardonnay to expect it to get any better than it was the day you picked it up.

I got some 2002 Roxburgh Chardonnay in 2012 (which was Rosemounts flagship white) for about $12 at auction and they were just about hanging in there ... one was pretty good, one was pretty average.

[gpk]

No offence, but why did you keep a 1999 Hill of Gold chardonnay for "just under a year" after you got it?? It doubt this made the difference, but its still pretty optimistic for a 15 yr old Aussie mid-tier Chardonnay to expect it to get any better than it was the day you picked it up.

I got some 2002 Roxburgh Chardonnay in 2012 (which was Rosemounts flagship white) for about $12 at auction and they were just about hanging in there ... one was pretty good, one was pretty average.

Hi Sam,

No offence taken, I just never got around to it as my preference is red's, which is why I bought the mixed selection in the 1st place. My follow up on this is more out of principle as I don't think it should it have been included and was always doubtful for the retailer to sell a 99 Rosemount Chardonnay as being in sound condition. From my side the bottle was clearly stuffed when they shipped it and did not match there accompanying tasting note.

cheers Gerry

[Michael McNally]

Hi Gerry

I don't think the Hill of Gold wines were made to go the distance (the 2004 vintage is listed as drink by 2008 by JH). I doubt many 90s Chardonnays other than the very top end would be alive as a lot of them sacrificed (preserving) acid for the sweeter fruit and lactic acid flavours. I don't think lactic acid persists as long as malic. Chemists chime in here any time you like......

Why they are selling a wine that is 99% sure to be past its used by date is beyond me, but my original advice still stands. They can't be selling this stuff, knowing that it's probably stuffed and not expect people to tell them to get stuffed and demand a refund.

Cheers

Michael

[sparky]

These ones always make me wince a bit..

I tend to agree that there are not many Chardys that would consistently go that distance and even fewer people who would appreciate them when they do - they probably all hang out here anyway! You're also going to find significantly increased bottle variation, regardless of storage conditions.

While I'd also recommend going back to the retailer, there's almost the philosophical question of whether the wine is actually true to style for a wine that the majority would agree is probably past it's best, and where the risk should lie. Is the wine faulty, or exactly what you'd expect for that wine at that age? Regardless of the answer to that question, there's always the 'what's good customer service' question. More visible and public social media channels such as Facebook and twitter can be quite good at getting a swift response when direct but invisible email doesn't.

When these ones to come to us as producers, (hopefully from lovely cellars where they've been quietly stored from the day of release when they were purchased directly from the winery) there's actually a fair bit of a story the cork can tell us, so always worth hanging on to. The story is never black and white though...

[rossmckay]

Appreciate all the replies. Let me start by saying that the retailer advertises their wines as being cellared at 12.5 deg c and are all bought on release. I think this is absolutely true and that there is nothing false or misleading in their advertisement and they are a very passionate and genuine retailer.

The wine was a1999 ROSEMOUNT Chardonnay HILL of GOLD Mudgee 13.5% and had the following note with it “Made in the days when Rosemount was a very reputable label. Deep gold in the glass, pleasant nose of honeydew melon and oak. The wine reminded us mostly of a French Chablis, rounded, complex, and dry. Excellent, and still lively.”

There was nothing lively about this wine, it was dead and the deep gold in the glass was a tawny color and it tasted more like a $2 bottle of cheap sherry!

Would I have normally bought this wine…No…..and if I had and purchased it without the advertised storage conditions and accompany note I would expect the worst and call it my bad luck or stupidity for purchasing it in the first place. However in this case it was purchased as part of a select doz which could not be mixed and came with accompanying notes and advertised conditions. Therefore I thought it was fair to go back to the retailer and ask them how they handle a faulty wine that was clearly stuffed when they sold it. Their lack of communication and overall one line response has let them down and got me a tad ticked off. The bench mark has been set by other retailers and producers who have I found always respond very quickly on a faulty wine and have either replaced the wine or issued a credit.

It could be argued when did the wine become oxidized and difficult to prove, but this wine should not have been included in the select doz and was a risk the retailer took when they decided to sell it knowing that some of them could be faulty. Based on the responses and my past experience they have simply failed to back up what they sold.

Cheers Gerry

I bought the same dozen and had the same experience with that wine. The other 11 were crackers though.

John and Robyn know absolutely nothing about customer service (or ecommerce for that matter) and this is why their shop in Belconnen closed down. They had plenty of stuffed wine in their shop too.

I changed storage providers before that part was shut down too, but with about three weeks notice.

[gpk]

Appreciate all the replies. Let me start by saying that the retailer advertises their wines as being cellared at 12.5 deg c and are all bought on release. I think this is absolutely true and that there is nothing false or misleading in their advertisement and they are a very passionate and genuine retailer.

The wine was a1999 ROSEMOUNT Chardonnay HILL of GOLD Mudgee 13.5% and had the following note with it “Made in the days when Rosemount was a very reputable label. Deep gold in the glass, pleasant nose of honeydew melon and oak. The wine reminded us mostly of a French Chablis, rounded, complex, and dry. Excellent, and still lively.”

There was nothing lively about this wine, it was dead and the deep gold in the glass was a tawny color and it tasted more like a $2 bottle of cheap sherry!

Would I have normally bought this wine…No…..and if I had and purchased it without the advertised storage conditions and accompany note I would expect the worst and call it my bad luck or stupidity for purchasing it in the first place. However in this case it was purchased as part of a select doz which could not be mixed and came with accompanying notes and advertised conditions. Therefore I thought it was fair to go back to the retailer and ask them how they handle a faulty wine that was clearly stuffed when they sold it. Their lack of communication and overall one line response has let them down and got me a tad ticked off. The bench mark has been set by other retailers and producers who have I found always respond very quickly on a faulty wine and have either replaced the wine or issued a credit.

It could be argued when did the wine become oxidized and difficult to prove, but this wine should not have been included in the select doz and was a risk the retailer took when they decided to sell it knowing that some of them could be faulty. Based on the responses and my past experience they have simply failed to back up what they sold.

Cheers Gerry

I bought the same dozen and had the same experience with that wine. The other 11 were crackers though.

John and Robyn know absolutely nothing about customer service (or ecommerce for that matter) and this is why their shop in Belconnen closed down. They had plenty of stuffed wine in their shop too.

I changed storage providers before that part was shut down too, but with about three weeks notice.

The cynic in me would say that they knew the wine was way past it and it should not have been sold, but they fobbed it off in the select doz.

However their advertisement said otherwise and they sold it as part of a select dozen with stated current personal tasting notes. This is what I should go by as it is the factual information available. This wine did not match that tasting note by a long shot and was not simply and aged old chardonnay that some may appreciate or even like and others not. It was truly and well stuffed, oxidized beyond belief.

From my side the facts are that the retailer sold a wine that was stuffed and did not match their stated description of the wine. My opinion was that it was oxidized which some may say is open to some debate, but if correct Australian consumer law does protect the purchaser. However what has truly let them down is their poor customer service. I will send them one last follow up e-mail to try and see if I can get a reply, but I don’t hold much hope.

Rossmckay is right, the others were fantastic and I still have a couple more reds to open and try. Regardless they should be backing all 12 bottles.

Once again thanks for everyone's replies, it is only a cheaper bottle of wine, but there is a principle behind this, which is why I do follow up on faulty bottles with retailers or producers when provenance and ownership can be clearly documented. Or in this case, I could also claim false advertisement.

Cheers

Gerry

[Polymer]

Well with two people having the same experience with their select dozen only backs the idea that they're selling known "stuffed" wines...and to me makes a strong case that they're responsible to replace it.

I agree that the principle behind it is what would be annoying...not sure it is worth pursuing other than for personal satisfaction...But I'm sure they've lost more than a few potential buyers strictly on the experience you+ross have had.

[trufflequeen]

Just googled this retailer's website out of curiosity. What an interesting website

[rens]

Just googled this retailer's website out of curiosity. What an interesting website

Made on the same day as the internet was born.

[dave vino]

Using Wayback Machine the first trawl was late 1997 and the domain was registered in August of that year. It actually looked better than it does now lol.

Looking at a price list on the site in 1997 makes for some interesting reading. How some wines have gone up dramatically in price and others have remained very similar in price.

Bin 389 was $20 a bottle
Bin 407 was $15 a bottle
Lindemans Pyrus was $27 a bottle
94 Riddoch was $60 a bottle
Wolf Blass Grey Label $25 a bottle
Vat 47 was $28 a bottle
85 Krug was $140

[redstuff]

I used to live within a few hundred metres of this place, and in the space of two years, when I moved to Brisbane and then back to Canberra, some bottles almost doubled in price.