The Auswine Forum

I've just spoken to the retailer I purchased a dozen 1998 Metala Black label from back in 2001. A couple of days ago, I'd returned a seriously corked bottle, along with the original store receipt. I advised them at the visit that another bottle from the same case which I'd opened immediately afterwards was perfectly OK.

It appears the offer from the Blas rep is to replace it with 2 bottles of current Metala white label. Their claim is that they can't determine how the wine has been stored and therefore seem to want to wash their hands of it by substituting a few bottom-shelf bottles for a top-shelf wine.

I've never had to take a wine that I've bought so long ago back to a retailer before, so I'm not sure of their obligations. Does anybody have any experiences or comments about what should be the right thing for the retailer and the winery to do?

Considering I fronted up with the nearly-full foul-smelling bottle, and the original store receipt as proof of purchase, I thought it would be a simple matter to resolve. It appears not, and so I can only vote with my feet and avoid both Annandale Cellars and any wine produced by the Blas group. In their defence, the store did advise me they have not kept Metala Black since the 1998 release.

It certainly doesn't match the experiences I've read about in these forums from other more customer-conscious wineries.

Am I being unreasonable here? Is 4 years too long to wait for returning a corked wine?

Contact the customer service direct.
There no time limitation regarding this in the ACCC act.
If the wine is tca corked then it was corked from day one.

You are entitled to a replacement bottle of current vintage or the 98 if they have it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Tell us how you go- most vineyards are brilliant and amicable.

michel

It appears the offer from the Blas rep is to replace it with 2 bottles of current Metala white label. Their claim is that they can't determine how the wine has been stored and therefore seem to want to wash their hands of it by substituting a few bottom-shelf bottles for a top-shelf wine.

I'd ask for the Blass Rep's superior and get him to arrange for the Rep in question to be educated as to what TCA is.

If the wine is corked (ie TCA contaminated) it's stuffed from the moment the wine touches the offending cork. It has absolutely nothing to do with the way you store your wine, it's a production fault and the winery shouldn't have a problem replacing it with an equivalent (if available).

If the wine was faulty due to random oxidisation, then the question of storage conditions may come up.

The current replacement offer may just be due to the retailer's/supplier's lack of equivalent stock, which may be a fair enough reason. The quote from the Blass Rep in question is pure rubbish.

Cheers
Ian

Frosty,


You should be offered either a replacement '98 or a current/recent vintage which is satisfactory (or equivalent to the quality of the '98 ). While I like the white label Metala, you should get a Black label in exchange. Storage conditions have little to do with TCA taint, so they have nothing to say there. You should try and contact Beringer Blass directly if you have no joy with either your retailer or the rep.


webmaster@beringerblass.com.au

Beringer Blass Wine Estates
77 Southbank Blvd
Southbank VIC 3006
Tel. (03) 86263300




Jamie

frosty,

Under the Trade Practices Axct you a clearly untitled to a satisfactory refund or exchange for TCA taint wine (ie a wine with a manufacturing fault).

It is you, the consumer, that determines whether or not what is offered is satisfactory, not the retailer or rep*.

The rep cannot offer an unsatisactory exchange and say like it or lump it. Note that the 'satisfactory exchange'could be an alternate wine, however given the Blass rep is involved a Metala Black label should be offered.

The line about 'not knowing about subsequent storage' is completely irrelevant to TCA tainted wine, and shows a concerning lack of awareness by retailer and rep. TCA taint enters the wine (or before) at time of bottling and is a manufacturing fault by definition. (If you were claiming an oxidised or cooked wine it'd be a different situation, but this is a TCA tainted wine).

Tainted wine, with a receipt, it's open and shut.

Go back to the store, and to Beringer Blass and receive your due rights as a consumer.

Murray

*Obviously you've got to be reasonable about this, you can't expect a Grange for a corked Bin 28.

michel wrote:You are entitled to a replacement bottle of current vintage or the 98 if they have it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Michel,

Just to clarify as I noted above, frosty is entitled to satisfactory refund or exchange, it doesn't have to be the same vintage or the same label. It could be a diiferent wine, of equivalent quality of course, to the 1998 Metala Black. The key factor is whether frosty considers what is offered to be satisfactory ( while being reasonable of course).

Sorry to be pedantic, but I've looked into this quite a bit.

Frosty,

It's irrelevent how it has been stored, it could have been in the boot of your car for 4 years, makes no difference to the issue of cork taint. Make sure you make this clear to them, TCA is not a storage issue.

Cheers

.... and if they can't offer you a replacement that is accepatble to you, the retailer, by law, has to give you a refund; no ifs and no buts.

Thanks everyone! I'm encouraged by all of your responses. The weight of opinion seems to be in my favour to stand ground and hope they play fair.

I'm the first to admit that I really didn't know where I stood, but I must state that I always expected (hoped?) retailers and winemakers would do the right thing, especially when evidence of purchase and high probability of TCA is provided. Again, to be fair, only the retailer and Blas rep have been involved so far, so it's early days.

I'll post more information as the situation unfolds so others can benefit from the episode.

Thanks again.

Fully agree with my learned colleagues, frosty - don't be shy to press the issue!
I have a similar situation with one major difference - had a corked 1994 cabernet, which I contacted the (small) winery about early this year, offering to send the remains to them. Don't have any receipt, however, and not 100% sure how I sourced the wine, seeing it had been resting in my cellar for almost 10 years.
Winemaker did not want the bottle/remains to be sent to him - asked if I was on mailing list (no) asked if I had proof of purchase (no, but I let him know I've got a couple more bottles of the same wine, as well as three quarters of the offending article in the fridge). Then said he had no 1994's, and the price of his cabernet had increased substantially since the 1994 vintage (intimating that a current vintage replacement would not be a fair replacement)
Basically would not replace the bottle - how do I stand in this situation? (In retrospect, I think I should have sent the corked remains immediately to the winery off my own bat without asking - something I've done frequently with other wine producers, and invariably received a bottle in return)

Mark S wrote:Fully agree with my learned colleagues, frosty - don't be shy to press the issue!
I have a similar situation with one major difference - had a corked 1994 cabernet, which I contacted the (small) winery about early this year, offering to send the remains to them. Don't have any receipt, however, and not 100% sure how I sourced the wine, seeing it had been resting in my cellar for almost 10 years.
Winemaker did not want the bottle/remains to be sent to him - asked if I was on mailing list (no) asked if I had proof of purchase (no, but I let him know I've got a couple more bottles of the same wine, as well as three quarters of the offending article in the fridge). Then said he had no 1994's, and the price of his cabernet had increased substantially since the 1994 vintage (intimating that a current vintage replacement would not be a fair replacement)
Basically would not replace the bottle - how do I stand in this situation? (In retrospect, I think I should have sent the corked remains immediately to the winery off my own bat without asking - something I've done frequently with other wine producers, and invariably received a bottle in return)

You are entitled to a satisfactory exchange or refund. The very least the winemaker should offer is a refund of the original purchase price. This meets only the absolute letter of the law, with no allowance for customer service, brand loyalty or any concern for retaining you as a customer, as well as a distrurbing level of disdain for the broader industry.

Note as I said above, according to the ACCC it is you who determines whether the offer is satisfactory.

Murray wrote:

michel wrote:You are entitled to a replacement bottle of current vintage or the 98 if they have it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Michel,

Just to clarify as I noted above, frosty is entitled to satisfactory refund or exchange, it doesn't have to be the same vintage or the same label. It could be a diiferent wine, of equivalent quality of course, to the 1998 Metala Black. The key factor is whether frosty considers what is offered to be satisfactory ( while being reasonable of course).

Sorry to be pedantic, but I've looked into this quite a bit.

No worries Murray- from reading the act I see you are indeed correct.

I have a retailer who knows me and they have never blinked at a return. They never taste to see if they think the wine is corked and they replace with the current release (or >= equivalent from the same distributor). Most of my recent returns have been early to mid 1990's rieslings. Roll on stelvin.

Doug