01438 741177         thewinesociety.com

Again... why not one bottle per member for sought-after wines?


If I am buying to lay down, I always prefer a six pack or indeed a full case. For very expensive wines (e.g. Roumier 1ers), a single bottle is OK as I know I will be leaving until solidly into it’s drinking window.

For example with Barolo, which can be rather fickle in terms of closed periods, I would prefer to follow over several years. If I had just one Monvigliero, the chances of opening it at an opportune time are not great.


I understand the feelings of everyone on this list. Its the problem that arises with everything material. As a young person i had an obsession for books. I purchased a book for 5p and then at some time got rid of it . Now i find i could buy it for £800!. Do i regret giving it away? A bit but not much . I could buy it again if i wanted but i dont. Its the problem with all possessions wine or books. When we buy our possessions we seen them as objects of desire. However there primary function is to produce income for someone. They are commodities.
One of the secrets of a good life i think is not to get hung up about possessions . If i am wealthy enough to be able to buy antiquarian books or fine wine. I perhaps should see myself fortunate, but also to recognise what a great responsibility i have. So many people in the world are poor . My first responsibility is too care for them and my enjoyment is secondary. This is my aim, sometimes i realise it ,but often i muddle along in between the aims.

Excuse my philosophical musings . It doesnt help the person who thinks the society should limit the bottles sold to any one person. It may be they could limit a case to anyone individual. Limiting it by bottles may involve too much work for Society staff. However I cant worry to much about these expensive bottle of wine . Which i would never consider it morally right to buy . However every one is equally entitled to their own views of course!


No, its refreshing to have an altruistic view on this so thank you.


What a good idea, depending on the numbers you get, the alliance or more appropriately the cartel could end up with all the wine. I am sure their joy would be far more beneficial to the spirit of the Society than the disappointment of those that received no allocation.

It is quite simple if you don’t like the rules of the game [in this case the allocation process] don’t play the game.


I’ve been buying EP since 2010. Sometimes I have been disappointed by not receiving an allocation. notably a St Aubin blanc that I’d bought in 2012 and 2013 but didn’t get in the stellar vintage of 2014.

Other times I’ve been surprised by receiving an allocation for wines I didn’t expect to get. Notably, Gonon’s St- Joseph rouge in 2013 and 2014 ( didn’t go for the 2015 due to a substantial increase in the EP price ).

Over all, I’ve really enjoyed the thrill of the chase. successful or not. When disappointed, and it can be gutting when you’ve set your heart on a wine, I try and console myself with the fact that something equally appealing is probably just around the corner.

With regard to the Monvigliero , the price of that, and the demand on it, really shot up after the 2013(?) received a single 100 point review which seemed to result in in being elevated to cult / trophy status. I have more of a beef with that and the resultant price hike than I do with the allocation process as such.

Personally, I would be happy to receive a reduced allocation if it meant other members got a look-in too.


I understand why you have a badge for being empathetic. I applaud you for it


Is it actually TWS’s duty to apply any form of restriction on the Member’s purchasing choices?

As I see it, TWS prime function is to buy wisely in bulk, and sell onwards to the Members in particular - and that is the end of it. ANY quantity (1, 3, 6 etc) is an arbitrary figure, it’s not TWS place to decide/ apply any restrictions.


Sounds a bit like the tire old neoliberal mantra beloved by the hard brexit loonies. Surely government’s role is to govern, and take decisions accordingly?

And isn’t this what makes the Society different from any other regular wine business? And don’t we want it to stay that way?


@lapin_rouge: Is it actually TWS’s duty to apply any form of restriction on the Member’s purchasing choices?

Not sure I’m correctly understanding. It sounds like your suggestion is the richest/quickest members get whatever they want and the rest can have whatever’s left. Is that right?

But TWS is not restricting any choices - I can choose to order 10000 bottles of Chateau D’Yquem if I want - but whether I’ll get them or not is another matter. What TWS is doing is accepting all orders and then trying to find the “best” solution when demand exceeds supply. Without this happening wouldn’t TWS just become a sort of private buyers club for a few very fortunate members?


theres clearly no answer which will make everyone happy, but then again there’s no guarantee that anyone will get any bottles of every wine that they are after. Personally i’d prefer a few bottles rather than singles if there were a choice, if i get a single thats fine and if i miss out thats fine too, there are plenty more hard to find wines out there that i can request, some i will get and some I won’t.


The Society has reviewed and revised the allocation of Monvigliero. Everyone is now getting a total of 125ml via Coravin :wink::wink::wink:


Realistically; we are talking about bottles of fermented grape juice. It does not really matter if a member gets ‘allocated’ one bottle or a dozen.

Personally, I’m happy with the current system - whatever it is - and see little benefit in applying a complex algorithm to TWS wine allocation policy. To quote those younger than I ‘snooze you lose’


I suggested this after either Chavegate or Benetieregate. I think it is a good workaround and would happily participate for both EP and future ‘open’ releases of small quantity wines. However I still believe TWS would be better served by delinking its reserves system and whole case purchases, and allowing completely flexible withdrawals for a charge.


They must apply some restriction otherwise a rich member could buy the lot.
Theres no reason why they cant apply a restriction. I suspect any restriction would be by the case as that would be easier to administer. Its the sort of question that needs answering by a member of staff. I have noticed supermarkets applying restrictions on wine case offers . So i see no reason why the wine society could do the same. It doesn’t bother me one way or the other as i am unlikely to be willing to pay the prices of fine wines.


Fair enough. I suggest 3, but likewise it’s not something that I will have to worry about.