Just had a marketing email from Nickolls and Perks offering a 3 bottle case of Roumier Bonnes-Mares 2005. A mere snip at £11,000! I think my tea went down the wrong way at this juncture. The email then goes on to talk about the provenance of the wine. Bought from and stored at TWS. Now, I know nothing of the circumstances relating to the resale. But I would have thought the profit will be huge on this and whilst possibly compliant with the present rules (the Member has passed away or their, ahem, tastes have changed) it is a shame that the TWS does not have first refusal. Resale to Members and at what price and how to allocate comes with its own challenges I admit. But on balance I feel it would be a more equitable outcome:
"I am very pleased to offer the extremely rare, highly rated and iconic 2005 Bonnes Mares from perhaps the most sought after producer in the whole of Burgundy; Domaine Georges Roumier.
The quality and in turn demand for the wines of Domaine Georges Roumier under the tutelage of Christophe Roumier has soared in recent years. Christophe is undoubtedly one of the most talented and finest winemakers in the world.
This case comes in a The Wine Society re-pack, however it is offered duty and VAT paid, so no VAT to pay!
You will rarely find a case with such provenance, having being purchased from and stored with The Wine Society since release…
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
|x1|3/75cl|2005|Bonnes Mares Grand Cru Domaine Georges Roumier|£11,000.00|DP|"
I’m sorry but it’s completely absurd to suggest that TWS should have any say what someone would.do with their wine 17(!) years after purchase. 11k is an amount of money that could significantly change someone’s circumstances, and I don’t think anyone should feel guilty for selling a wine they might have wanted to drink at whatever price they paid 15+ years ago but no longer do at 3.5-4k a bottle.
Hardly absurd. I do buy wine at auction from time to time and I am surprised the amount of times wine from TWS is up for sale and still in storage at TWS. Purchase with the intention of resale is against the rules which we, as Members, agree to abide. There are exceptions which are clearly difficult to police. It is obvious is it not that if you buy a top quality wine in a stellar vintage from a stellar producer from a highly sought after region, that with the passage of time and increasing scarcity it will be worth considerably more than when you bought it XX years ago. Intent is the key, if opaque, factor. It is open to abuse and I think it is. Some highly sought after Domain Dujac was offered by TWS in February of this year and within minutes the most sought bottles after were snaffled and offered for sale on a third party site. Many witnessed it. Whatever, if you feel there is nothing to see and it is absurd for anyone to comment then that is your opinion.
I think there’s quite a clear distinction between buying something and trying to back-to-back sell it on on a third party site the same day and buying something, holding it for 17 years and selling it because the price has gone beyond a value that you would get any enjoyment out of drinking it at.
While I do agree that flipping is distasteful and should be discouraged, I think the better route is to approach it at point of sale. Measures like limiting bottles per member have significantly reduced the incentive to purchase with the intent to resell, and the ability for any potential reseller to clear out available stock.
The practicalities obviously rule out any kind of investigations into intent of purchase, but regardless I think perhaps we just ideologically disagree. The idea of any entitlement to what another member bought over a decade ago, or the kind of social redistribution of the value of their possessions is very alien to me.
This also only looks obvious in hindsight. Certainly wouldn’t have been such a foregone conclusion prior to the relatively recent phenomenon of ballistic burgundy values.
Yet… ‘them’s the rules’ … when one signs up for TWS membership one agrees to the rules.
You might compare (on a different scale) to buying a property with a deed of covenant upon it - this obligation can last in perpetuity and is passed on to future owners.
Of course there is a clear distinction between immediate flipping and longer term ownership and eventual re-sale and many reasons why the latter may legitimately come about. I take your point re the relatively recent phenomenon re the desirability and pricing of Burgundy wine in particular. I think nevertheless the investment (permitted or not) thesis applies equally to wines available today. Indeed restricting how many of of the hot shot wines can be purchased is an obvious mitigant. I did not say any of this was easy or susceptible to a ready solution. I still believe that one outlet for Members unwanted wines should be TWS itself as part of the “mutual” ethos, even if not a right of first refusal for TWS.
Admittedly in circumstances where the wine in question commands eye-watering prices on the secondary market it is difficult. Seeing 3 bottles being marketed at £11K is quite exceptional. Well, I find it so.
Them’s are not the rules though. It is against the rules to purchase with intent to resell. It is most definitely not against the rules to purchase with intent to drink, then change your mind 15 years later and sell because circumstances have changed.
I know of an Independent Whisky Bottler - where bottles are individually numbered and can be traced back to whoever bought said numbered bottle.
Bearing in mind that a highly sought after whisky can sell for £300 to £3000 (and much more) The Indy has stated that if any of his sought after bottling’s appear at auction, the seller will be barred from any future purchases.
Ah… I was referring to instances where the wine (or whisky) appears on auction the same year.
Or because you have died and this is a sale by your executor, which seems to me possible, given the elapse of time.
Indeed. The rules permit one to die with wine left over. I believe it is frowned upon though.
Definitely poor form. Perhaps something for the AGM before standards slip any further!
Yes, they like cash more than wine now?
Yes, look the black balls out, what?
I tried mine, wow it is good to go. The aromatics are insane
With Waitrose’s offer coming tomorrow I’m eyeing up some nice bottles for Xmas day this one in particular has caught my eye https://www.waitrosecellar.com/pommard-les-noizons-domaine-arceln-407804
With 12 years of age is this seems like a good price to me.
Has anyone tried this? Will it still be drinking ok?
Good year, Pommard usually has the legs to last. Only one way to find out…
I had this and my bottle was corked. Can’t find the Waitrose receipt. Aarh
Hi I am looking for the Community’s thoughts about when to drink Domaine Tollot-Beaut Aloxe Corton 2014. TWS drinking dates are 2019-2022. A local independent has 20-30. I read somewhere else in the community that TWS can be a bit conservative. I haven’t drunk much Burgundy - though I have been enjoying the Bellavoine Pinot Noir a lot. Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of this wine they could share? Thank you.
I have limited experience with Aloxe Corton but I believe the TWS is conservative. Earlier this year TWS offered a premier cru Aloxe Corton and I got a couple to try and it was drinking beautifully. That was a 2005. I think it also depends on personal preference and how you like your wines.
I think it should be drinking fine now and over the next few years.
TWS can be conservative I agree.
I’ve drunk a fair few Tollot-Beaut over the years, but haven’t had the Aloxe Corton for some time (well before 2014!) . I note that it was replanted in 2007, so fairly young vines, which may in part explain why they have quite a short drinking window. I have the 2015 Savigny and Chorey les Beaune (had the first bottle of the former this week) , but the 2014 is more forward than that.
Tollot-Beaut is a fairly forward, fleshy round style usually.
I think you would be ok for a couple of years yet, but not sure about 2030!