01438 741177         thewinesociety.com

Members Reserves Trading


#1

Something I have thought would be a good idea for some time - if members with wines in Reserves had the option to buy/sell their wines to other members.

Has the Society considered this as a possibility? Do other members think this would be a good idea?


#2

I certainly +1 this - Though the price setting mechanism for it would need discussion - Should it be determined by the society or the owner?


#3

This is quite a controversial topic given the basic ideology of the Society…


#4

Unfortunately whilst this would seem practical for members I don’t think it would be something The Society would be able to actively pursue as an option through us as like @szaki1974 says it does go against our ideology and the rules that wine bought from us is not meant to be resold.


#5

As a slight tweak of this idea - Is there a mechanism for registering interest with ‘communal’ purchases of EP or Cellar plans? I’d like to get more EP stuff but don’t really want 12 bottles of the stuff - For my taste it’s better to have 3 cases of 4 bottles or similar.

I appreciate the idea of ‘buy to drink’ rather than invest but i’m one of those who seeks variety rather than quantity.


#6

It’s just something I thought would be useful, much as I thought a discussion forum would be! :grin:

Sometimes tastes change and we might want to offload wines. On the other hand it would give opportunities to obtain wines no longer available for general sale.

If against rules perhaps these could be amended to allow between members.


#7

I think it’s a great idea - I would use it both as buyer and seller - for the reasons suggested…

TWS would generate extra commissions and members would find an expanded portfolio of wines

I imagine some conflict of interest possible where TWS still has stock but it could be managed either prescriptively (not possible) or more gently (TWS stock takes priority/price limits in place).

I would have thought the rule against resale would become irrelevant if all business was conducted within TWS portal.


#8

I am 100% on board with this idea.

I won’t sulk if this actually happens.

There is also the issue of limited allocation wines (limited to X bottles per member, until stocks last and en primeur oversubscribed and allocated based on “past support”) - these should be very carefully thought about when setting up a trading platform.


#10

I’m sure there could be a code of conduct for this process as i imagine all members believe in the ethical and fair trading of reserves. I think this could be done with max transparency e.g. original purchase price and year etc so no buyer is overcharged. The only thing left would be to charge any storage or supplementaries.

This would be a job for the web designers but if they are in the ws reserves it’s just a case of amending a database…no?

I think this would be very useful for where reserves were obtained prior to a buyer joining the society or they couldn’t get allocation.

Alternatively a ‘for sale/sought’ section could be created with every post demanding the above details.


#11

I think that is very important - that there be no opportunity to secure an investment profit from a secondary market.


#12

Also plus small admin fee for the ws team to reallocate. You’d also have the additional task of monitoring payment…what happens if someone pulls a dispute in paypal following transfer or similar


#13

You guys know that you can already auction off wine that you no longer want… I once approached TWS if they would take back a case I thought I no longer wanted and was directed to the link below… decided to keep it and drink


#14

I think the link is broken or the page has been removed


#15

I think that the idea is a terrific one.
But it has the potential to be an administrative nightmare for the society.
And why should non-participating members suffer the admin costs involved.
And if and when disputes occur, who referees the dispute and who pays for that?

How about a simple system that did not directly involve TWS.
On a thread, a member could put up one wine only at a time for sale.
It would have to be at original cost.
If another member wanted to buy it, he/she would say so.
Cash would be exchanged external to TWS.
The wine must be sent to the buyers address.

But, I have no doubt that there would be issues.
And some member lawyer out there could probably write a 3 page epistle on liability etc.

There are other places that a member could set up a website.
It could have an LCB account associated with it.
Join the dots and you have a mechanism or even a business.

We should not do anything that has the potential to cost the Society or infringes it’s well established rules, that should and MUST be unthinkable.


#16

I don’t think that I knew that.
Would it be DP or ex cellars, i.e. In Bond?


#17

If TWS charges appropriate commission on all secondary market activity I can’t see this problem arising

Is that a direct quote from Life of Brian? :wink:


#18

How about wines only available in ws reserves to ensure security for both parties? Every transaction has an admin fee for database amendment and handling in the storage facility to prevent subsidy by non-trading members.


#19

Also agree a wonderful idea, with all the caveats re society rules & general ethics/fairness etc as in earlier posts.

When buying EP I am generally drawn away from anything sold in case of 12 for the same reasons @Nowt_in_my_glass mentioned earlier. I do quite like having 3-6 bottles to taste over the course of a drinking window, but also want to try as many different wines as possible. Therefore a mechanism to split EP cases between 2or3 members who wished to would be a welcome opportunity.

I guess the general secondary market is more of a minefield though.


#20

Fixed the auction link now


#21

Maybe the easiest way is communal purchase with the ep offer order form offering whole, half or third of cases and members only being successful if enough interested parties participate. That way there need not be any interaction with negotiation, just allocation where enough people ‘fit’