Anyone feeling a bit spendy might want a look at this:
“A note: due to the fact that these bottles are sourced from individuals rather than commercial suppliers, we are unable to offer a refund for out of condition or faulty wines.”
Is it wrong that only the Gaja appeals to me?
I don’t know, a bottle of port from my birth year wouldn’t go amiss. I dare say the Lafite and the burgundies should be pretty special. As to actually buying any of them, however, the Gaja would be the most interesting of another list of wines I can’t afford
The Gaja is probably the most interesting, and also the cheapest.
(Obviously, I still can’t afford it so that’s purely academic “the cheapest” rather than anything useful!).
‘The village in each bottle is perfect’
I suspect they mean ‘ullage’ which mistake is another reason not to spend the sum required.
Also crazy unlawful.
is it called the because I would lose mine if I bought it ?!
It is telling that they only have one of these cases on sale, but nobody’s bitten yet!
Not tempted I’m afraid.
I’m really not sure about 1990 white burgundies.
1990 was a bumper crop with a long dry summer leading to some wines feeling a tad overripe. Better producers picked earlier injecting some much-needed freshness into the resulting wines.
Well, OK, but I had quite a few back when white burgs were more affordable and before the dreaded premox, and with the best will in the world, a certain heaviness hung over them all. A bit like 2009. I know it’s being picky, but at that price -
The pre-modern Gaja is interesting though.
also counters the marketing shpiel at the top of the page…
‘This pack represents the absolute apex of our wine lists across the Woodhead group of restaurants. Each bottle has been purchased from trusted sources with whom we have a long-standing relationship. The village in each bottle is perfect and they have all been stored with great care since they were received into our cellars.’
was talking about this to a friend and we are both a bit cynical and think it may actually be wines from their restaurant wine lists (these are currently off-line so you cant check!) …with no massive mark-up coming from restaurant sales, they have to make some money somewhere. If this is the case, their Shpiel becomes exactly that…marketing bull!
It’s a shame because I’ve had a fantastic meal there.
This is exactly what they are - wines from their wine lists that they are selling off to generate some cash - I found the link in an article about restaurants starting to do this. Found the article again - here it is:
I know this was discussed sometime ago on here but I couldn’t remember exactly what the position was…this seems a good guide
so it would appear you have 6 years in which to expect wines to be ok…unless previously described as potentially at fault (ie low neck level, capsule damage etc)
They only have one of these “packs”.
I’m only interested if they had two.
Good on them - clever bit of publicity. I admire the folk at QCH trying to generate a bit of cash & stay in business.
I’m wondering if it is deliberately overpriced (unless your clients work in the City in which case, spare change), so the offer stays in the public eye a little longer and generates more ‘noise’ ?
No doubt, but a shame that had to resort to pretending that the Consumer Rights Act doesn’t apply, when it clearly does.
Yes, that’s a sly one but in deference perhaps they didn’t know?
ignorance is no defence
They are a company that retails wine …they should know
So what happens if the retailer implicitly states that the quality of the contents is an unknown (and in all fairness, how could the retailer know, without opening the bottle?)
I’m not saying that is in QCH’s offer - I’m talking in a broader sense. The buyer would then knowingly be buying an ‘unknown’ - and under the consumer rights act have bought exactly that. If the buyer wants to delude themselves that the wine in a XX year old bottle might still be drinkable, then that’s their risk.