Almost lost in the discussion (and a good one at that) about selling what could be wines of marginal quality is the whole matter of pricing older wines.
It seems to me that in many restaurants, wines are priced by age, or scarcity, and not necessarily quality. In the case of the 1968 BV Burgundy, cited in an earlier blog this week, the price of $50 for a half-bottle seemed terribly high for what was really a cash-flow drink-me-now blend of leftover grapes.
It made me wonder whether the wine was actually for sale, or simply on the list to give it breadth and depth. And if it stayed on the list another decade, should it be worth $75 or $100, or more like $25?
I often think restaurants miss the mark with pricing older wines. I know they want to keep some prized and rare wines around, and therefore jack the prices as high as they can. Yet for some older wines, just because they’re mature, and perhaps rarer, doesn’t mean they should be more expensive. A lot of times the prices should come down as the wines decline.
Sam Chen — The Golden State — July 10, 2008 6:50pm ET
James Laube — Napa, CA — July 10, 2008 7:00pm ET
Sandy Fitzgerald — Centennial, CO — July 11, 2008 12:41am ET
Thomas Matthews — July 11, 2008 8:31am ET
Hugh L Sutherland Jr-m — miramar beach, fl — July 11, 2008 10:33am ET
Jorne Buurmeijer — Valencia Spain — July 11, 2008 12:07pm ET
Atul Kapoor — los angeles/california — July 11, 2008 12:32pm ET
Andrew Kiken — calistoga, ca — July 11, 2008 12:50pm ET
Loren Lingerfelter — Danville, CA — July 11, 2008 1:59pm ET
Dave Reuther — Deerfield, Illinois — July 12, 2008 12:13pm ET
Robert Fukushima — California — July 14, 2008 12:33am ET
Sam Chen — The Golden State — July 14, 2008 7:52pm ET
Fred Swan — California — February 7, 2009 4:29pm ET
Sips & Tips | Wine & Healthy Living
Video Theater | Collecting & Auctions