Discussion: Guide to cost sharing of bottles

[g-man]

I see a precedence in the past few NY tastings where we've moved towards utilizing Winesearcher as the reference for price point.
Where as in some of our past tastings we've represented what we've paid for at auction and split that price.
As the price is, and should, always be determined before the tasting, there should never be any confusion on what the split of cost will be.

There are pros and cons of using WS.

Pros:

-There is no questioning the cost of sourcing such bottle.
-We can ensure a 3rd party "market" rate.
-It's a hell lot easier then going around and asking all attendees for the price of their bottle.
-The person who paid much less can swing a profit and might balance out the loss on another bottle they might be bringing.

Cons:

-For some of the harder to find bottles or the more highly rated ones, there is definitely a huge difference in the retail vs. auction price.
Some of the rarer tastings would be cost prohibitive to some of our fellow tasters because of such.
-There might be disagreement on who should supply bottles if a single host wished to clear out his collection before moving abroad.

But I want to open up this discussion to get a sense of what you guys think.

[DRT]

Whilst I have not (yet) attended a event in NYC I can say that the common practice in our UK tastings is to split the actual cost of the bottles that are consumed. Many of us have supplied bottles at the price we paid for them rather than the current market rate. I can't recall a single instance of anyone asking for anything more than they paid for the bottle(s) they are contributing to the tasting.

Where the tastings are of a less formal theme and everyone just brings a bottle of something that they wish to share with others cost does not come into the equation and everyone just covers the cost of their own contribution.

Just my 2p (or is that 2c?)

Derek

[g-man]

Just my 2p (or is that 2c?)

Derek

with the way things are going, they shall soon be synonymous

[RonnieRoots]

I have a distinct preference for sharing the cost at the rate that people paid for the bottle. This is often lower than regular retail (as we all look for bargains) and, in my view, it should never be the purpose or result of a tasting that a profit is made.

Until now, most tastings that I've attended were on a basis where everyone brought a contribution, and cost of those bottles was not discussed.

[jdaw1]

Cost works for me I’ve been going with the flow to date.

[jfacciol]

It seems to me to depend upon the tastings and the rarity. For easy to find port that doesn't cost much money per bottle in a tasting where everyone is bringing his own bottle, cost makes sense to me.

For rarer and more expensive ports, it does not make sense to me. Auction prices are "cheaper" because often an entire case (or more) is being purchased instead of a single bottle. Wholesale is always less expensive than retail. In addition, UK prices (without shipping, handling and sales taxes) are cheaper than US prices. Next, how do you account for storage costs? Finally, there is a replacement cost issue, especially if the port is harder to find or more expensive. Does the person contributing the bottle have to purchase an entire case and what would the case cost now (versus when it was originally purchased)?

All in all, I am in favor of the Wine-searcher approach for most tastings that attempt to be complete and include older vintages. This allows everyone, no matter the depth of their port cellars, to participate. Another way would be to have port tastings only by invitation. In other words, if you can bring an interesting enough bottle, you are in. (When I glance at the UK tastings, this seems to be how many of them are set up.) This might work in the UK where there seems to quite a depth in TPF members' cellars: I doubt that it would work with the current group of NYC TPF members.

I sense that it causes unease among TPF members to spend the amount of money that is represented by the ports that they are drinking. Not being Madoff, I, of course, am sympathetic but don't believe that anyone should be expecting to be drinking a selection of top flight ports going back fifty years for about what a really good dinner would cost in NYC or (with even more emphasis) London. (In the New York City tastings we have often spent north of $100 a person on a meal at a restaurant.)

If we want to economize, in my view, the place to do it is in the food, not the port.

[Axel P]

Isnt the greatest thing in the life of a port afficionado to share good port with those who do cherish it? I do not think that there should be any kind off such thing as market value. We just encountered this with the Vargellas 1970, which would have increased our costs a lot. For those who bought it in the good old days, it was rather a bargain. However the price for a tasting is mandatory to be posted in advance.

I am going to charge the price of my tastings beforehand, so that one or more no-shows will not ruin your tasting financially. And that happened to me quite some times.

Anyways, these are just my two EUR-cents

Axel

[JacobH]

Isnt the greatest thing in the life of a port afficionado to share good port with those who do cherish it?

Absolutely

All in all, I am in favor of the Wine-searcher approach for most tastings that attempt to be complete and include older vintages. This allows everyone, no matter the depth of their port cellars, to participate.

I can only speak for myself (and, admittedly, I probably have the worst cellar on ) but plugging into Wine-Searcher the details of a few recent purchases, most come out at between 50-300% more expensive than what I paid for them. Although there are occasions when I do pay what I can describe as full retail price, these tend to be cheapish LBVs where I don’t mind or when I need to acquire something specific for a tasting. I’m not sure what other people do, but I rarely by VP unless I think the price represents a good deal which means that the prices on Wine-Searcher are unlikely, ever, to reflect what I paid.

But that’s all rather by-the-by. Surely the only thing that matters is that the donor and donee find a price that is equitable to both of them? And I hope that that is what currently happens.

[jfacciol]

As the person who was asked to sell the 1970 Vargellas to the UK tasting group and then was told that the price (which was comparable to a 1970 Nacional, a much easier port to find) was too high, I can see that there are quite different attitudes towards tastings.

When folks with comparable cellars are sharing a tasting, then the approach described below makes sense.

Isnt the greatest thing in the life of a port afficionado to share good port with those who do cherish it? I do not think that there should be any kind off such thing as market value.

If comparable cellars are not being shared, then there needs to be some way to even things out. Otherwise, unless everyone is a philanthropist, tastings will break down. One likely result will be that only those with excellent cellars will be allowed to participate so that there are not gross disparities in what is being contributed. (This seems to be what occurs in the UK.) Another likely result is that only anodyne tastings with no port of any real value will occur (anyone for another lbv tasting?).

Let me suggest that using a Wine-searcher driven approach is the correct way to allow everyone to participate in tastings rather than having self-selected groups only. This straight forward approach allows for tastings to be as democratic as possible.

[Glenn E.]

Like everyone else, I'm of two minds on this subject.

For a casual or small tasting, everyone brings a bottle and we're all happy. If someone wants to bring a really nice bottle, so much the better. But it's not expected for a casual event and as such would be compensated only in the form of surprise and glee on the part of the other participants. Even these small tastings typically have themes, and a theme is usually going to ensure that all of the bottles are at least reasonably within the same price range.

For a more formal tasting, especially ones for which the bottles are older and/or more difficult to source, I think some form of compensation balancing should take place. I have a dismal cellar; the only way I'm going to be able to participate in these tastings is by a) purchasing a bottle specifically for the tasting, or b) adopting a bottle from one of the other participants.

If everyone is purchasing for the event, then it makes by far the most sense to simply add up the amounts spent and split it evenly. But I suspect that will almost never be the case, as most tastings seem to occur because someone (or several someones) has a bottle or bottles that they'd like to open and share. That's where it starts to get tricky.

If everyone attending is able to source a bottle from their cellar or adopt from another's cellar, then price paid at purchase makes the most sense to me. After all, we purchase our bottles in the hopes of some day enjoying them, and what better way to enjoy a bottle than with others who will share in that enjoyment? But I, at least, would like to make sure that even that price is reasonably equivalent for everyone. There are only so many Nacionals in the world, and if someone brings one I feel like they should be compensated.

But here's the problem with using price at purchase - my cellar is barely 4 years old. I live in the US, and don't really trust US auctions. So most of my cellar was purchased using wine-searcher in the first place. The average purchase price of a bottle in my cellar is double that of the average price of a bottle in Tom's cellar. But I'd bet that the average value of a bottle in Tom's cellar is probably close to double the average value of a bottle in mine. I just bought late and had to pay the price for my tardiness. And I can't imagine that anyone would think that Tom should pay me when we both show up at a tasting. Thus the need to use wine-searcher pricing for mixed-source tastings. Tom may have only paid 30 GBP when he bought his bottle that he's bringing, but it's worth 60 now and if I were to try and buy one in the US it might be $120.

I want to be able to attend tastings with people who have deep cellars. But I can't do that unless I'm allowed to compensate the people who are bringing the really cool bottles, because my bottles just aren't that cool.

One more option: use wine-searcher pricing in the US, but only as "credit" toward participation. Tom's 30 GBP bottle would be "worth" $120 in a NYC tasting, but he wouldn't receive any cash for it unless the average bottle value at the tasting was less than the 30 GBP he originally paid.

[jdaw1]

Unusually for me, I don’t have a clear opinion.

Partly for reasons that Glenn states, using the current market price (as approximated by wine-searcher) has a fairness about it.

Using cost price after a period of luxury-goods inflation implies a certain subsidy to those who have smaller cellars. And my lack of opinion is partly because I don’t dislike that subsidy. Some of the New York TPFers made the foolish mistake of not being the eldest son of the Duke of Westminster (shockingly foolish, I know, even negligent, but there it is). If every tasting is prohibitively expensive then some might not attend, or attend less often. Which would not be good. Whereas those with sunk costs can pretend to themselves that it is worth what it then cost, rather than being worth that +interest, or even more, +luxury-goods inflation. It is a subsidy, but, prior to this thread, not an explicit one. And that self-deceit had its use.

Of course, for less-well-themed bring-a-bottle tastings, one brings a bottle.

[g-man]

All valid points.

I would like to mention the person who owns the port would always have a final say on what price they would like to receive for the port being shared.

[jfacciol]

Julian does a nice job of identifying the subsidy issue. I both enjoy subsidizing occasionally (and receiving a subsidy occasionally). But noblesse oblige is not the basis for a long term set of relationships between relative strangers. As I don't believe anyone in the New York group comes from inherited wealth, I doubt that anyone can afford or wants to subsidize everyone else on a regular basis. (I certainly do not come from landed or otherwise gentry and certainly do not want to regularly subsidize my drinking companions.)

I do agree that there is a distinct difference in approach within the NYC group. One set of folks is quite concerned about prices above $100+ per person and another set is less concerned. I belong to the latter group although, of course, there is some point at which a tasting is not worth the money to me also.

I am not sure how this gap will be bridged or if it can be.

[SushiNorth]

Recently we've used a method where -- rather than "everyone brings a bottle" -- we calculate the total cost and balance out in cash. This is a very fair approach. No-one feels they are being taken advantage of, and no-one feels they've taken advantage. The trouble is that, as the impressiveness of our tastings have increased, the total cost has skyrocketed. That places me, and perhaps others, facing this:

If every tasting is prohibitively expensive then some might not attend, or attend less often. Which would not be good.

Now, I have been able to taste bottles at our events that I could not have tasted otherwise. And for that I am appreciative. However, what I enjoy more is being able to open a few bottles of port with others who genuinely appreciate it. I would gladly pass on the 48's and 63's and 66's for the guarantee of good company, so I am motivated to calculate a bottle based on what I invested in it, rather than what it might be worth or cost to replace.

I would like to mention the person who owns the port would always have a final say on what price they would like to receive for the port being shared.

There is a replacement cost issue, especially if the port is harder to find or more expensive. Does the person contributing the bottle have to purchase an entire case and what would the case cost now (versus when it was originally purchased)?

I think it's up to each of us to determine if we can sacrifice "fair market value" for simply "making our port available to people with whom we can enjoy it." If not, we shouldn't bring or request the port. If the port is irreplacable, or we are unwilling to put it up at the bargain we got it, lets leave it out. After all, if the port is essential for a tasting, we'll source it (which is effectively the same as replacing it at fair market value).

how do you account for storage costs?

Storage, Shipping, and Tax are a different issue. I personally view this as sunk costs, and record only the cost of the bottle. I don't calculate the equivalent offsite storage costs to match square footage in my basement, nor that i have a bottle limit when returning from overseas. I probably should include tax and/or shipping, but the computations hadn't been worth it to-date. It's also worth noting that we include neither when we consider winesearcher.

So my vote is for cost, not fair market value, with the provision that the owner wouldn't offer if they weren't OK with that. If I got a deal and can pass that along, great. But as someone with a smaller cellar, I realize that in part I'm relying on the kindness of people with bigger past investments (and bargains). I don't see there being a way to balance it, and can suggest only that if someone is uncomfortable with that unbalance, let's aim for cheaper bottles.

[SushiNorth]

So my vote is for cost, not fair market value, with the provision that the owner wouldn't offer if they weren't OK with that. ...
After all, if the port is essential for a tasting, we'll source it (which is effectively the same as replacing it at fair market value).

One comment on that - obviously it works the other way too . If I got screwed on a bottle (and I've bought nearly all of my collection retail) and the group can get the bottle cheaper, elsewhere, then it might make sense to get it from the alternate source rather than covering for my bad buy!

[DRT]

Another way would be to have port tastings only by invitation. In other words, if you can bring an interesting enough bottle, you are in. (When I glance at the UK tastings, this seems to be how many of them are set up.

That just isn't true. Whilst there have been two or three invitation only events (principally where the organiser has invited people into their home) the vast majority are open to anyone who wants to attend, whether they have an interesting or relevant bottle or not. Where someone does not have a bottle to bring we will either source it from a retailer or one of the others will allow a bottle to be adopted from their cellar at cost.

A very interesting debate. My views are very closely aligned to those of SuchiNorth and JDAW.

[jfacciol]

It is always good to be a rich or a poor socialist. Those in the middle don't do so well.

Drinking is fun but, without a theme, it is just drinking--something I (like many others) enjoy and engage in occasionally. but it does not interest me intellectually, as a proper tasting does.

[jdaw1]

Drinking is fun but, without a theme, it is just drinking--something I (like many others) enjoy and engage in occasionally. but it does not interest me intellectually, as a proper tasting does.

Drinking with a theme is more interesting I wholeheartedly agree with that.

[g-man]

It is always good to be a rich or a poor socialist. Those in the middle don't do so well.

Never a truer statement. (as g-man looks around to his country's banking system)

[g-man]

To my fellow NY tasters, I would also ask your help in monitoring some of the auctions.

I've noticed a trend nowadays where alot more mix lots are being put together and in small bottle quantities usually across a particular year. ie ackers had a 3 bottle 63' of 1 taylor and 2 grahams that I believed hammered at 400.

hart davis also has various mixed house by vintage lots that could comprise of a tasting on it's own.

This might be a good alternative to pick out particular themes for tastings.

Some of them are indeed good bargains, but I usually pass unless it's a fonseca lot (and I drink dry reds 75% of the time ).

Some of the bigger auctions in NY

Ackers - http://www.ackerwines.com/onlineAuctions/
Hart Davis- http://www.hdhwine.com/content.cfm/auctions
Morrells - http://www.morrellwineauctions.com/

I'm most active on hart davis and occasionally will bid on morrells or ackers.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I'm a little late into this thread, but it strikes me that there is a "middle way" and this is more or less what happened with the 1970 Vargellas that Jay was kind enough to offer towards the recent London based 1970 tasting.

This middle way is simply that the owner of the bottle decides on the value of any bottles they are willing to contribute towards a tasting. If the owner feels that they managed to acquire an absolute fluke low priced bottle that will be impossible to replace, they simply quote what they feel is a fair replacement cost - perhaps the price of a Fonseca 1966 for a discounted mis-priced bargain basement Nacional '63. The group is then in a position to be able to look at the overall cost of a tasting and decide which bottles to include for the funds available. This seems to be what happened with the Fonseca and Taylor 1948's discussed recently.

Jay's offer for the Vargellas was fair and did not cause any complaints from this side of the Pond, but we simply decided that the tasting was already so large and expensive without the Vargellas that we would prefer to call upon Jay's generosity at another time - perhaps in a Taylor & Vargellas complete 20th Century Vertical.

My thoughts - summarised as "let the owner of the bottle quote the price he is comfortable to receive for the bottles contributed".

Alex

PS - UK tastings are open to all. We just sort out the adoptions behind the scenes.

[benread]

As someone still relatively new to the "TPF scene" and without a sufficiently well developed cellar to be able to contribute a bottle to every tasting, I come at this debate from the side of someone normally contributing cash to others who own the bottles. My take on the situation is not dissimilar to AHB, although I have been following this thread without comment since the outset.

Firstly, I can absolutely see there being different approaches on either side of the Atlantic. We Brits are somewhat more reserved and not terribly keen on discussing money. My own experience of this situation has been with the Cockburns tasting (October 2008) and the 1970 horizontal (January 2009). In one case I had nothing suitable and in the other I did, whereas others did not.

What was similar in both cases was a private discussion with the organiser where I was advised the cost in bottles or £'s for attending. In both cases, I was able to evaluate this and decide if I could 'afford' to attend. What this does require is someone knowledgeable to organise such events.

I am currently organising a tasting on 24th March, but this has been done, from the outset, on the basis of "bring a bottle you are happy to share with friends with no financial balancing". These are of course much more informal tastings and work best when the theme is clear from the outset.

If I were to summarise my view: there is no one right answer and all this needs is a little common sense on all parts to get a satisfactory outcome. Not a formulaic approach.

All of course my own personal opinion and entirely up for debate as any democracy demands!

[JacobH]

!we simply decided that the tasting was already so large and expensive!we would prefer to call upon Jay's generosity at another time - perhaps in a Taylor & Vargellas complete 20th Century Vertical.

Excluding unofficial bottlings, I make that 60 bottles!

[jdaw1]

the owner of the bottle decides on the value of any bottles they are willing to contribute towards a tasting

We Brits are somewhat more reserved and not terribly keen on discussing money.

The second quotation, with which I agree, is why AHB’s middle way (first quotation) makes me slightly uncomfortable.

[SushiNorth]

the owner of the bottle decides on the value of any bottles they are willing to contribute towards a tasting

We Brits are somewhat more reserved and not terribly keen on discussing money.

The second quotation, with which I agree, is why AHB’s middle way (first quotation) makes me slightly uncomfortable.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm personally terrible about asking for money. I undervalue, or am embarrassed to put a price tag on something. Having a system which makes me, and everyone else, feel like we're all being fair generally helps. That said, discussing $$ in PM may be better than doing it out in the open.