jmpdelos


quality posts: 1 Private Messages jmpdelos
SonomaBouliste wrote:I raised the price because I think the 2007 is significantly better than the 2005 and 2006. I'm stashing more of this wine for my personal cellar than any other wine I've ever made.



I have more of your wines in the cellar than any other and this was already my largest holding before the half a case I added today.

I suppose at some point you'll run low and stop offering more here so I can stop compulsively clicking the big yellow button :-)

Thanks for the great juice!

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
rmm989 wrote:For people that are scared of the price, this is a great place to try a really incredible wine at a price that's a great value.


I'm not really 'scared' of the price per se. I have a few $40-$50 bottles stored now, and one that IIRC was $75 when I bought it a few years back.

But I don't often spend that much on wine, and I currently have a glut of what I consider to be excellent wines waiting to be consumed, all of which cost me less than $30 per bottle, and many of which were less than $20. The simple fact is that I just don't have the storage space available right now and I and find it... unrewarding (maybe not the best word, but having trouble coming up with the right one) to pay so much for a wine that has to be rested for years before it sees its fullest potential.

In the end, it's just more stock for you, right?

chipgreen


quality posts: 152 Private Messages chipgreen
SonomaBouliste wrote:I raised the price because I think the 2007 is significantly better than the 2005 and 2006. I'm stashing more of this wine for my personal cellar than any other wine I've ever made.


Hi Peter, thanks for joining us again! I've heard some people call 2006 a "sleeper" vintage for CA, saying that its wines may have the structure to age better and longer than the 2007 wines which are considered to be generaly superior, much like what some are saying about 2010 Bordeaux vs. 2009. Any thoughts on the matter?

rmm989


quality posts: 26 Private Messages rmm989
moondigger wrote:I'm not really 'scared' of the price per se. I have a few $40-$50 bottles stored now, and one that IIRC was $75 when I bought it a few years back.



Comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and usually there's a lot of people who are afraid to spend this much on a bottle untasted. Meant that a bottle of Victory is about as sure of a bet as wine.woot gets.

Been in the same spot as you before - sitting on a bunch of great wine, but no daily drinkers around. it sucks.

CT

andreaserben


quality posts: 21 Private Messages andreaserben
SonomaBouliste wrote:The pricing decision came before the rating.


Good to know - though I would not have blamed you if you would have cranked up the price to meet higher demand

chipgreen


quality posts: 152 Private Messages chipgreen
rmm989 wrote:Comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and usually there's a lot of people who are afraid to spend this much on a bottle untasted. Meant that a bottle of Victory is about as sure of a bet as wine.woot gets.

Been in the same spot as you before - sitting on a bunch of great wine, but no daily drinkers around. it sucks.


I've got too much of both and 3 of these already but still finding it hard to resist....

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
rmm989 wrote:Been in the same spot as you before - sitting on a bunch of great wine, but no daily drinkers around. it sucks.


It does suck. I have a hard time convincing myself to open a $25 Meritage or Super Tuscan on a Wednesday night, knowing I'm going to have only a glass or two at most, leaving 3-4 glasses to oxidize in the bottle if SWMBO is more in the mood for Chardonnay. Even if she wants some of the red it still leaves a couple glasses in the bottle.

Fortunately some of these wines will not deteriorate that rapidly and are still good on Thursday, but there are no guarantees.

So despite the glut of great bottles I still find myself picking up inexpensive daily drinker bottles that I don't feel guilty about opening on a week night.

smlauren


quality posts: 0 Private Messages smlauren

Why can't I find this on the Wellington website?

Now I guess I don't care why it's not on the website, cause it's not on here anymore.
I really want to use a lot of profanity right now.
How does it go from 77% to 76% to sold out in a matter of minutes???
Your percentage sold algorithm is efffed up.

439 Bottles
$8,531.53
Avg. cost per bottle $19.43

SonomaBouliste


quality posts: 227 Private Messages SonomaBouliste
chipgreen wrote:Hi Peter, thanks for joining us again! I've heard some people call 2006 a "sleeper" vintage for CA, saying that its wines may have the structure to age better and longer than the 2007 wines which are considered to be generaly superior, much like what some are saying about 2010 Bordeaux vs. 2009. Any thoughts on the matter?


Vintage ratings are generalizations, especially if you're talking about the entire stae of California. Even vintage rating of a county, such as Napa or Sonoma, is tricky. Then throw in different varietals and winemaking styles... As an example, in a half hour or so, you can drive from Carneros (as cool as Burgundy in parts) to Calistoga (as warm as the southern Rhone).

Each winemaker's opinions of a vintage are colored by his / her success. One year might be awesome for a Pinot producer in western Sonoma County yet weak for a Cab producer in St. Helena or vice versa.
My personal take on 2006 is that it was a weak year for Zin but a very good year for Cabernet and related varieties. We get the latter from some very cool (for Cabernet) sites, so this may not translate to other regions or wineries.

SonomaBouliste


quality posts: 227 Private Messages SonomaBouliste
smlauren wrote:Why can't I find this on the Wellington website?



New release. w00t exclusive for now.

btphillips


quality posts: 4 Private Messages btphillips
chipgreen wrote:I've got too much of both and 3 of these already but still finding it hard to resist....



My three bottles of the 2007 Victory are lonely

smlauren


quality posts: 0 Private Messages smlauren
SonomaBouliste wrote:New release. w00t exclusive for now.



I tried to do a little research to see if I wanted 1 or 3. I love your wine. Had decided to go with 3 and then there's #!@$ olives!! When it had been 76% remaining like only 2 minutes before that.

439 Bottles
$8,531.53
Avg. cost per bottle $19.43

chipgreen


quality posts: 152 Private Messages chipgreen
SonomaBouliste wrote:Vintage ratings are generalizations, especially if you're talking about the entire stae of California. Even vintage rating of a county, such as Napa or Sonoma, is tricky. Then throw in different varietals and winemaking styles... As an example, in a half hour or so, you can drive from Carneros (as cool as Burgundy in parts) to Calistoga (as warm as the southern Rhone).

Each winemaker's opinions of a vintage are colored by his / her success. One year might be awesome for a Pinot producer in western Sonoma County yet weak for a Cab producer in St. Helena or vice versa.
My personal take on 2006 is that it was a weak year for Zin but a very good year for Cabernet and related varieties. We get the latter from some very cool (for Cabernet) sites, so this may not translate to other regions or wineries.


Thank you for the thoughtful response!

chipgreen


quality posts: 152 Private Messages chipgreen
smlauren wrote:I tried to do a little research to see if I wanted 1 or 3. I love your wine. Had decided to go with 3 and then there's #!@$ olives!! When it had been 76% remaining like only 2 minutes before that.


Yes, they made the decision for me too. Zero it is, unless Peter has started using plastic olive barrels to bottle his wine.

North316


quality posts: 107 Private Messages North316
chipgreen wrote:Yes, they made the decision for me too. Zero it is, unless Peter has started using plastic olive barrels to bottle his wine.



Brine Wine

My CT
"Trust your homies on the net", Clark Smith.
R.I.P. Inkycatz - Feb. 2013

zortapa


quality posts: 0 Private Messages zortapa
chipgreen wrote:Yes, they made the decision for me too. Zero it is, unless Peter has started using plastic olive barrels to bottle his wine.



With so many wines spontaneously dropping to "Sold Out", I am beginning to think that they might have a silent clock on these items to ensure turnover for those that are not selling as quickly as desired.

garrowood


quality posts: 0 Private Messages garrowood
zortapa wrote:With so many wines spontaneously dropping to "Sold Out", I am beginning to think that they might have a silent clock on these items to ensure turnover for those that are not selling as quickly as desired.



I suspect that too.