redwinefan


quality posts: 74 Private Messages redwinefan
cmaldoon wrote:Or, WTSO Buys a 10,000 case block and shoulders all the risk of storing and selling whereas WCC never "buys" the wine, only sells it and then either they or Ty ship it out. Ty would be reasonably able to sell for a lower price for an easy large volume sale with a single shipment.



Yes, I agree it's something along these lines. Especially with Ty, it looks like WTSO buys up all of the Winemaker's Cuvee which probably is a nice, dependable payday for him which he can count on for each vintage.

It seems like WTSO has also locked up all the good Tallulah deals lately as well.

"You need to invest in a corkscrew. Wine is for drinking." -- Peter Wellington

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen

Apologies to anyone who gets upset when price/value is discussed. I did make a point of keeping it out of the main product thread this time. I am not a fan of generic whining either, like when it comes to wishing wine.woot could go back in time to 2 years ago when practically every offer was an incredible deal. That's not reality and has to be accepted.

However, I do feel that discussions about WW pricing vs. current pricing at similar venues are relevant.

I also think it's relevant to point out if a previous WW offer for the same wine was priced higher or lower and I have pointed out both a number of times. Sometimes when I point out that it's priced higher than before, people complain that it's whining about an inevitable price hike but curiously, nobody ever complains when I point out that the price has gone down.

We all have different reasons for being WW customers just as we all have different palates when it comes to wine tasting. Some of us like to feel that we're getting a "deal" all the time. I am guilty as charged and admit that it's somewhat of a mental block occasionally and has caused me to sit out some offers that I later regretted not purchasing.

Moreover, I am a numbers guy. I love statistics and enjoy studying and/or figuring out various stats and percentages in relation to whatever topic is being discussed, whether it's sports, finance, wine, etc.

So, thanks for tolerating the discussion at hand for those who find it distasteful/uninteresting/petty/whatever. I am actually still thinking about going in for a set as I don't have any of these wines and I do realize that it's highly unlikely that I can get these specific Ty wines/vintages for less anywhere else despite the apparent incongruity between WTSO and WW pricing.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
redwinefan wrote:Yes, I agree it's something along these lines. Especially with Ty, it looks like WTSO buys up all of the Winemaker's Cuvee which probably is a nice, dependable payday for him which he can count on for each vintage.

It seems like WTSO has also locked up all the good Tallulah deals lately as well.



Ty may have made the wine specifically for WTSO. They may have commissioned it from blossom.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
moondigger wrote:Why do you think that?

I have a, admittedly vague, remembrance of reading comments, I believe here on woot, where Ty mentioned the cuvee was created to sell excess juice, leftovers of his vineyard designate bottles. A blend he didn't want to market on his website at a discounted price. perhaps I over-spoke regarding lesser quality such that too much was read into it.

I liken the cuvee to Peters' Duke series releases; they are variable in quality, made of leftovers and sold at a lower price than his top tier releases.

CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
chipgreen wrote:33% higher than WTSO's price from yesterday, that is a pretty significant bump.

Woot also sold, plus listing, Ty's 2010 Ty Tanium for $47/btl, plus shipping, that lists for $80 on Ty's site. WTSO sold the same for $35/btl FS/3. So WTSO can, and does, sell identical bottles for less than WD/WCC can now that Amazon is in the mix.

CT

bsevern


quality posts: 109 Private Messages bsevern
rjquillin wrote:I liken the cuvee to Peters' Duke series releases; they are variable in quality, made of leftovers and sold at a lower price than his top tier releases.



Got to disagree with this. The Wellington Duke, while a good QPR if you like it, is a kitchen sink leftover blend of anything and everything. Much more like the Pedroncelli Friends Red, an OK everyday drinker if it's your style.

Ty's Cuvee, while also a blend, is from his single block estate mountain vineyard cabs.

Apples and oranges IMHO.

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
noslensj wrote: {snipped} Honing my Occam's razor, I tilt to the explanation that he's producing more juice than he can sell under his existing pricing structure and is moving it at clearance sale prices in a way that he hopes will minimally disrupt his overall pricing structure.

This is fully consistent with what I believe I read either here or elsewhere.

Also concur with your general assessments snipped above.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
rjquillin wrote:Woot also sold, plus listing, Ty's 2010 Ty Tanium for $47/btl, plus shipping, that lists for $80 on Ty's site. WTSO sold the same for $35/btl FS/3. So WTSO can, and does, sell identical bottles for less than WD/WCC can now that Amazon is in the mix.

I'm not sure how much of it has to do with Amazon. I think it's probably mostly what cmaldoon first pointed out and others have agreed to in regards to the business model whereby WD does not actually purchase any wine, just provides a sales venue.

In any case, I caved and went in on this deal, lol.

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
bsevern wrote:Got to disagree with this. The Wellington Duke, while a good QPR if you like it, is a kitchen sink leftover blend of anything and everything. Much more like the Pedroncelli Friends Red, an OK everyday drinker if it's your style.

Ty's Cuvee, while also a blend, is from his single block estate mountain vineyard cabs.

Apples and oranges IMHO.

I'll give you that Ty's is a single varietal from multiple vineyards, while Peters is indeed a blend. But I will defend both are from "leftovers". At least Peter lists his on his site, where Ty does not. Almost seems like he is distancing himself from it, excepting it does carry his brand label. I'm not intending to diss the juice as I've not tried it, yet, and we did both make a purchase.

CT

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon

2011 Cotes du Rousillion at wine library on presale for $18/bottle:

https://winelibrary.com/products/73516-saint-roch-kerbuccio-cotes-du-rousillon

"The backside of this region is Corbieres, but this opaque purple-colored 2011 Kerbuccio would blow away just about any Corbieres. A wine of great intensity, it offers up copious floral, blackberry and blueberry fruit intermixed with hints of charcoal, scorched earth and wet rocks. Dense and full-bodied with tremendous richness and supple tannins, this beauty should drink well for 5-7 years, possibly longer. One of the top wine values I have ever tasted is from one of the newest appellations in France, Maury Sec. Maury produces abundant sweet wines (largely from Grenache), but this is a totally dry red made from 40% Syrah, 30% Mourvedre and 30% Grenache aged in concrete tanks for 8 months, and bottled unfiltered. It comes from the black schist soils of this appellation." - 95 Pts Robert Parker - The Wine Advocate

Yes, it is Parker, But $18 for 95 points from just about anyone will get my attention.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
chipgreen wrote:I'm not sure how much of it has to do with Amazon. I think it's probably mostly what cmaldoon first pointed out and others have agreed to in regards to the business model whereby WD does not actually purchase any wine, just provides a sales venue.

In any case, I caved and went in on this deal, lol.

Unless WTSO is providing a guaranteed purchase and funding, as others have suggested, I don't see where 'who owns the wine' before the sale would at all affect the pricing. There is a value to the wine set by Ty at some point in time, and profits need to be made at all levels. Amazon is an additional level and expects profits, why else purchase WW? It seems many have commented on the (at least perceived) increases in price with the added middleman.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
rjquillin wrote:I'll give you that Ty's is a single varietal from multiple vineyards, while Peters is indeed a blend. But I will defend both are from "leftovers". At least Peter lists his on his site, where Ty does not. Almost seems like he is distancing himself from it, excepting it does carry his brand label. I'm not intending to diss the juice as I've not tried it, yet, and we did both make a purchase.

My take on it (which is mostly just a mash-up of everybody's comments so far) is that he knows from past experience that he cannot sell all his Cab Sauv at his regular retail price and rather than outsource grapes he has pre-arranged with WTSO starting in 2010 to produce a certain amount of Cab Sauv specifically for them and market it as a "cuvee" to differentiate it from his own Cab Sauv that he will release at regular retail price.

I'm leaning towards the thought that it's the exact same juice as what he puts into his own CS bottles, not a "best of the best" nor "leftovers".

Obviously this is all just speculation on my part based on the current conversation...

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
chipgreen wrote:However, I do feel that discussions about WW pricing vs. current pricing at similar venues are relevant.

Recall too that WD/woot has reduced prices in past offerings while live when it was pointed out better pricing was recently/currently available elsewhere for the same product.

CT

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
rjquillin wrote:I have a, admittedly vague, remembrance of reading comments, I believe here on woot, where Ty mentioned the cuvee was created to sell excess juice, leftovers of his vineyard designate bottles.


Fair enough. I don't recall seeing commentary to that effect before, but I only became a more active participant on these forums recently.

That said, the text on the WTSO offer seems to contradict that, unless you put a cynical spin on it. It said:

"He [Ty] explained that for his Winemaker’s Cuvee he was going to make these from the best tasting single vineyard blocks to blend into a very special Cabernet. [...] His philosophy is that the best of the best from individual blocks with their unique characteristics when blended together would produce a blockbuster wine."

The straightforward interpretation of that is that these aren't "leftovers" combined to make a (comparatively) cheap wine, but rather selected to make a fine wine comprised of the best qualities of each block in the Caton vineyard.

The cynical interpretation is that this is marketing spin -- a nice way of saying the 'excess' juice left over from the single-block bottlings was thrown together into the cuvee.

Even if we accept the cynical interpretation, what's to say the spin isn't essentially correct anyway? Must the 'blend' cuvee be inferior to the single-block bottlings? What makes some of the juice from the single blocks 'excess,' and is that necessarily a bad thing?

kaolis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages kaolis
rjquillin wrote:I'll give you that Ty's is a single varietal from multiple vineyards, while Peters is indeed a blend. But I will defend both are from "leftovers". At least Peter lists his on his site, where Ty does not. Almost seems like he is distancing himself from it, excepting it does carry his brand label. I'm not intending to diss the juice as I've not tried it, yet, and we did both make a purchase.




From the previous discussion:
http://wine.woot.com/forums/viewpost.aspx?postid=5118466&pageindex=11&replycount=810#post5183638

dudemanchu wrote:
That's what's strange. What WTSO quoted is the description that goes with the 2010 'regular' estate cab which has a production of 1900+ cases. The 'Winemaker's Cuvee', which is what we just bought from WTSO, was shown as having a lower case volume and a slightly different label. My theory is that this is Ty's "made for the outlet" label of his 2010 estate cab (I have only seen it offered at WTSO and it is not on the website or picked up by wine-searcher). Hopefully it is the same juice as the regular cab just packaged in a way that (possibly) makes it less likely to hurt sales of the regular label. I've never been disappointed by any of Ty's wines so I'm in on this - even if the WTSO description is confusing at best and possibly misleading.


I sent an inquiry email to the website and got a response back from Ty.

"...the wine being offered on the WTSO website is different from the Cabernet being sold on my website. The wine on WTSO was a private label made exclusively for WTSO in advance of the vintage. It is not sold at my tasting room, wine club, website, nor to any of my distributors, restaurants or wine shops. It's a nice wine."


So yeah, excess juice not intended for his regular offerings. Still pretty good for the price.

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
moondigger wrote:Fair enough. I don't recall seeing commentary to that effect before, but I only became a more active participant on these forums recently.

That said, the text on the WTSO offer seems to contradict that, unless you put a cynical spin on it. It said:

"He [Ty] explained that for his Winemaker’s Cuvee he was going to make these from the best tasting single vineyard blocks to blend into a very special Cabernet. [...] His philosophy is that the best of the best from individual blocks with their unique characteristics when blended together would produce a blockbuster wine."

The straightforward interpretation of that is that these aren't "leftovers" combined to make a (comparatively) cheap wine, but rather selected to make a fine wine comprised of the best qualities of each block in the Caton vineyard.

The cynical interpretation is that this is marketing spin -- a nice way of saying the 'excess' juice left over from the single-block bottlings was thrown together into the cuvee.

Even if we accept the cynical interpretation, what's to say the spin isn't essentially correct anyway? Must the 'blend' cuvee be inferior to the single-block bottlings? What makes some of the juice from the single blocks 'excess,' and is that necessarily a bad thing?

Again we do need our cynic/sarcastic emoticon. I do take it as marketing, he want's to sell his wine, but at the same time the quality of a blend can exceed that of the individual components. I easily could have spoken in haste with incomplete thought in suggesting this may be inferior to his other vineyard designate bottlings; I concede.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
rjquillin wrote:Recall too that WD/woot has reduced prices in past offerings while live when it was pointed out better pricing was recently/currently available elsewhere for the same product.

Yes, he has done so multiple times. I think I was actually responsible for one of them.

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
kaolis wrote:I sent an inquiry email to the website and got a response back from Ty.

"...the wine being offered on the WTSO website is different from the Cabernet being sold on my website. The wine on WTSO was a private label made exclusively for WTSO in advance of the vintage. It is not sold at my tasting room, wine club, website, nor to any of my distributors, restaurants or wine shops. It's a nice wine."


So yeah, excess juice not intended for his regular offerings. Still pretty good for the price.

THIS, is precisely the explanation I recall of an earlier discussion of a WTSO listing.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:THIS, is precisely the explanation I recall of an earlier discussion of a WTSO listing.



Just what I thought. Ty made it exclusively for WTSO.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bsevern


quality posts: 109 Private Messages bsevern
kaolis wrote:From the previous discussion:
http://wine.woot.com/forums/viewpost.aspx?postid=5118466&pageindex=11&replycount=810#post5183638

dudemanchu wrote:
That's what's strange. What WTSO quoted is the description that goes with the 2010 'regular' estate cab which has a production of 1900+ cases. The 'Winemaker's Cuvee', which is what we just bought from WTSO, was shown as having a lower case volume and a slightly different label. My theory is that this is Ty's "made for the outlet" label of his 2010 estate cab (I have only seen it offered at WTSO and it is not on the website or picked up by wine-searcher). Hopefully it is the same juice as the regular cab just packaged in a way that (possibly) makes it less likely to hurt sales of the regular label. I've never been disappointed by any of Ty's wines so I'm in on this - even if the WTSO description is confusing at best and possibly misleading.


I sent an inquiry email to the website and got a response back from Ty.

"...the wine being offered on the WTSO website is different from the Cabernet being sold on my website. The wine on WTSO was a private label made exclusively for WTSO in advance of the vintage. It is not sold at my tasting room, wine club, website, nor to any of my distributors, restaurants or wine shops. It's a nice wine."


So yeah, excess juice not intended for his regular offerings. Still pretty good for the price.



Where does the winery say it was "excess juice" ?


chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen

WD could expand his busines model to include some offsite storage facilities which would enable him to work out similar deals but then I don't know anything about the logistics involved, to say nothing of the additional licensing and fees that may be necessary since he is probably not currently considered a "distributor".

I'm sure he's looked into it and if it made sense to him he would have already done it. Who knows, maybe it's part of a long-term plan... or not. Would love to have a chance to sit down with him one day and find out how it all works.

noslensj


quality posts: 42 Private Messages noslensj
chipgreen wrote:

I'm leaning towards the thought that it's the exact same juice as what he puts into his own CS bottles, not a "best of the best" nor "leftovers".


My inclination as well. I've gone in on several of the WTSO offerings on exactly that basis.

trifecta


quality posts: 72 Private Messages trifecta
bsevern wrote:Where does the winery say it was "excess juice" ?



Between the lines? I don't doubt that it is of roughly the same quality as his other cabs. I do doubt that if he is making a wine specifically for WTSO and a lower price point that he uses his best grapes, barrels, etc...

Its moot for me since I have only had 1 wine from Ty I liked, 1 I tolerated, and a dozen more that I would classify as just above plonk and never worth the price even on woot, wtso, etc..

EDIT: Ok, maybe not just above plonk. That is a bit harsh, but I really have not been impressed at all. Even his high end bottlings I wouldn't even consider paying $20 for. I am thinking he must have built his following on woot based on the way he used to make wine and not the current style. Frankly, for me Ty is an auto-no buy.

trifecta


quality posts: 72 Private Messages trifecta

2008 Inman Thorn Ridge Pinot Noir for $30 on LB. FS on 4. I really enjoy Inman Pinot's, but can't bring myself to pay retail. Would be willing to go in for a split with someone in the South Bay area.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Does anybody know anything about the Artesa Ridgeline Cab on WTSO right now? Good? Plonk? I couldn't find much on CT, and nothing at all for this vintage (2010).

jessicacallery


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jessicacallery

I bought Ty's offering 3 different times for the 2010 CS on WTSO. Two times (8 bottles) were the Winemaker's Cuvee. The last 4 bottles I bought were just the regular CS, different label- no Winemaker's Cuvee. I didn't notice in the description when I purchased, but did notice once the bottles were delivered. Just thought I would throw this out for an FYI...

Winedavid39


quality posts: 200 Private Messages Winedavid39

Guest Blogger




yep, not the same juice.

caveat emptor..

kaolis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages kaolis
bsevern wrote:Where does the winery say it was "excess juice" ?



Obviously my words excess juice. But this was an exclusive deal for WTSO. So Ty and WTSO knew it was going to be sold for $19.99, and no way it was treated as his more expensive wines. You can bet it was barrels he didn't deem worthy, so it went into this blend. And to that end, the $45.00 retail that WTSO claims is pulled out of thin air, so that is kind of misleading. It was a predetermined deal at the 19.99 price point. MHO.

And nothing wrong with it, done all the time. Although many bottle the wine under a totally different name. Or just like 2nd label I guess, whatever.

And I happen to like 2010.



noslensj


quality posts: 42 Private Messages noslensj
kaolis wrote:And to that end, the $45.00 retail that WTSO claims is pulled out of thin air, so that is kind of misleading.



Or maybe WTSO is tacitly acknowledging that it really is the same juice as the non-cuvee estate CS.

kaolis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages kaolis
noslensj wrote:Or maybe WTSO is tacitly acknowledging that it really is the same juice as the non-cuvee estate CS.



or maybe not..go up three posts.. WD states different juice as well... but what does he know..


Cheers!

kaolis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages kaolis
noslensj wrote:Or maybe WTSO is tacitly acknowledging that it really is the same juice as the non-cuvee estate CS.



..and if you follow WTSO at all, you need to read/investigate very carefully some of their details about the wines they sell.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kaolis wrote:or maybe not..go up three posts.. WD states different juice as well... but what does he know..


I don't think anybody is disputing that the Cab on WTSO yesterday is not the same as today's Woot Cab. They're completely different vintages, for one.

But aside from that, you're implying that the WTSO juice is lower quality, based on... nothing. You haven't sampled it; you're making unsourced assumptions based (as far as I can tell) solely on selling price.

If years of wine collecting/drinking have taught me anything, it's that you can't judge the quality of the juice based solely on the price of a bottle.* Especially when those bottles come from dissimilar resellers, and in this case, when comparing wines from the same winemaker, using fruit from the same vineyards.

The cost structure/profit margin for selling wines through Woot is certainly different than selling through WTSO; that's reason enough to drop any assumptions about the quality of the juice (or the barrels used to make it) based on the assumed price differential. I say assumed because for all anybody here knows, the 2011 Ty Cabs that will eventually be sold here might be priced very close to those sold on WTSO yesterday. But even if they aren't, it's still risky to make assumptions about quality based on selling price.

* Yes, I know that in general, there is a correlation between price and quality, when comparisons are made on a large scale, for many wines. But that doesn't mean any given single release will be better than another particular single release, especially when they're not being sold through the same outlet. Quick: Is a $50 bottle of wine at Last Bottle better than a $40 bottle at Woot? Is a $20 bottle at WTSO worse than a $35 bottle at the wine store down the street?

Looking back on what I've typed, I think it might be coming across as a rant. It's not intended to, but it's late (I'm in the eastern U.S.) and I don't have the time to go back and wordsmith. Goodnight all.

kaolis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages kaolis
moondigger wrote:I don't think anybody is disputing that the Cab on WTSO yesterday is not the same as today's Woot Cab. They're completely different vintages, for one.

But aside from that, you're implying that the WTSO juice is lower quality, based on... nothing. You haven't sampled it; you're making unsourced assumptions based (as far as I can tell) solely on selling price.

If years of wine collecting/drinking have taught me anything, it's that you can't judge the quality of the juice based solely on the price of a bottle.* Especially when those bottles come from dissimilar resellers, and in this case, when comparing wines from the same winemaker, using fruit from the same vineyards.

The cost structure/profit margin for selling wines through Woot is certainly different than selling through WTSO; that's reason enough to drop any assumptions about the quality of the juice (or the barrels used to make it) based on the assumed price differential. I say assumed because for all anybody here knows, the 2011 Ty Cabs that will eventually be sold here might be priced very close to those sold on WTSO yesterday. But even if they aren't, it's still risky to make assumptions about quality based on selling price.

* Yes, I know that in general, there is a correlation between price and quality, when comparisons are made on a large scale, for many wines. But that doesn't mean any given single release will be better than another particular single release, especially when they're not being sold through the same outlet. Quick: Is a $50 bottle of wine at Last Bottle better than a $40 bottle at Woot? Is a $20 bottle at WTSO worse than a $35 bottle at the wine store down the street?

Looking back on what I've typed, I think it might be coming across as a rant. It's not intended to, but it's late (I'm in the eastern U.S.) and I don't have the time to go back and wordsmith. Goodnight all.



Ummm... geez.. I said I bought the 2010 version of this wine and liked it..never once dissed Ty Caton..and I never once made any mention of cost of wine versus quality of wine, which seems to be the gist of your non-rant. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers!

klezman


quality posts: 120 Private Messages klezman
trifecta wrote:2008 Inman Thorn Ridge Pinot Noir for $30 on LB. FS on 4. I really enjoy Inman Pinot's, but can't bring myself to pay retail. Would be willing to go in for a split with someone in the South Bay area.



Don't think I can justify helping out on this one. What was the end result of the Hawley futures saga? Do I owe you $?

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
trifecta wrote:2008 Inman Thorn Ridge Pinot Noir for $30 on LB. FS on 4. I really enjoy Inman Pinot's, but can't bring myself to pay retail. Would be willing to go in for a split with someone in the South Bay area.

I could be in on this with you, since Klez isn't, but neither one of us is South Bay.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
kaolis wrote:or maybe not..go up three posts.. WD states different juice as well... but what does he know..


He knows what Ty tells him just like everyone else.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kaolis wrote:[...] I never once dissed Ty Caton..


I didn't imply you had.

and I never once made any mention of cost of wine versus quality of wine, which seems to be the gist of your non-rant.


I neglected to quote the comment that I was primarily responding to, which is this one:

kaolis wrote:So Ty and WTSO knew it was going to be sold for $19.99, and no way it was treated as his more expensive wines. You can bet it was barrels he didn't deem worthy, so it went into this blend.


(Emphasis added by me.) That's exactly what you were implying: That the cost of the WTSO juice ($19.99) meant it was inferior to his (presumably) more expensive offerings which are or will be sold on Woot. Apologies if I completely misread your point.

noslensj


quality posts: 42 Private Messages noslensj
chipgreen wrote:He knows what Ty tells him just like everyone else.


Which let's us play the oh-so-fun speculation game, in which we take a few nibs of information and garnish it with all kinds of fanciful add-ons. A wonderful pastime on a non-wine Woot Thursday.

WD says that the Ty Caton 2010 Estate CS and the Ty Caton 2010 Estate CS Winemakers Cuveee are different juice. As chipgreen notes, this would presumably be because Ty told him so.

Now, if Ty's statements about the cuvee are to be believed, he sold all of that cuvee as a special bottling through WTSO. But if WE and Ty also discussed the juice, then perhaps there might have also been discussion between them about offering the juice as a WW special?? Hmmmm ... so maybe that cuvee showed up a WTSO because Ty and WE couldn't come together on the details to make that a WW offering. That would have been interesting!!!

trifecta


quality posts: 72 Private Messages trifecta
klezman wrote:Don't think I can justify helping out on this one. What was the end result of the Hawley futures saga? Do I owe you $?



I have paid them for the futures. Came out to the exact total we calculated. I will email you later today if I remember. Did you stop at Inman when you were out there at Harvest Moon last time? Seriously good juice. Maybe next time.

jmdavidson


quality posts: 55 Private Messages jmdavidson

Anyone checked out the mini-bottle offers on Invino.com? Looks like the old TastingRoom inventory.