Pricing on Old vs. Recent Vintages

[Mrwinecabinet]

I've grown particularly fond of Bordeaux in the last couple of years, having discovered wine about ten years ago. I'm now spending more time and money on seeking out a small handful of Bordeaux gems to hide in my cellar, alongside the larger bulk of more everyday Bordeaux that I have. I do find I get confused with certain pricing that I'm seeing though and am hoping some other members could enlighten me. I see bottles like '82 Mouton available for about $800 to $900 and the bottle is kind of legendary, and at the same time I see '09 Mouton for about the same price. One could argue about which wine is 'better' but their ratings seem similar (although the '82 arguably better, with that 100 point Parker score), the '82 is at or far closer to its drinking window and the '82 vintage likely has more cachet than the '09, though that may change with time.

Overall I would expect to see a well-aged bottle like this '82 selling for a lot more than the recent '09 vintage (or see the '09 vintage for a lot less). I know provenance and condition can play a big role in the price of an older vintage wine, but even what appears to be excellent condition and provenance bottles of this '82 are selling for the same as '09. I guess I'm missing something..?

[RDD]

I think you need to take into account the original en primeur price of the 82's.

[Mrwinecabinet]

True, I'm sure the price of the '82 has increased significantly in real terms since original release, so it was still likely a good investment for folks who bought it originally. Still though, the current market price of both the '82 and '09 are so close, and yet the '82 would seem to be a significantly more valuable because of its age and that it's either ready to drink or much closer to ready-to-drink. There would likely be some restaurant demand for the '82 too (which I'd expect to push up price), but surely none for the '09 at this stage. Maybe the '09s have much more market exposure at the moment and some buyers don't really know how to go about searching for earlier vintages like the '82.

[RDD]

Well I don't know where the 2009 is selling but I imagine the 82 is only sold in limitted markets with good provenance. The UK and the US.
Restaurant would sell a 900.00 wine for 1500.00 or better.

[Houndsong]

I don't play in that league but I understand the question. I think there was some (much) commentary when these last few vintages of all time debuted about how the en primeur pricing was at or above the price of comparable back - even way back and in prime time - vintages. It would be relevant to your point though I think to consider the relation that say 2000 bore to extant pricing of1982 at the time 2000 was released. And then say the relation 1982 price bore at realease to extant pricing of, what, 1970 or 1966 or 1961?

My own impression is that there is a tremendous premium of late to the currently released vintage of the century, for whatever reason. It's as if it's that much better than prior vintage of the century, going back 20 years, or that there's an outsized premium to this en vogue vintage over "certified pre-owned" models.

Disclaimer: I have done no statistical analysis of this, my impression could well be mistaken, and frankly I don't care if it is.

I'm wondering sir, just what kind of winecabinet are you? Reluctantly I admit I might need something of that sort.

[RDD]

I don't play in that league but I understand the question. I think there was some (much) commentary when these last few vintages of all time debuted about how the en primeur pricing was at or above the price of comparable back - even way back and in prime time - vintages. It would be relevant to your point though I think to consider the relation that say 2000 bore to extant pricing of1982 at the time 2000 was released. And then say the relation 1982 price bore at realease to extant pricing of, what, 1970 or 1966 or 1961?

My own impression is that there is a tremendous premium of late to the currently released vintage of the century, for whatever reason. It's as if it's that much better than prior vintage of the century, going back 20 years, or that there's an outsized premium to this en vogue vintage over "certified pre-owned" models.

Disclaimer: I have done no statistical analysis of this, my impression could well be mistaken, and frankly I don't care if it is.

I'm wondering sir, just what kind of winecabinet are you? Reluctantly I admit I might need something of that sort.

A lot has to do with "information age" and the rise of the wine prophet.
There are a lot more "informed" buyers chasing the heralded vinatge(s).
At the time of release the 1982's had a very limitted market and knowledge base. And France has some really dull 1970's and had been written off.
And even today you have to dig deep into a love of Bordeaux to search out the older vintages.

At 900.00/btl it's not in my price range.
But once upon a time when it was 90.00/btl you could justify it on special occasions.
Also thru the generosity of this group I've had the chance to taste some great older Bordeaux.

[Claudius2]

Well the question you ask is an old chestnut.
There is a common view that the o0lder vitnages are not as good due to technology as the modern vintages.
At most levels that is true.
Yet the 82 vintage was sublime at the topo level and the best wines I have ever had - from anywhere - are the top 82s like Mouton and margaux.

Does it make sense to pay the same price for a 09 as a 82?
The simple answer is NO.
I can drink the 82 now and taste a mature, complex wine.
Yet maybe I'm gettng old....

[Mrwinecabinet]

I think the technology and process of wine making has indeed improved a lot, especially over the last few years, so it would account for the rise in quality of many wines at many of the Bordeaux estates, although given that the two bottles in question are rated similarly, it still doesn't explain why the '82 doesn't get to charge a premium for its age/ready-to-drink quality, unless there has been some kind of 'points inflation' where a 100 points now means more than the same 100 points thirty years ago.

To be honest, I don't play in this league either, although I do get tempted by the odd such bottle and enjoy the bit of window shopping and drooling..I also just finished reading a book called Liquid Assets by Sokolin, about investing in wine, and am intrigued by the notion of expanding my cellar to include certain wines to hold but perhaps sell on later. Probably easily said than done though, and when I see pricing on bottles like this that I don't fully understand, that also gives me pause. It would be interesting to see the prices changes over time of these wines, in real and nominal terms; I've been tempted to subscribe to live-ex or wine-watch to get better data on these historical prices. Apart from any notion of wine investing, it would be nice to have some sense that one is getting a good price for wine one is going to drink too.

Houndsong, I do have a wine cabinet business and I've sent you a separate PM on that question.

[RDD]

Well the question you ask is an old chestnut.
There is a common view that the o0lder vitnages are not as good due to technology as the modern vintages.
At most levels that is true.
Yet the 82 vintage was sublime at the topo level and the best wines I have ever had - from anywhere - are the top 82s like Mouton and margaux.

Does it make sense to pay the same price for a 09 as a 82?
The simple answer is NO.
I can drink the 82 now and taste a mature, complex wine.
Yet maybe I'm gettng old....

Well said. The 1982's made themselves. Little intervention.
Maybe the demand is diffeent as you need to know they exist (more than superficially know Bordeaux), know the secondary market where they are bought (auction vesus the current en primeur campaign). And perhaps there is a premium paid to modern wine methods as suggested. UC Davis and Mondavi realy lead they way IMHO.

And you don't have to drink a 100 point Mouton to appreciate the vintage. I'm impressed wiht the 1982 Calon Segur evey year on our anniversary.

[DavidG]

The disconnect between value and age can't be explained solely on the basis of provenance, but still there it is.

It's hard to believe that current releases could deliver the sorts of returns that wines bought 10-20-30 years ago delivered. But I wouldn't have believed it 20 years ago if you had told me what my '89 and '90 first growths would go for. I'm sure if I started buying for investment purposes, my selections would promptly go in the dumper. I'll stick to buying for love, not money, and if I get lucky enough to latch onto something that gets silly valuable, I'll trade it back in for something I value more.

[Tom In DC]

Wow, where to start...

OK, first point - when civilians could buy '82 First Growths for $50 (on the shelf, mind you!), the same wines from 1961 cost five (5) times that amount or more. Now, we recognize that 1961 was a small vintage volume wise, so scarcity did have some effect on pricing. But back in the day, there was indeed a premium to be paid for a mature (or approaching maturity) wine from a great vintage. (Side note: At that time, you could still buy 1959's for a slight discount to the 61's, as folks hadn't twigged to how great the 59's would be, but it wasn't a big discount.)

So that's the way it was. (Sorry, Walter.)

Fast forward 30 years. If winemaking has improved that much, shouldn't that INCREASE the premium on whomever managed to make great wines in the past???

Instead, current releases have a HUGE premium vis a vis mature great vintages. From a wine-lover's perspective, this is ridiculous.

The only explanation that I can come up with is that "new wine lovers with virtually unlimited funds" (use that as a euphemism for whatever you want ) can bid ridiculous amounts on 50,000 cases of first growths and first growth proxies from current release vintages such as 2009 and 2010 and have decided that the path to "serving my guests highly rated Bordeaux" is much more easily trod by buying a 100-point current release from among the many thousands of case currently on the market than by chasing the relatively few cases of, say, 1989 Clinet or 1979 Lafleur currently on the market.

If what you need to impress your guests is "Bob Parker rated this 100", why on earth wouldn't you buy 2009 Pontet Canet instead of 1982 Lafleur?

[Jeff Leve]

Does it make sense to pay the same price for a 09 as a 82? The simple answer is NO.

the answer is not that simple. It depends on what if you want a wine to age, or drink now. I already have 1982 in my cellar. I bought 2009 to drink in the future. My bet is also that 2009 is a much better vintage. More producers made great wine and overall, as a matter of quality, IMO, having tasted hundreds of 2009 wines 4 or 5 times, the wines are better in 2009.

[Claudius2]

Jeff
It makes sense if you want to cellar wines for longer term development.
The context for me is NO due to age and the fact that I don;t actually have any more 82s.
I question is 09 is significantly better than 82.
The winemaking skills and technology and also vineyard management has been improved.
So to me 09 is more evenly good and I've really liked the 09s tried so far (maybe with the exception only being a few lesser wines).