2 Buck Chuck

The clarification is much appreciated. I believe my confusion has been because I frequently see references, here and in other places, to the "two tier" system of wine distribution in the USA. I've assumed that the structure was legally mandated and that California was a state that did that. Thanks.

in article E0nOb.15134$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines at snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote on 1/17/04 7:25 PM:

I read about the interstate restrictions on selling (such as to NY - my particular interest) is being challenged and may get to (or scheduled to) the Supreme Court. I hope it is overturned - since when I lived in CA and MO, it was easy to get on the phone, call the winery and have a case shipped to me! Here in NY, that could be a felony which seems to me to be a gross violation of the inter state commerce clause of the Constitution, but I am grumpy about losing that connection!

The interstate commerce clause is subordinated to the provisions in the 33rd Amendment that explicitly cede the regulation of alcoholic beverage commerce to the states. This has been argued in the court system repeatedly, with a very predictable outcome, I'm sad to say.

Mark Lipton (another felony state victim)

I think the twist this time is the criminalization of internet vedors. You are probably right, dag-nabbit.

Hi Emery - Of course it's true, as you say, that high end French wineries don't buy grapes; the same thing is true of many high end California wineries. But to make sense, any business has to make a reasonable return on its invested capital, including real estate - otherwise, given a relatively free economy, some other business will make better use of that real estate or whatever. To the extent that a grower's price for grapes represents getting a reasonable return on

*his* investment, I figure that's a reasonable reflection of the sort of return a vineyard-owning winery needs to get on *its* investment. I'm probably not saying this well but in other words, a winery that grows its own grapes needs to get a reasonable return out of the grape-growing part of its business as well as out of the winemaking part. If it didn't, it would be better of selling the fruit to somebody else. So I would argue that the price of high-end grapes *should* be included in the cost of production, whether the land is paid for or not.

You should understand that this came up before when some here were arguing that the price of a bottle of wine is determined by the cost of production. My point was that at a stretch, you can come up with maybe $20 as the cost of production for a high end wine and so perhaps $40 as a retail price; anything beyond that must be caused by supply/demand. IOW, the market determines the price of wine (or anything else).

- Mark W.

It sounds like you certainly in a position to know what you're talking about, Craig. I guess I shouldn't believe everything I read in the newspaper - any idea what the San Jose Mercury News was referring to in this article

then?

- Mark W.

representation,

You know, I just read it, and I have no idea what they're talking about. KJ brings in wines from elsewhere in the world, so such a license may be necessary, but I think Franzia just sells wine they make in California, so I don't see any advantage for them. It could be an advantage for me, however-- maybe I should contact them about distributing my wines. They seem to be pretty successful at it.

Craig Winchell GAN EDEN Wines

Only if you're willing to retail 'em for two bucks ;^)

Hey Mark,

Well, that strikes me as a bit, uh, idiomatic (if you'll forgive me) as pertaining to the capitalist model. In fact, if a family has owned a resource for years or centuries, I fail to see how any other business can make "better use" of a resource it doesn't control. That's the beauty of a unique terroir, in the business sense. One could argue that the fruit _could not_ be grown elsewhere, with some verity.

In fact, on the micro-scale, I think this is a factor in what allows some very inexpensive wines, of medium to high quality, to be commercialized here. The vineyard is practically a natural resource! (Well, stretching the point on my side, but perhaps you'll take the spirit of it :) ).

] You should understand that this came up before when some here were ] arguing that the price of a bottle of wine is determined by the cost ] of production. My point was that at a stretch, you can come up with ] maybe $20 as the cost of production for a high end wine and so perhaps ] $40 as a retail price; anything beyond that must be caused by ] supply/demand. IOW, the market determines the price of wine (or ] anything else). ] Yes, I remember the thread(s) well. It has come up several times over the time I've lurked, and sometimes participated, in afw.

Your final sentence I agree largely with the first part, but of course there are many counter examples to the second. The market didn't determine how much you paid for your windows, or your linux, license. Nor did it determine how much either of us paid the last time we bought antibiotics from the pharmacy. In fact, if you believe the official arguments, you paid more because I paid less! :)

Regardless, neither of us wanted to reopen the thread about production cost vs market price. My point was mainly that the practice of buying grapes on the open market is far more prevelent in the US than in France; although I honestly can't point to pertinant statistics... Oh well, we can speculate wildly after a glass or four, right?

Back on topic, had an OK '99 Lesparre Bordeaux Superior (right bank I think, lots of merlot) with chicken livers with pommeau and shallots. It stood up well, simple plummy fruit with enough backbone (some cab franc I guess) to cut the sauce. A second bottle was required however...

-E