RP and ex asistant

"DaleW" in news: snipped-for-privacy@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com :

Dale, I don't know exactly which retailer you allude to here, but I wish you had taken this up by email first. The Rieslings suggest that it might be Dee Vine wines in San Francisco, that's the only one I can think of that fits.

With Dee Vine (whether or not it is the one in your story, Dale), like the case of the other retailer I cited, as you know more about the firm, a very different picture emerges. The following info, with many corroborating testimonials, appeared on other sites but you may not have seen it Dale, or it may not have made an impression.

Dee Vine is a fundamentally sound conscientious retailer with exceptional direct-import Riesling offerings that has always had a miserable Web site and that also, in the last couple years or so, unfortunately hired inexperienced new people to answer phones and email, impairing new-customer satisfaction. I had trouble myself with this and it underlies most or all of the retail complaints I've read. What's really bad, from the long view, about this or any other anecdotal screw-up is that it conveys a distorted impression of the firm. Almost exactly as if you visited a good restaurant, and just happened to get the bad new server. (I remember one such in 2000 with "sinus trouble," aka cocaine, who distorted the impression of some fraction of the customers at a good new restaurant.) Here again, if my word and experience mean anything to you, those problems are superficial, not fundamental to Dee Vine (except the clumsy Web site) and moreover, if are willing and you'll contact me offline, I can prove this to your satisfaction, and maybe surprise you.

None of the other retailers I deal with has a comparable situation, so if it was another, Dale, I can add little about it.

Max, believe me, you are one of the posters I respect most. I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out the difficulties of "banishing" businesses based on others' reports. Frankly, if I eliminated every store I had heard angry stories about, I'd be down to one (until of course I heard those stories).

I actually don't order much from "the firm" these days,but its because they have had less that interests me pricewise. Days of gray market deals have been killed by dollar. I have one accumulated case this fall, as opposed to 4-5 cases years ago. And some of these were ordered in 2005, even less stuff not deliverable yet.

Just for clarity, my mention of the business model is because (outside of you) every complaint I have heard re "the firm" has centered on "they took my money for a prearrival, but my local store got the 2009 Bupkis 6 months ago and I'm still waiting! I want my money back, with interest" There's one of those about every month on eBob.

I'm not denying your friends' experience. Just saying I'll still do business with the firm. Will I get my comeuppance a la George Amberson Minafer? Possibly, though at this point if they screwed me out of every wine I'm owed it's unlikely I would be behind vs. buying from most sources.

Max, I was trying not to mention, as I didn't especially want to bash them- because as I note in other reply, everyone's experience is different. But yeah, Dee Vine, where I years ago tried twice to order wine, once told I was an idiot ('well, of COURSE it's a 375, just website didn't show, but ANYONE could tell from price"- my mistake, thought 25% under market, instead 50% over), other time took my info and said they'd call back, last I heard. . I've heard tons of good reports, and even suggested them as a source for older Rieslings ("I don't buy there myself, but others love store.").

But I am trying to narrow the stores I buy from, not expand. I'm sure they were rogue employees. But reality is that is the face of the business. I hire three homeless people at a time. Folks who have seen hard times, and I try to be sensitive. But if any of them ever spoke to anyone on phone (whether homeless client, donor, or volunteer) like that, they'd quickly find themselves unemployed. Similarly, if a restaurant has the wrong servers or front end, then that's the face that everyone sees.

As I stated in other reply, I don't like the idea of saying people should not patronize a place based on my experiences. About every week on the Squires/Entitled board there's a thread called "Don't Buy from XXX" My favorite recent one was the one where the guy said he got wrong wine after confirmation, then admitted well yeah confirmation was for wine he got (not what he wanted), but it was their fault and he couldn't read pdf on his Blackberry because he was on vacation. I know that wasn't case of your friends, but my point is I buy my wines, take my chances.

Max,

First, both at Petrus and Lafleur (the two prime forgery candidates for Right Bank), my impression from a variety of articles was that there were little or no records from before WWII (which of course is one reason for being prime forgery candidates). So a cellarmaster in

2005 (I believe, certainly this century ) saying he never heard of a magnum isn't definitive (we're going to assume he's not approximately 100 years old).

Second, at Petrus there is clear evidence that a considerable percentage of the wine was sold to negociants for bottling, and there is no record (that I know of) that the Parker was not a bottling by Vandermeulen or another negociant. It's not the same as Koch's bottling. It's certainly conceivable that " did not believe that any were bottled at the vineyard" and magnums of Petrus could *both* be true. At an event where Parker said it was too much for him, one can't be totally dismissive of the idea he neglected to note that it was a negociant bottling.

Third, as to my statement Broadbent sold the '21 Petrus mags, when the New Yorker article came out, the question was asked if the Koch bottle was one of the mags sold at Christies several years earlier. No definite answer was found, but I believe that it was conceded that Christies has sold a couple mags in the previous decade. I'll try and find this discussion to verify. Broadbent was the verifier of most of Rodenstock's fabulous finds. My impression was he was at same tasting as Parker in 1995, but I can't swear to that- I'll try to find my source.

So my point was that as dozens of others tasted same bottle and didn't raise flags, "it's a bit harsh to single out Parker as ignorant based on that note (where he said it seemed far younger than '21.)"

But, as to what I personally believe. Do I think Parker tasted a fake bottle? Yep, I'd guess so- but that's not proof. If I had to guess? Rodenstock took Petrus (or Trotanoy, or L'Evangile) from a very good but not great vintage ('55 or '62 or '64?) and rebottled/ relabeled. Parker tastes, hell its a good wine, and it tastes like its going strong at 74years! 100 points! (remember that until very recently good wines from years like '55, 62. '64. '66 were very affordable).

I'd agree to the larger point that there is a real issue where some feel that Parker's impressions are somehow objective truth. To date, I've never seen independent evidence of that.

The only time I don't patronize a store again is if they are giving me off bottles i.e. evidence of poor handling such as seepage or cooked wines. I don't go strictly by price either as I am more interested in variety than price. If two reliable stores have the same thing and one is cheaper then cheaper is better. I get so many of my wines directly from producers nowdays at least with US wine that I rarely buy US wines from local retailers.

"DaleW" in news: snipped-for-privacy@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com :>

[Quoting Dale slightly out of sequence from the original]

Point is well taken, Dale, I feel the same way generally. In case it was unclear, I believe there are exceptional circumstances (for example, customer treatment from the top of the business that many people would call unethical, disrespectful, possibly illegal). I've experienced all those things occasionally (not with wine), I could tell a story or two. Such situations IMHO ethically compel a stronger response.

Don't want to belabor the topic, but I believe some replies misapprehended my meaning. (Also, I'm not talking about people whining like those below about delays or problems mainly of their own making.)

Yes! The most striking stories I see concern restaurants, where some customers contrive astounding self-serving notions of reasonable protocol. Examples: A food-discussion Web site had two long threads complaining about restaurants. Both cases stemmed completely from behavior of the people complaining. (Each thread got many commiserating, sympathetic replies.)

Actually no, Dale, and here I think is a key point, worth depth. It's not the face everyone sees. It's actually the face _some_ people see. One bad server in one case I mentioned, inept customer service for a period in another. Exactly to the extent that this doesn't show what the business is mostly about, it's a misleading face. That's the problem with much casual comment about businesses. "This place rox" or "that place sux" is someone projecting a tiny (sometimes very atypical) sample onto the whole show. (This is why good professional restaurant critics labor to look past the anecdotal, toward the core or typical experience.) I visit many new restaurants, and approach them assuming they have a nature, or character (with day-to-day variations of course). To the extent I get distracted by glitches or ephemera, I've missed out on learning the restaurant.

Then again, I'm not a professional critic, I confess to writing off a place after two dinners with bad screw-ups. (Not unlike your reaction to DVW, Dale.) But it was a mediocre steakhouse too, nothing at all unique.