ThePortForum.com

DRT wrote:Perhaps we can get this story on Rip-off Britain?

Claret isn't quite gritty enough. Start with 'Money-box Live'. Let's see if Vincent Duggleby can bore them into submission.

Just got off the phone with BigBadBank after a pretty frustrating conversation. They attempted to tell me that they couldn't refund the money as I had a 'personal claim in the liquidation' and there was 'no instruction' to 'contact my credit card company' in the liquidator's letter. I in turn attempted to explain that this was irrelevant as there was an anticipatory breach under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, so BigBadBank and En Primeur Ltd were equally responsible for delivery of the goods (or refunding of the money). The lady on the phone seemed to appreciate this, but continued to say that they couldn't refund the money and I had to go through the liquidation claim process myself, even though I kept saying 'Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act' until I was blue in the face. It wasn't until I said the exact words 'I would hereby like to make a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act' that her tone suddenly changed entirely and she said 'oh, I didn't realise that's what you wanted to do, that is dealt with by a different department who I will transfer the dispute to immediately'.

Derek, I suggest you give your credit card company a call and spell this out for them if you haven't already - seems they will do their best to dance round this pretty powerful bit of legislation.

The credit I was promised yesterday has not yet appeared on my account. I have submitted a secure message through the bank's website. I want the rest of this conversation in writing, not read from a script by someone in Mumbai.

RPA wrote:Just got off the phone with BigBadBank after a pretty frustrating conversation. They attempted to tell me that they couldn't refund the money as I had a 'personal claim in the liquidation' and there was 'no instruction' to 'contact my credit card company' in the liquidator's letter. I in turn attempted to explain that this was irrelevant as there was an anticipatory breach under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, so BigBadBank and En Primeur Ltd were equally responsible for delivery of the goods (or refunding of the money). The lady on the phone seemed to appreciate this, but continued to say that they couldn't refund the money and I had to go through the liquidation claim process myself, even though I kept saying 'Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act' until I was blue in the face. It wasn't until I said the exact words 'I would hereby like to make a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act' that her tone suddenly changed entirely and she said 'oh, I didn't realise that's what you wanted to do, that is dealt with by a different department who I will transfer the dispute to immediately'.

Derek, I suggest you give your credit card company a call and spell this out for them if you haven't already - seems they will do their best to dance round this pretty powerful bit of legislation.

Yes, until you actually use those words they will not do anything! The form letter on MoneySavingExpert is very useful (failure to link results from indolence).

Full amount now credited to me by BigBadBank.com.

In a flurry of excitement I might have bought two cases of this La Croix de Beaucaillou 2000.

Oops.

I dropped by my local wine merchant today and picked-up the next three candidates for my continuing quest to taste different producers and vintages before buying cases...
Chateau Les Ormes de Pez 2000
Chateau Grand-Puy-Lacoste 2002
Chateau Balestard La Tonnelle 1986

Notes to follow in due course.

Derek, did you go the the Creditor's Meeting (avec or sans bat) yesterday?

No, I couldn't free up the time from work.

But I did get a full refund from the CC company so am reasonably relaxed about what happens from here.

Hopefully we will hear from the solicitor again soon.

Indeed. My bank is still being a pain in the proverbial and slowing things down with paperwork and phone calls from Mumbai etc. I tried to call the insolvency practitioners earlier to find out if they'd even been formally appointed at the Creditor's meeting but helpfully the relevant person was on holiday. Hard to believe the day after something so pivotal but it is what it is.

RPA wrote:Hard to believe the day after something so pivotal but it is what it is.

I could have predicted as much.
I'm sitting in Berlin waiting for a parcel to arrive. I've sat here all day. The online tracker at Deutsche Post says 'the recipient has been informed and the item is awaiting collection'. I have not been informed and do not know where it is waiting. The online tracker at DHL says that it is temporarily at their depot awaiting delivery. I cannot call as it's an automated system entirely in German (reasonable enough I suppose, but I'd like to speak to a human being who might have a chance of speaking English).
I expect my parcel to go on holiday tomorrow.

djewesbury wrote:

RPA wrote:Hard to believe the day after something so pivotal but it is what it is.

I could have predicted as much.
I'm sitting in Berlin waiting for a parcel to arrive. I've sat here all day. The online tracker at Deutsche Post says 'the recipient has been informed and the item is awaiting collection'. I have not been informed and do not know where it is waiting. The online tracker at DHL says that it is temporarily at their depot awaiting delivery. I cannot call as it's an automated system entirely in German (reasonable enough I suppose, but I'd like to speak to a human being who might have a chance of speaking English).
I expect my parcel to go on holiday tomorrow.

Surely there are at least a handful of friendly Germans in the vicinity who can lend a hand. Just say 'World Cup' a few times until you gain someone's attention. That is unless you're embarrased about the 'nutritious and delicious horse meat' label on the parcel.

LGTrotter wrote:Although the money is annoying it must throw out your claret stash plans, which is sort of worse.

This comment was not wrong. I had a plan and it was partially scuppered. But other advice in this thread and the opportunity that this blip presented caused me to re-evaluate the plan.

So, out went 4 cases of 2011 and in came 2 cases of La Croix de Beaucillou 2000 and a case of magnums of Batailley 2005. The refund from the bank helped make the decision, but I think it was the right one. A few extra £££ might have changed hands, but not enough to get too stressed about.

The worst that can happen now is that four cases of 2011 miraculously turn up at Seckford Wines and I have to give the bank the money back.

All in all, a reasonably good outcome.

DRT wrote:Chateau Grand-Puy-Lacoste 2002.

Unless it's very cheap I'd pass, had it; a surly fellow with a chip on his shoulder.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Chateau Grand-Puy-Lacoste 2002.

Unless it's very cheap I'd pass, had it; a surly fellow with a chip on his shoulder.

It was from BBR so was never going to be very cheap. I read the reviews and bought into it being unusual for its vintage in that it might be worth drinking.

Hey, ho. One does not learn from his successes.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Chateau Grand-Puy-Lacoste 2002.

Unless it's very cheap I'd pass, had it; a surly fellow with a chip on his shoulder.

It was from BBR so was never going to be very cheap. I read the reviews and bought into it being unusual for its vintage in that it might be worth drinking.

Hey, ho. One does not learn from his successes.

It was a few years ago, maybe it was going through a 'phase' as they say. GPL is usually fantastic and reasonably priced.

I will report back.

The Statement of Affairs of En Primeur Ltd arrived this morning. In summary, they have about £60k worth of realisable assets and £1.8m creditor debt. My £753.10 is unlikely to feature in the distribution of assets given the size of some of the other debts.

I suppose my only hope is that the cases I bought made it to a named account at LCB, which is unlikely otherwise I should not have appeared on the list of creditors.

As a result of my failed attempt to buy cases of 2011 I have made a strategic decision. My target time period for cellar accumulation is 1989 to 2009, classic years only.

I will not breach the upper end of that but will occasionally buy older at the right price.

For someone who is 49 years old does that sound like a reasonable strategy?

Is there any reason for me to buy wine younger than 2009?

DRT wrote:As a result of my failed attempt to buy cases of 2011 I have made a strategic decision. My target time period for cellar accumulation is 1989 to 2009, classic years only.

I will not breach the upper end of that but will occasionally buy older at the right price.

For someone who is 49 years old does that sound like a reasonable strategy?

Is there any reason for me to buy wine younger than 2009?

If you got your money back on the 2011 you got lucky (in my opinion). It might be worth thinking about 2010, the classic years I would agree with. It may be just my lack of taste but I've had to many duds, or just dull wines from the inbetweener years.

Buying older wines will be wise now and then and cheer Alex up.

C'mon, 49? Still in denial.

I have found I quite like young claret before it shus up shop at about 8ish years old. I know I am missing out on the wisdom of age but there you are, maybe a few youngsters, just to try.

Sage advice. It's why I come here so that you old boys can teach me the ropes.

Does 2010 have anything that 2009 doesn't?

Tried a few of each, I wonder if the 2010, despite being praised to the rafters, is a bit stern. Reluctant as I am to allay myself with Parker I think he might be right that hard wines don't always blossom into something wonderful. Others may feel differently.

My approach to the 2009/2010 debate is quite simple. I have to draw a line somewhere to avoid spending too much cash on wines that might not expire before I do. 2009 seems as good a place to draw that line as any. I will continue to excerpt the full force of my legendary willpower to avoid buying 2010.

Spurning Owen's advice to look at the 2005 onwards, I just bought 12 Fourcas Hosten 2004, because they were £125 delivered to my door.

djewesbury wrote:Spurning Owen's advice to look at the 2005 onwards, I just bought 12 Fourcas Hosten 2004, because they were £125 delivered to my door.

Jim Nicholson Wines, [url=http://blog.jnwine.com/post/Forecast-fine-drinking-ahead.aspx]here[/url], wrote:This is great value and I am so delighted with the quality that in the unlikely event you are not completely satisfied I am happy to offer a refund for your first bottle and take back any unopened bottles. Our price is around 33% less than the general market. Hurry! Only 600 bottles available.

Reassured by this guarantee, I hurried.

DRT wrote:My approach to the 2009/2010 debate is quite simple. I have to draw a line somewhere to avoid spending too much cash on wines that might not expire before I do. 2009 seems as good a place to draw that line as any. I will continue to excerpt the full force of my legendary willpower to avoid buying 2010.

Been trying to keep BDX case purchases at 2000 or 2005 vintages unless it is stealing candy from a baby kind of prices.

mosesbotbol wrote:stealing candy from a baby kind of prices.

see previous post ^

DRT wrote:...1989 to 2009, classic years only...

Excellent. So now we can argue about which years fall into that category. I vote 1992, 1993 and 2002. Who's next?

AHB wrote:

DRT wrote:...1989 to 2009, classic years only...

Excellent. So now we can argue about which years fall into that category. I vote 1992, 1993 and 2002. Who's next?

I vote 2000, 2004 and 2006, since I've bought a reasonable amount of each!

Are we talking micro-climate variations or generally highly regarded years?

If the latter I vote 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998(?), 2000, 2005 and 2009.

All intervening years are acceptable from selective sub-regions.

My current focus for accumulation is 2005.

AHB wrote:

DRT wrote:...1989 to 2009, classic years only...

Excellent. So now we can argue about which years fall into that category. I vote 1992, 1993 and 2002. Who's next?

I refuse to rise to this very gaudy fly. I hope that Derek recognises this attempt at irony otherwise he will never speak to Alex again after the first bottle of 1992.

Sorry Daniel, not fond of the 2004.

Does nobody like a bit of sweetness in their claret?

DRT wrote:My current focus for accumulation is 2005.

They have closed down a lot, at least I hope this is what they've done, otherwise I've got a lot of stiff claret to get through. Funny because they were exuberant in youth.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:My current focus for accumulation is 2005.

They have closed down a lot, at least I hope this is what they've done, otherwise I've got a lot of stiff claret to get through. Funny because they were exuberant in youth.

Closed down will work well for me. Lots of them opening up 10-15-20 years from now would be a good result.

What about my list? Are there any lemons in there that I should avoid?

LGTrotter wrote:I hope that Derek recognises this attempt at irony

I have known AHB for many a year. Fear not, I am tuned into his humour.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I hope that Derek recognises this attempt at irony

I have known AHB for many a year. Fear not, I am tuned into his humour.

But why does he torture me so? Nineteen-ninety-freakin-two?

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I hope that Derek recognises this attempt at irony

I have known AHB for many a year. Fear not, I am tuned into his humour.

But why does he torture me so? Nineteen-ninety-freakin-two?

You are still the new boy. Take it like a man or bulb like a girl. Your choice.

DRT wrote:bulb like a girl.

That sounds like me.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:bulb like a girl.

That sounds like me.

Really? Can you do that? How exciting! I'm looking forward to the Port Walk even more now.
God I love Gene Clark.

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:bulb like a girl.

That sounds like me.

Really? Can you do that? How exciting! I'm looking forward to the Port Walk even more now.
God I love Gene Clark.

Hot crumpet anyone?

DRT wrote:Hot crumpet anyone?

Oooh please!

DRT wrote:Are we talking micro-climate variations or generally highly regarded years?

If the latter I vote 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998(?), 2000, 2005 and 2009.

All intervening years are acceptable from selective sub-regions.

My current focus for accumulation is 2005.

I would vote for all of the above. But I don't know much about the 98. Right bank did well I hear, I'm more of a rive gauche man. Do not despise the 88s, while a bit stern to start with even Alex would approve of their lines today.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Are we talking micro-climate variations or generally highly regarded years?

If the latter I vote 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998(?), 2000, 2005 and 2009.

All intervening years are acceptable from selective sub-regions.

My current focus for accumulation is 2005.

I would vote for all of the above. But I don't know much about the 98. Right bank did well I hear, I'm more of a rive gauche man. Do not despise the 88s, while a bit stern to start with even Alex would approve of their lines today.

It is true. I disliked the 1988s at first, finding them too stern, but now find them very enjoyable. I can't help but draw a parallel with the 1978s.

And it is also true that I was not serious in recommending 1992 as a claret vintage to buy!

The 1978s are rather lovely!

djewesbury wrote:The 1978s are rather lovely!

'The year of the miracle' as Harry Waugh said. The main miracle being that they managed to sell them. But seriously they haven't turned out too bad, from the few I've tried. Not sure many of them will still be going now.

OK, if we are going back from 1989 I need some help with my education.

I have tasted wines from 1982, 1986 and 1988 and really enjoyed them. All were from familiar producers, no rubbish. From the 1970s I think all I have had are Chasse-Spleen, Gloria and Sales 1970. The latter is very tired. The CS is only just drinkable if you do it quickly. The Gloria is glorious.

Which other 1970s and 1980s vintages do I need to look out for?

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:The 1978s are rather lovely!

'The year of the miracle' as Harry Waugh said. The main miracle being that they managed to sell them. But seriously they haven't turned out too bad, from the few I've tried. Not sure many of them will still be going now.

Well since Justin viewed it as a public service that I take his 78s off his hands I obliged. Terrible, horrible, rancid juice. Don't know how I've managed it.

DRT wrote:OK, if we are going back from 1989 I need some help with my education.

I have tasted wines from 1982, 1986 and 1988 and really enjoyed them. All were from familiar producers, no rubbish. From the 1970s I think all I have had are Chasse-Spleen, Gloria and Sales 1970. The latter is very tired. The CS is only just drinkable if you do it quickly. The Gloria is glorious.

Which other 1970s and 1980s vintages do I need to look out for?

For me, with my distinct preference for left bank wines, I like wines from the following years from those decades:
1989, 1988, 1986, 1985, 1983, 1982, (1980 sometimes), 1979 (sometimes), 1978, 1970. Most of the wine from the '70s is well past it now.

And if you want to go back another decade it is 1967 (selectively), 1966, 1964 (selectively), 1961, 1959.

The '80s was a great decade for left bank wines.

I would with a few reservations support what Alex has said.
To add some colour I would say of the eighties that the 1989 is probably my favourite vintage, never had a dud, it seems very consistent top to bottom. Next would come the 1985 with the proviso that they do not have the same strength in depth that the 89s have and you do have to be a bit careful lower down the pecking order, they are beautiful wines but quite gentle now, I wonder if they will fall apart in the not too distant. The 88s are similar if a bit less expressive, I think they will last better than any other vintage of the eighties, apart from perhaps the 89s. The 86 I find a bit heavy, they are to some people's taste but not mine, similar to the 82s but the 82s have a bit more sweetness. I don't know if I have been unlucky with the relatively few 82s I've had but I quite actively dislike them. They seem quite distinctive but are characterised by feeling a bit top heavy, unbalanced, cooked, that sort of thing. The 83 is 'classic' for want of a better word, I have had some lovely Margaux which I bought when they were under the radar, but they seem fully priced now. Had a couple of 81s which were no better than OK. Can't think of any 80s I've tried.

The seventies I have tried too sporadically to say much other than it is rare to feel I got my money's worth apart from some 70. A few odd nice surprises, I had a 71 years ago which I really liked. 75s I tried a few and didn't like. 78 was OK but no more.

Thank you both.

1983 and 1985 are vintage I have not yet approached so will look out for some. I am likely to avoid wines from the 1970s.

We will have a 78 and an 83 when you are in Belfast.

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:The 1978s are rather lovely!

'The year of the miracle' as Harry Waugh said. The main miracle being that they managed to sell them. But seriously they haven't turned out too bad, from the few I've tried. Not sure many of them will still be going now.

Well since Justin viewed it as a public service that I take his 78s off his hands I obliged. Terrible, horrible, rancid juice. Don't know how I've managed it.

You had the 78 Giscours I think, which was nice ten years ago.