Just a (very) quick hit today to let you know that the nominations for the 2013 Wine Blog Awards are now open, so head on over and submit your favorites for consideration. It might be the easiest route to upping your good karma that you’ll encounter today. Just sayin’…
Now, the WBAs have been both lauded and criticized, sometimes in the same article and sometimes right here on 1WD, but having had some involvement in how they work (both as a member of an advisory committee and as a judge) I can tell you that they’ve improved substantially in some way/shape/form every year that they’ve been in existence. The WBAs are a nice approving-nod-of-the-head from the wine blogging community and wine consumers (who are very often the same people!) to acknowledge those who are really getting it right when it comes to wine blogging. And all of that starts with your nominations.
The favorite sideshow spectacle of the WBAs sometimes seems to be moaning and groaning about which blogs weren’t included, but the simple fact is that ONLY blogs that are nominated can be considered. And so, similar to the don’t-botch-if-you-didn’t-vote argument, the best way to give your favorite wine websites a shot at winning an award – and avoid the sideshow – is to go and nominate them in the first place. Since multiple nominations don’t help (and only make for a bit more work for the WBA organizers), it’s highly recommended that you glance over the list of websites that have already been nominated before submitting your faves.
Cheers – and enjoy the good karma!
“Investing” in fine wine is a fool’s errand.
As in, “greater fools” – for it is certainly a fool who hopes to sell his/her speculation to greater fools for a profit.
The term greater fool is actually a pseudo-technical financial one, probably best explained in William J. Bernstein’s amazing book The Four Pillars of Investing (emphasis mine):
“The acquisition of a rare coin or fine painting for purely financial purposes is clearly a speculation: these assets produce no income, and your return is dependent on someone else paying yet a higher price for them later. (This is known as the “greater fool” theory of investing; when you purchase a rapidly appreciating asset with little intrinsic value and no capability to create income on its own, you are dependent on convincing someone else to take it off your hands later at a higher price.) There’s nothing wrong with purchasing any of these things for the future pleasure they may provide, of course, but
this is not the same thing as a financial investment.”
Substitute “coin” with “red Burgundy” and “painting” with “First Growth Bordeaux” and the quote would remain apt, cogent and frighteningly applicable. The bottom line is that holding onto fine wine for any reason other than to eventually drink it (or pass it on to someone else who might) is stupid.
This is because wine does not conform in any way to the modern paradigm of investing, which is built upon lower-risk (and thus lower-returning) loans or higher risk (and thus higher-returning) valuation of something’s (usually a company’s) ability to make profit. At best, it’s a hedge that someone (the greater fool) will want the object badly enough to take it off your hands at a price higher than what you paid for it…
Read the rest of this stuff »
It’s that time of year, again.
Last year, Michael Cervin (with whom I later toured the wine scene in Crete) from IntoWine.com stirred up a minor sh*tstorm when he published the inaugural version of his list of the Top 100 Most Influential People in the U.S. Wine Industry.
We love lists, and we hate them. Hence the ensuing sh*storm: why was so-and-so left off? how could they place what’s-his-name so high up on the list? are these guys just attention-grabbing?… etc. My takeaway last year was that the list was “good for a pulse check, probably bad for anything more substantial than that.” I’m pretty much of the same mindset regarding the recently-published 2013 version of the list.
According to IntoWine.com, they don’t really have a strong agenda in compiling this list of influencers:
“Does influential mean people who move markets, impact consumers, inspire winemakers, form policy, and create debate? Yes… We merely define the Top 100 people, from winemakers to law makers, bankers to bloggers, and sommeliers to celebrities who influence wine; how it is made, marketed, perceived, sold, shipped, purchased, shared and consumed.”
Over the last year, not a lot of shuffling took place in the top 20 (I swapped places with Eric Asimov, which puts him ahead of me and therefore rights at least one wrong from the 2012 version!) – I’m not sure if that means that the wine biz in the U.S. is pretty stagnant from an influencer perspective, but the advent of the list is a god excuse for us to take a pulse of the U.S. wine biz in general…
Read the rest of this stuff »