The sense I got was more that the good reviews were being "bought" with advertising revenue. If that was the intent, it might apply to someone like Gallo of Sonoma, but not to the super-premiums. Personally, I don't think it applies ... people just have different tastes.
> and we all know that per bottle, that can't amount to too much.
I suppose that depends on what you count as promotion! That corporate jet or chateau reproduction winery facility might boost the price a bit.
> Since we can't explain the difference between the costs of a Ferrari and a Chevy
Can't we? Certainly a big part of the difference comes from taking
costs like design and tooling, which apply to the whole production run,
and amortizing them across maybe 100 cars in one case, but 100,000 in another.
Plus, each Chevy model will re-use parts from other models. Plus
there is a huge difference in the amount of hand versus robot labor.
And then there is the need for the investors to make their money on the
sale of a very small number of cars per month versus versus thousands.
And when you get done with all of that economics, then there is just the
"because I can get
away with it" factor. I think we understand the difference pretty well.
A lot of these same sorts of things apply to wine. If one is going to produce 500 cases a year, the economics are very different than 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000. And, if one has a scarce product in high demand, well that explains a lot too.
Now, if some winemaker tries to tell me that the reason for a $20/bottle price increase is because the grapes are more expensive, then certainly we should laugh because we all know it isn't true. But if the reason is just "because I can get away with it" or "because I think this price is equivalent to wines of comparable quality and stature" then I think we need to ask a different question and that is whether the wine is delivering quality in relation to its price. And, I suppose, are we willing to pay that price even if the quality is there.
In the case of the last release of Lokoya Rutherford at $100 a bottle,
my feeling was that the quality was there, i.e., if any California Cab
was worth $100/bottle, this was one of them. At this point I can't
afford to buy $100 wine by the case, but if money was no object this is
probably one I would buy. But, Caymus Napa at $60 a bottle is a joke
since there are
many wines a third that cost or even a quarter which are better wines by any criteria, at least in my book. So, that is a wine I would never buy at any price.
I think your wines deliver quality that more than justifies the highest
retail price I have seen and then some. Given how hard you have to
work to keep from selling out prematurely, I am sure that you could get
more and those who paid more would still be getting value. To get
that quality at the substantial discount provided by your futures program