You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Unsulfured wines and Airfrance...
- Thread starter georg lauer
- Start date
Warren Edwardes
Warren Edwardes
originally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Luckily for the cats and dogs in the hold.originally posted by Ned Hoey:
Warren
The entire cylinder of the plane body is pressurized, it would be way too difficult to do it differently.
The cargo area isn't heated but heat from the cabin keeps it from dropping to the outside temp.
Yeah, seems pretty sketchy for Fluffy and Rex, but apparently they aren't stiffs at the other end...
I have googled to find that Ned is right in that the baggage cabin is not pressurised but whilst the baggage bins are warmed a bit from heat from the cabins they do get very cold. And I have found checked in bottles to be cold on arrival especially after long haul.
Animals are kept in heated "bins" whilst the baggage is in unheated "bins".
Stowaways in the baggage hold have been known to have frozen to death.
It would be interesting to check this with a min/max thermometer in the baggage.
Really? Interesting. He'd shown it at a tasting in NYC a while back, but said that he wouldn't export it. Must've changed his mind.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
He showed an unsulphured 2005 Chteauneuf-du-Pape (red) for sale here in San Francisco a couple of months ago.originally posted by SFJoe:
Eric Texier refuses to sell his unsulfured wine except to his neighbors. None for export.
Note the vintage--he wants it to wait a very long time before bottling to be sure that all the bugs have finished their meals.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
$72.50 at standard retail.originally posted by SFJoe:
Really? Interesting. He'd shown it at a tasting in NYC a while back, but said that he wouldn't export it. Must've changed his mind.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
He showed an unsulphured 2005 Chteauneuf-du-Pape (red) for sale here in San Francisco a couple of months ago.originally posted by SFJoe:
Eric Texier refuses to sell his unsulfured wine except to his neighbors. None for export.
Note the vintage--he wants it to wait a very long time before bottling to be sure that all the bugs have finished their meals.
$72.50 at standard retail.
How does it sell at that price?
I suppose that could persuade him to part with it.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
$72.50 at standard retail.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
I don't know. I don't know if it's even been delivered yet. I suppose Terroir will stock it, perhaps one or two other wine bars. Normally, some restos might, but in this economy?originally posted by Rahsaan:
$72.50 at standard retail.
How does it sell at that price?
$72.50 at standard retail...I suppose Terroir will stock it
Those guys must be rich!
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Well, I was figuring that they sell it at $15-18/glass and can probably go through a few bottles. Hell, compared to what you'd get in at least some places in NYC for $15-18/glass, it would be a definite bargain.originally posted by Rahsaan:
$72.50 at standard retail...I suppose Terroir will stock it
Those guys must be rich!
Cole Kendall
Cole Kendall
Not to revive ancient disputes, but I learned from local restaurateurs (during a brief episode in which I poured wines at a trade tasting) that the accepted pricing for wine by the glass was:
price of one glass = wholesale bottle price.
Assuming normal markups etc. that would but the Texier well above $15/18 per glass, but perhaps wine bars in SF have different pricing algorithms than restaurants in DC.
price of one glass = wholesale bottle price.
Assuming normal markups etc. that would but the Texier well above $15/18 per glass, but perhaps wine bars in SF have different pricing algorithms than restaurants in DC.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Maybe it's a coastal difference, Cole, but out here the prices are usually about 1/6 of what the bottle is selling for on the list, which works out to half your formula (assuming a 2x retail markup, and I won't go to a place that has more than 2x markup unless I'm bringing my own wine). The wholesale of the wine is 580/case, net, so a glass under your formula would be nearly $50, under what we see here a little less than $25. Many also offer "tasting pours" which are 1/2 - 2/3 of a regular pour, i.e., $12-17.
Now, we're told that the price of a glass has to cover breakage, rent, etc., but it seems to me that those fixed overhead items are going to be the same whether you sell a $12 glass of wine or a $50 glass of wine, and to tell the truth, at $50 you're not going to have a big enough name that is selling that cheaply, so no one is going to buy a $50 wine. So the logical thing to do is to figure your fixed overhead as fixed overhead and charge that portion of the price as a fixed add-on to all wines, instead of as an across-the-board percentage. Some thoughtful places do that, and sell more wine because of it. After al, the people who buy expensive glasses of wine don't break more glasses than those who buy cheap glasses of wine. And why should they pay more for the rent that covers their seat at the table?
Now, we're told that the price of a glass has to cover breakage, rent, etc., but it seems to me that those fixed overhead items are going to be the same whether you sell a $12 glass of wine or a $50 glass of wine, and to tell the truth, at $50 you're not going to have a big enough name that is selling that cheaply, so no one is going to buy a $50 wine. So the logical thing to do is to figure your fixed overhead as fixed overhead and charge that portion of the price as a fixed add-on to all wines, instead of as an across-the-board percentage. Some thoughtful places do that, and sell more wine because of it. After al, the people who buy expensive glasses of wine don't break more glasses than those who buy cheap glasses of wine. And why should they pay more for the rent that covers their seat at the table?