Page 4 of 6
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:20 pm
by Bob bman
I thought I had said I was a "maybe" but just to be clear, I cannot commit at this time. I will need to arrange a business trip at the appropriate moment if I'm to attend, and I can't do that this early.
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:34 pm
by Andreas Platt
I don't even want to imagine everyone's thoughts if the bottle is "corked"
.
BTW: has the bottle ever been recorked or is it in original condition?
Insurance
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:21 pm
by Guest
I just read a story about an car dealer in Binghamton, NY who ran a Valentine's Day promotion that promised new car buyers they'd get $5,000 in cash each if at least 6 inches of snow fell.
Well, the snow fell, and about two dozen people have claimed their prize. The car dealer is very happy - he sold a lot of cars and he took out an insurance policy on the promotion, so the insurance company - not the dealer - will have to pay up.
Hmm...how about an insurance policy on a corked bottle of Port...???
Insurance
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:46 pm
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
jdaw1 wrote:Let's assume I think that, because of its size, there is a 80% chance it’s “good” and a 20% chance it’s “bad” (without yet discussing how we determine which). So if I pay £10k for this bottle, and then sell it to a consortium of FTLOP members for £12½k with a refund if “bad”, I’m at breakeven. (My expected P&L = –10 +12½ –20%×12½ = 0, measured in £k.) That mark-up is considerably more than the suggested half the cost of my glass. And if I think the probabilities are 75%:25%, as I do, the fair price becomes the less round £13,333.33⅓. And that assumed that I am risk-neutral, which few of us are, though the calculation of the fair mark-up in a non-risk-neutral world is more intricate.
Then we would have the problem if I think it’s “not great but not off” (I would say that, wouldn’t I) and everybody else claims “it’s off!” (they would say that, wouldn’t they).
An insurer’s reasoning would be similar, but not identical. There would be two main differences.
- The insurer knows something extra: that those who (might) know most about the bottle want to insure it. That self-selection must say that there is extra risk, and hence the insurer will want a higher premium.
- Most insurance contracts insure the insured item, but do not insure the insurance premium itself. So people would be paying the premium whatever happened.
In other words, you are welcome to get a quotation, but either the insurer won’t pay except in impossible-to-prove circumstances (so read the
small print), or it will be jolly expensive. Or, more likely, both.
Another thought
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:00 pm
by Guest
...or everyone brings one great bottle of Port with them, and if the "BIG" bottle is bad, we crack open all the good stuff we've brought - I'd be happy with an liquid insurance policy...
Re: Another thought
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:08 pm
by Andy Velebil
admin wrote:.I'd be happy with an liquid insurance policy...
Ahh, the best kind
Much more sensible
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:40 pm
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
Much more sensible. But we’d have to bring old port as there wouldn’t be much decanting time.
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:05 pm
by Guest
...we’d have to bring old port as there wouldn’t be much decanting time.
I'm ok with old Port :)
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:37 pm
by Bob bman
Since London is the home of the famous Lloyds insurance syndicates, I wonder how much they'd charge for a formal insurance policy. Mondy spent on the big bottle would be recouped (by those who chose to buy it, at least) and participants could still bring a bottle for insurance. Best of both worlds, no?
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:47 pm
by Derek T.
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:54 pm
by Bob bman
Perhaps Lloyds would let a well-known critic such as Robinson or Broadbent adjudicate. No doubt they know or are known to some of the Lloyds names.
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:25 pm
by Roy Hersh
I don't even want to imagine everyone's thoughts if the bottle is "corked" .
This brings up two poignant questions:
a. do the London police carry guns nowadays?
b. given the location of the restaurant, can we pinpoint to the best of our ability, the exact time it would take police to don riot gear and get to the restaurant?
I think knowing the responses to these questions would go along way in helping us to decide if an insurance policy is really warranted.
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:57 am
by Alan C.
Roy,
Re your questions,
1. Alarmingly more and more, but the vast majority, No.
2. About 10 minutes.
If I'm not amongst you, and the worst case scenario happens, I'll make a few phonecalls, and get you the best cells, and extra sausages in the morning!
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:55 pm
by John Danza
Michael Ferrier wrote:On a technical note, one think that I am curious about is whether Dows would have bottled this Nebuchadnezzar in 1898 on spec, as it were, or would it perhaps have been bottled some years later from the contents of 20 ordinary bottles? In the write-up in the wine list it refers to the bottle being ordered for a 70th. birthday party in the '20s - it would seem surprising if it was ordered in 1898 for a party some 20 years later.
It's very unlikely that the bottle was created or filled by Dow. AFAIK, at the time this wine was created and then this bottle was created and filled, Port was not bottled by the shipper. The wine was shipped in cask to the English negotiants, who then did the bottling. This is what I would expect happened in the creation of this bottle.
John
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:08 am
by Michael Ferrier
John
I'm sure you are right that this would have been London bottled. However the question still remains whether it was bottled in 1898 'on spec' or whether some years later. If it was some years later it must either have been a rebottling of normal size bottles or from cask, in which latter case would it not be more of a colheita than a vintage port?
Definitely not Colheita
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:22 am
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
Jeffrey Benson by phone: It was bottled for the birthday, though Benson can’t recall whether it was done in Scotland or Dublin (they lived in Scotland prior to inheriting the title), and bottled from individual bottles. “Are you sure it wasn’t bottled from a cask?” “No no no, absolutely not from cask. With the big bottle I purchased eight or nine individual bottles. Delicious, and definitely vintage — threw a sediment. It was absolutely delicious. No question: it is definitely not Colheita.”
Jeffrey Benson: I’ll tell you how I know it’s 20-bottle bottle. I took the measurements and weight to Croxon’s the bottle merchant, who were fascinated, and they told me that it’s a Nebuchadnezzar. The bottle will be valuable.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:11 am
by Andy Velebil
If it was 8 or 9 bottles that will not make a Nebuchadnezzar. Unless those were magnums, then maybe. That issue makes me a bit leary. Also, nothing like taking a bunch of bottles 30 years later and pouring them into one big one.
one big bottle and several small bottles
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:13 am
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
No, not what he said. He bought one big bottle and several small bottles from this cellar in Ireland. He thinks that, in the 1920s or thereabouts, 20 small bottles were put together to make the big bottle, those 20 bottles not being the eight or nine that were left over.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:17 am
by Andy Velebil
those 20 bottles not being the eight or nine that were left over.
Just got home from working all night and my pea-brain didn't catch that.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:31 pm
by John Danza
Is there any update on the possibility of this event occurring? At one point the discussion was about tying the date to one of Roy's tours that was still being finalized. I don't know if that happened. Just curious, because I still like the idea of the dinner.
John