Page 1 of 1
Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:12 am
by Roy Hersh
Great stuff in this cellar, but what good is it if nobody will ever drink it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 263359.ece
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:30 am
by Ray Barnes
Having read the article, I am inclined to agree with that. Wine bottles, empty or full as the case may be, are not trophies.
Ray
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:59 am
by Roy Hersh
I see no reason that empty bottles can not be considered trophies as the contents have been fully enjoyed and the empty bottle serves as a perfect representation of the memory of the consumption of the wine from within. It is bottles of wine that remain full that I doth protest when it comes to memorializing.
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:01 am
by Ray Barnes
Point taken. Methinks you doth not protest too much. :)
Ray
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:10 pm
by Glenn E.
Wine is to drink. The bottles can be collected, along with the memories.
I think it is sad that he is removing all of those profoundly historical bottles from the world for no apparent purpose other than to stoke his own ego.
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:22 pm
by Andy Velebil
What a waste! So sad that wine lovers won't get to enjoy them. Although I do understand his point about a few uber rich people buying things just for trophy's. If thats the case he should find someone who he knows will enjoy and appreciate drinking them and either sell or give them away. To me the memories of drinking a bottle are far far better than any full bottle sitting in a cellar that will never see light.
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:03 pm
by Derek T.
I am sure I have mentioned this before on this forum but occassionaly a bottle is worth keeping intact for purely sentimental reasons. For example, I have a bottle of Sandeman Ruby in pristine condition with an individually numbered label that I believe to be from prior to 1936. It truely is a pleasure to own it but I doubt that it would be of any interest to drink. It would appear in my list of the top 5 bottles I am proud to own. All the others will be drunk, but not that one.
Am I mad?
Should I donate it to Sandeman to be displayed in their small museum in their lodge in VNG?
Derek
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:13 pm
by Andy Velebil
I would say there is a bit of a difference between an inexpensive Ruby and a Nacional. I'd recon you'd not keep the Nacional closed up forever, but would drink it at some point. Although donating does sound like a nice generous idea.
Re: Wine is to drink ... or is it to look at in a museum?
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:01 am
by Erik Wiechers
Somehow i can understand this man. He is afraid that some obscure entrepreneur with the money to buy it will waste it on his/her self-proclaimed wine lovers. It would be my nightmare also when a $ 1000 bottle is gulped down by some person followed afterwards by a big BUUUUURP. The horror, the horror......
I would love to dwell in his cellar for a day though. Take pics and awe at his collection.
Thanks for the tip Roy, fun article to read.