This is an interesting economic question that brings both theory and practice into play.  There are obviuosly a lot of people out there (either in dot.com land, Hong Kong, Wall Street, Aspen, etc. who "have to have this wine" every year, and for whom $750 is no different than $1,500.  Sort of like the difference between $25 and $50 for the "rest of us" when it comes to a wine that we simply "must have".  So if these folks are not on the list, and everyone who is on the list continues to buy the wine at $750, the market for doubling their money will continue to exist as the vertical collectors will continue to shell out money to fill the slots in their cellars.  (Not to mention the handful of restaurants that will gladly pay $1,500 so that they can have it on their list for $2,500-$3,000.)  That's the "theory" part.

 

In practice, if the people who have been paying secondary prices are on the waiting list, they will move up as people get scared off from risking this much money thinking that they can't flip it.  As the secondary market transitions over to the primary market, the ability to flip disspates as the number of potential buyers shrinks. 

 

So in an unregulated market where antitrust doesn't come into play, if people who are currently on the list band together and grab all the wine, even at the newly inflated price, they will likely keep the secondary market afloat.  But since a perfect conspiracy is hard to pull off, in reality, people will dump their mailers, and many of the "money is no object" crowd who used to pay $1,200-$1,500 per bottle will find themselves able to get in on the floor level for $750. 

Let's see: production is down by 25% so let's raise the price 50% to make up the shortfall in revenue (and then some). 

 

This reminds me of a story my grandfather told about Meyer Lansky.  Meyer owned a building in NYC.  When it came time for the fourth floor tenant to renew his lease, Meyer told him he was going to move him to the fifth floor.  The good news was his rent was not going to go up.  On the other hand, the fifth floor was only 1/2 the square footage of the fourth.

 

So I still get to spend only $1500 for my SE allocation but this time I only get two bottles instead of 3.

They aren't quite there yet.  The most expensive Pinot I currently own is the Rochioli East Block.  It was $99 in 05, but that includes tax.  I always put the actual cost out the door on my spreadsheet.  This is also the most expensive bottle of wine I've purchased.  Keep in mind I have 1 bottle of this.  The next most expensive Pinot is the Rochioli East Block in 03 ($96), followed by the 05 Aubert's at $92.70.

 

Out of the 744 bottles of Pinot I currently own, only 26 bottles cost over $75....and none cost 10 times this amount!  I could buy 10 bottles of 05 Sea Smoke Ten, or 10 bottles of 02 Kistler Estate Pinot, for the same price as ONE bottle of Screagle.  If anybody buys this stuff and DOESN'T flip it they are fricking insane!

 

BTW..if you are in California, this wine is $810 a bottle with tax....and then there is shipping!  Yea-fricking-haw!  How do I get on this list!

 

My apologies to those on this list who lack sanity.  No offense intended.

 

I am so glad I don't like Cab!

 

Chris