As exculsivity is really the only thing justifying this champagne's value, I think we have to question the morality of exclusivity - why is it important for person A to have something that person B does not, and why do we then admire person A for acquiring that item? Their possessions are surely immaterial to others?
Is this immoral?
- Thread starter Cartman123
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 4,409
No I actually was not reffering to you or infact anyone in this thread but well done for admitting your guilt
I don't think you can justify this champagnes value simply by its desirability or exclusivity, they are determined by its quality.
Exclusivity can also be determined by various factors rather than desirability, for example, this particular champagne uses traditional hand processes that most others do not, it is also produced from only the finest individually hand picked grapes and so on, this adds to its exclusivity as the value lies in its quality and providence. It isn't really determined by whether person B covets what Person A has.
not really....
if he hadn't spent it it would just be some numbers in some data centre somewhere on a bank's computer... children would still be starving
he has spent it now the bar makes a profit, the staff get a fat tip... more money gets distributed into the economy
there are still the same number of loaves of bread in the world... the worlds resources haven't changed - some bits of paper/numbers on a computer have changed hands in return for some fizzy alcohol
edit - I'd also be slightly skeptical that he actually paid the amount they're claiming he paid - there was a similar story about some supposed young FX 'trader' doing the same thing in a Liverpool night club - in this instance the Monaco club, the champagne company (who's CEO is pictured in the promotional shot in the article) and the British 'entrepreneur' all benefit from the amount of publicity this sort of thing generates... its not like there was some random pap who was able to take those pics inside the club either rather those pics will have presumably come from someone employed/contracted to take them in that club.
Last edited:
Nah marketing/image/ego plays a role too else you'd see a linear increase in price as you moved up the bottle sizes...
Why does a 150 cl bottle cost 20% more than two 75cl bottles. Why does a 300cl bottle cost 50% more than two 150 cl bottles... its the same champagne and larger glass bottles don't cost hundreds of pounds to make.
Last edited:
As I refuted your point I don't see howNo I actually was not reffering to you or infact anyone in this thread but well done for admitting your guilt
If you were not referring to anyone in the thread, who were you talking about?
Except that it is being sold to people who I would suggest really only care about its desirability or exclusivity.
I reckon my ability to taste a difference is average and that Jay-Z's is not significantly more than good. Yet he still happy to drop $250K on this stuff. The idea that anyone outside of the champagne connoisseur world can actually tell the difference is clearly just a pretence, it is being bought because it is expensive, and more importantly is presented in such a clownish fashion that everyone is aware that it is expensive. Hence it's obvious appeal to the classless.
If you have no way of determining something's value other than taking an experts word for X being better than Y, what basis do you have for choosing the more expensive item other than base ostentation?
I was just trying to move on from the fizz model, onto how such distortions came into being.
Looking at the price list for their 'Gold' collection, the prices do not appear to increase much above what you would expect as the bottle sizes increase, as not only are you paying for more champagne, you are also paying for the increased packaging, bottling etc. I suspect that marketing and the image also has a cost consideration as you say, but I don't think it carries much providence as far as the value of such is considered. There is also the cost premium applied by the club itself, which I suspect is not insignificant. (They rarely are, even for your local nightclub)
I was using these as a guide
http://www.thechampagnecompany.com/shop/brand/Armand-De-Brignac-74
there are significant increases there which don't account for packaging costs
two 300cl bottles = £3180
vs a 600 cl bottle = £4890
difference in price of £1710
plus as you point out - the club marks up these prices significantly too - a lot of it is simply paying for exclusivity - bigger bottle allowing bigger bragging rights etc...
or to look at an extreme 8 * 75cl bottles = 8* 205 = £1640 vs a 600 cl bottle for £4890
same amount of champagne... but £3250 extra for the bigger glass bottle + bragging rights
http://www.thechampagnecompany.com/shop/brand/Armand-De-Brignac-74
there are significant increases there which don't account for packaging costs
two 300cl bottles = £3180
vs a 600 cl bottle = £4890
difference in price of £1710
plus as you point out - the club marks up these prices significantly too - a lot of it is simply paying for exclusivity - bigger bottle allowing bigger bragging rights etc...
or to look at an extreme 8 * 75cl bottles = 8* 205 = £1640 vs a 600 cl bottle for £4890
same amount of champagne... but £3250 extra for the bigger glass bottle + bragging rights
Last edited:
That is a presumption. Some may simply enjoy the finer champagne.
Having never had the opportunity to taste the difference, I cannot say whether you are correct or not..however, I can taste the difference between a cheap and expensive wine.....and the reason I would buy the more expensive one is based on my preference, not on what someone else's perception was.
While there are people who will buy a thing because it is seen as prestigious or as a show of their wealth, many others buy things simply because they want to or because of the quality. I suspect that Charles Shaker was doing a bit of both, particularly as a show of wealth on his part is important to his business. The cost would possibly be repaid ten fold simply from the press attention and the obvious expression of success and perceived generosity that it portrays to any future client.
Do you not read reviews and take advice before trying or buying something?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 4,409
As I refuted your point I don't see how
If you were not referring to anyone in the thread, who were you talking about?
I was talking in general about how people think badly of people who spend their money in a way they see fit. in a sense its a case of "not your money, not your bussiness"
Everytime when I see Monaco pictures, knowing Coulthard, Di Resta, Hamilton is living in Monaco tax free, it really hits home what plebs we all are. Especially that Briatore.
I'll bet none of these people or any from Monaco browse online forums because they're so rich they have people do stuff for them.
I mean look at those photos, it's another life.
If they died, their fame and name will be remembered. If one of us joe's die, nobody knows or... who?
I'll bet none of these people or any from Monaco browse online forums because they're so rich they have people do stuff for them.
I mean look at those photos, it's another life.
If they died, their fame and name will be remembered. If one of us joe's die, nobody knows or... who?
http://www.blackdiamond-lifestyle.com/wine-prices.htm
SELLING PRICES
Brut Gold 750
€ 299.00
Brut Gold Magnum 1.5L
€ 650.00
Brut Gold Jeroboam 3.0L
€ 2,000.00
Brut Gold Methuselah 6.0L
€ 5,500.00
Brut Gold Nebuchadnezzar 15L
€ 16,000.00
Rose/Blanc de Blancs 750
€ 400.00
Rose/Blanc de Blancs Magnum 1.5L
€ 900.00
It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to assume that the costs inherent in larger bottle sizes etc are a large part of those costs, as you can see the cost differences increase as the bottle sizes increase reflecting this. It is more difficult to create a 15L bottle (particularly by hand) than a 75cl bottle.
I suspect that there is a mark up according to the rarity and/or availability of the product, but I don't think it is as significant as it may appear.
Ignore packaging costs - it is the market price for something so large.
Ultimately, someone's had the minerals to create a product at a certain price point, certain that someone else would pay a premium for it. They have. I guess anyone can then compare the price paid for this to the price paid for anything else - houses, beans, Hovis - anything you like really - and convey their opinion on whether it is worthwhile or not, or immoral to them.
I currently earn £x. Next year I want to try and earn £x x 2. I probably won't increase my social contribution by double, so presumably I'm immoral too as I set an unknown benchmark years ago on how much I should not spend on luxuries? No.
Ultimately, someone's had the minerals to create a product at a certain price point, certain that someone else would pay a premium for it. They have. I guess anyone can then compare the price paid for this to the price paid for anything else - houses, beans, Hovis - anything you like really - and convey their opinion on whether it is worthwhile or not, or immoral to them.
I currently earn £x. Next year I want to try and earn £x x 2. I probably won't increase my social contribution by double, so presumably I'm immoral too as I set an unknown benchmark years ago on how much I should not spend on luxuries? No.
Its massively inflated unless you're suggesting that a 6L bottle costs 3 grand to produce
you might have missed my edit in my previous post
you can get 6l of the champagne in the form of 8 individual 75cl bottles for £1640 or you can pay a whopping £3250 extra and get that same quantity of champagne in a bigger bottle... I think that price increase more than covers the higher cost of a large sized glass bottles... given that these large sized glass bottles also exist for cheaper champagnes...
Actually, the mark up is normally far more steep than that, as the risk of failure to a single bottle (and the larger volume of product) is greatly increased if it is in one, huge bottle compared to being placed in many more smaller bottles.
Because people know them they're important ? aren't their other reasons for their importance ? because people know them and they have fame not that i've ever heard of them, i should care ? does their fame and name make them more important than the rest of us once they're dead ?
spending all that money on drink and people dont like it yet if it was a car that never got used, not a thing would be said..
its a non story because nothing can be done about what people spend their money on..
spending all that money on drink and people dont like it yet if it was a car that never got used, not a thing would be said..
its a non story because nothing can be done about what people spend their money on..
Fame brings money. It's all about money and contacts.