The End of the Affair

Horrible story, David. As Mark says, sounds like a mental disorder!

[David M. Bueker]

Actually sounds liek a case of a guy who just woke up the next morning & decided he didn't want the wines or didn't have the cash flow. He acted like a jerk because he could not face telling the truth.

Mark, your woeful experience recalls situations (which surface regularly on the Squires site, for example), not attributable to economic crises or ownership changes, where customers buy futures, but later find their reserved wine sold out to someone else because the market price rose in the meantime. Sometimes it's just how a retailer does business (not unlike trading in bulk commodities and their options contracts), and the retailer either replaces the bottles from another source, or makes some other accommodation with the customer. Some wine consumers -- in my reading they've tended to be among those who came to fine wines within the last 10 or 15 years -- aren't particularly disturbed, and describe this as an acceptable (if cynical) "business" aspect of buying wine.

About 20 years ago I abandoned a major Bay Area retailer, after the proprietor acknowledged that he'd sold out the wine ordered by friends of mine on a futures purchase (he didn't appear troubled about it, nor inclined to do anything to replace the wine). We'd all been regular customers there for several years, since the place first opened. Since then, I hear a steady stream of grumbles from local wine consumers caught up in other sold-out futures situations with the same retailer. Some of whom seem to tolerate it (or use it as a bargaining point with the same retailer). Another population sharply defends that retailer, saying they personally never saw any such behavior. Periodically, one of those later claims, just as sharply, to've been screwed by the retailer, and stops doing business there.

I'm struck by the side lesson in how strongly people have defended such retailers against entirely creditable and specific accounts of dubious ethics, arguing "it never happened to me." That implies logically that either they wish (for some reason) to impugn the injured customer's testimony, or else they take a moral stance that it's fine to deal with a business known to treat other customers outrageously. (Different in degree, but not in essence, to people in past times who've said, for example in police states, that the goons have not come for US, after all, so it isn't our concern!) I'd have thought the moral implications obvious, but if so, that retailer would long ago have gone out of business.

Wow, while I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, the Niemoeller reference seems a bit excessive. Do we need to invoke Godwin's Law here?

Leaving aside whether I support police states, Max and I have discussed this before. I started shopping at that store (at suggestion of friends who were customers dating back to 80s) and found quite a few bargains. Years later, when I included this retailer on a list of possible Burgundy sources on a Usenet forum, Max contacted me and said I shouldn't recommend them (and by the way, every single time I've been in discussion since, I've included something along the lines of "I've had good experiences there, but some experienced Burg-nuts have had bad experiences" or similar). So here's a store that has consistently done right with me, and everyone I know, but I'm supposed to stop shopping there immediately based on Max's friend's story from 15+ years before? Among my circle, there have been a few wines that weren't delivered, but in each case they have come up with a solution acceptable to each party (admittedly, my purchases are at a much lower level of rarity than Max and friends).

Of the stores I shop at, I could probably come up with at least one person who feels they were wronged by that store and refuses to shop there for each one (offhand I can think of examples for such quality retailers as CSW, Winex, WHWC, Zachys, Crush, Astor, WineLibrary). There are other stores I don't shop at, due to personal experiences, friends' bad experiences, or multiple reported bad experiences. When in the previous debate I mentioned that there was another Bay Area shop I didn't shop at based on my bad experiences, Max replied that they were a good retailer:
"fundamentally sound conscientious retailer that also in the last couple years or so, unfortunately hired inexperienced new people to answer phones and email, impairing new-customer satisfaction.  I had trouble myself with this and it underlies most or all 
of the retail complaints I've read.  What's really bad, from the long view, about this or any other anecdotal screw-up is that it conveys a distorted impression of the firm."

Fair enough. But I still won't shop there (even when someone forwards me attactive lists from their sales). . And there are long threads on multiple wine boards over a recent situation where that store sent an offer out, a customer said yes (actually, several said yes, store accepted the first one), customer was sent pictures to confirm condition, credit card was charged , and 2 days later store decided bottles "weren't for sale" or were priced incorrectly. Credit card refunded, customer pissed. Now, I've gone on record as saying the customer's subsequent behavior ("send me the bottles or I'm posting on internet") was imho wrong. But the reality is that the store that Max likes did exactly what he says the store he dislikes did (and according to the customer offered no compensation)-and it was the manager, not a low level employee.

I actually have not ordered anything from the store Max dislikes in quite a while. Their best deals were usually pre-arrival, and in today's economy I am very careful where I put my meager money. This firm's long delivery delays and needs to cover short orders don't inspire trust of safety. That said, if I do order again, I don't think I'll feel immoral for doing so. I do strive to act in a moral manner, and I think even in the wine world I do so (I've contacted CSW when they accidently gave me 2 bottles of 71 Barolo rather than 1, told Posner when I got Leflaive Puligny instead of Bourgogne, etc). I know a whole lot of honorable people who shop at that store.

[David M. Bueker]

Basic rule - shop at places where you like to shop and where you feel they value your business.

...the Niemoeller reference seems a bit excessive.

I had no notion of Niemoller -- I just read a lot of modern history, which records many such situations.* There as elsewhere, it's helpful if respondents focus on what a poster is expressing, rather then reading further meanings into it, and responding to those. (That, and checking FAQs, might be the prime directives of effective online discourse.)

Here I consider the substance of the situation, not my own words, important. I cited an incident of business ethics, known to me with certainty (because the proprietor confirmed it to me, emphatically, as I've mentioned to Dale before). A series of later testimonials, heard directly from customers I know to be reliable (as, I'm confident, would any of you, if you knew them) described variations on the episode I knew. Therefore we have a long-term, clear-cut situation, testified even from the very top of the business. Those who've had much communication with me (including Dale) should realize how careful I am about factual accuracy, as separate from opinion. If you grasp the accuracy of those accounts, and the genuine unacceptability of what they report (even if "it never happened to me"), it forces a principled decision, which may be uncomfortable. Much easier therefore to misunderstand, or otherwise rationalize. One method is to jump at opportunities to confuse this case with another, and add characterizations about what "Max likes" or "Max dislikes."

Dale, those are your extrapolations from limited communication re cases where my views are scarcely known to you at all. Had you been interested enough to talk to me before posting, I believe you'd know that too. I haven't done business for years with either firm you cited, and it has little to do with "liking" or "disliking." I have much deeper understanding of the two firms than what you mentioned. I dealt with both more or less since they started, mostly in person; tasted with the founders of both businesses, came to know their personal styles. My impression of one was opportunistic, and he underscored that to me explicitly. My impression of the other was of a passionate specialist importer/retailer, more exuberant in his wine enthusiasm than careful in his choice of personnel. Always-shaky customer contact points became useless around the time of my limited and (again) well-supported communication to you about that firm. I also saw reports, then and later, of seriously bad customer treatment, forwarded some to the business's owner's attention, and haven't dealt there since, so I've no idea how things are now. In depth, the two situations are disparate, but both firms have treated customers shabbily. I "like" both firms, but do business with neither.

My posting though was about not Dale, but the larger human-nature lesson, available to those willing to look. Someone otherwise sensitive to customer treatment will defend (even if just to themselves) good impressions of a firm, against testimony no matter how creditable, about practices that "didn't happen to me or people I know," even though the same person would be outraged to experience the same practices. I personally know two people who moved from defense to outrage over the same firm (the one I alluded to) after their own bad experiences. The wider phenomenon is what's really interesting, IMO. I've seen abundant hard evidence for it.

* Evidently it's good that I didn't post my original draft of that. FYI, the specific case I recalled -- also not my original draft form -- is modern testimony by a civilian who lived in an occupied country in the early 1940s, and remarked that the first reaction to goons dragging away some civilian neighbors was as I mentioned. But after a little thought, he and peers realized that if this could happen to some neighbors, it could happen to anyone, and to accept it was passively to support it. So instead, they did something about it. A side observation: From my online readings, citing "Godwin's Law," generally in much larger topics, as often as not is a rhetorical device to avoid an apt historical parallel, and therefore avoid learning from history -- deeply ironic in view of what the "Law" alludes to.

Max,

I referred to Niemöller since his "first they came" poem is by far the most famous example of those situations (though certainly not unique). As to Godwin's Law, I used a smilie, as I was mostly joking (but do dispute comparing tolerance of the failure of delivery of a case of Burgundy to tolerance of totalitarianism -it is not merely a difference in degree).

I also sincerely apologize for the shorthand of "store Max likes/dslikes," but was trying not to have to type "the store that Max says no one should shop at" and "the store Dale will not shop at, but Max says he should as they're a  fundamentally sound conscientious retailer" (as of Oct 07, not sure when you stopped shopping there). I'm sorry if it seemed that I was trivializing your reasons, I just thought your reasons were clearly stated in your previous post, and no one would think it was merely dislike. I was only trying to not type all of that (and per your stated preference, was trying not to use the name of the retailer you originally referred to). It was not meant to trivialize, and I'm sorry if you took it that way.

If my purchasing wine through store #1 caused harm to another person, I wouldn't do it. But I've never seen evidence that is true. As noted, since you expressed your concerns, I have included a statement that "others feel differently" if I have ever mentioned that store (and suggested searches of various fora. and pointed out risks of long waits). I will attest that I will not scream in "outrage" if a retailer does me wrong- it's business, and I'll deal with it in a businesslike manner. There certainly have been stores that have not lived up to a bargain, or that acted in a manner that I didn't like, and in those cases I have ceased doing business with them (after resolving issue one way or the other). If someone asks, I'll share my experiences, but to my memory I've never told anyone not to shop at a store (well, I have said "its a waste of time" about some of the distributor-list stores).

I do agree that we all give greater credence to our own experiences than to others, which was why I pointed out that you regarded my negative experiences as less important than your positive (at that time) experiences with the second retailer. My stating that case was a counter-example, not jumping at opportunities to confuse the issue.

As time goes by, I buy higher and higher percentages of my wine through a few retailers where I know the principals or at least senior sales people (CSW in NYC, Grapes and Zachys in Westchester County NY, couple others). I believe the only West Coast stores I've purchased from this year are WHWC and WineX, mostly wines my local faves didn't carry. I haven't placed an order with the store in question in close to a year (CT shows a few bottles in 2009, but I believe those were wines I neglected to enter until delivered this winter). However, I just don't see that shopping there is immoral (if I was investing in the business I'd take a closer look- ownership has responsibility, and that is why I use socially conscious funds for instance). I don't see the customer as responsible for whatever management does, whether at a wine store, Bank of America, Pfizer, Philip Morris/Altria, etc.

If people have been screwed by a retailer, let them take legal action, let them spread the bad word, or take whatever action they feel appropriate. One would assume that someone ordering scarce pre-arrival wines is a competent adult. But let's don't equate others shopping at a store with collaboration (Different in degree, but not in essence, to people in past times who've said, for example in police states, that the goons have not come for US, after all, so it isn't our concern!

[Niemöller's] "first they came" poem is by far the most famous example of those situations

I'm not acquainted with all notable writing on the subject (as implied by a characterization of "by far the most famous example" -- in my relative ignorance, I might have proposed others), but if you are, then you understand the diversity of times and places where people are content, not to "collaborate," but to acquiesce in treatment of others that they wouldn't abide to themselves -- therefore passively, implicitly supporting the behavior. [Evidently this analogy didn't get across, or anyway was uncomfortable, because that's precisely the situation I point to in wine buying.]

For rather than understand that they are doing just that, people will fail to credit accurate information, or will find ways to misinterpret it or explain it away. As one well-known writer said, "it is so much easier not to know."

I do agree that we all give greater credence to our own experiences than to others, which was why I pointed out that you regarded my negative experiences as less important than your positive (at that time) experiences with the second retailer.

Dale: Please, please, please stop posting about what I think (or "regard"), extrapolating inaccurately, however much you may believe it, from some limited information you have interpreted.

I've tried to summarize faithfully from a larger body of information I have about a particular firm. I'm sure that most reasonable people, including Dale, would cease buying from that firm if they knew what I do; that's the reason I bear witness. (Even though it never "happened to" me, either.) Other customers, expressing views much like Dale's, have demonstrated radical change of view, once they too got unacceptable treatment. If for some reason anyone doubts my accuracy or motivations, or wants to read in interpretations beside the point, that's their choice.

It goes without saying that if I showed the same resistance to unwelcome realities that I'm highlighting here, I'd likewise bear responsibility. I've tried, and evidently failed, in a few words to show why I believe even Dale would not perceive as comparable the case of a second firm, were he willing to investigate enough. Among other differences, I've tried to bring out that one firm's customer treatment reflected longtime attitude from the top; the other's was formerly generally acclaimed, then inconsistent (but navigable, if you knew who the good people were), then finally out of control -- and (I saw these people, at work) because of inattention to that side of the business by senior management. Please do not read other meanings into these accounts. Both cases showed unacceptable customer treatment, as I already said. Surely this very exchange supports my underlying argument that (as another writer put it) people will think what they want, whatever the facts or evidence.

[David M. Bueker]

Dale & Max - I hope you both realize that very little of what you are trying not to say makes any sense to the rest of us not who don't recall (or never saw) the original source material upon which your apparent disagreement is based (or not).

David (and all others),
I sorry if this detour seems convoluted. Given my druthers, I personally always prefer to be specific, but in one of the previous interchanges I was asked not to refer specifically to the retailers. Despite my disagreement here with Max, he is a poster I hold in utmost respect, and I wanted to respect his wishes. I apologize for the vagueness, and just encourage others to post on Sams and ignore this!

Max,
I guess I should have said Martin Niemoeller's poem about his imprisonment "seems to me to me by far the most famous of the statements about that situation." Not being as learned as others, the fact that I have heard this at least 50 times, yet could not name another famous example (though I've certainly encountered the situations in both nonfiction and fiction),perhaps led me to overstate. I'd appreciate a few pointers to equally well known examples. TIA.

Dale said- I do agree that we all give greater credence to our own experiences than to others, which was why I pointed out that you regarded my negative experiences as less important than your positive (at that time) experiences with the second retailer.

Dale: Please, please, please stop posting about what I think (or "regard"), extrapolating inaccurately, however much you may believe it, from some limited information you have interpreted.

Max, I'm sorry if I extrapolated inaccurately. After I stated that I didn't shop at "store #2" due to attitudes encountered there, you posted the comments italicized in my penultimate post above, and stated "as you know more about the firm, a very  different picture emerges. Here again, if my word  and experience mean anything to you, those problems are superficial, not fundamental"
OK, to me that sounded like you were giving greater credence to your positive experiences than my negative ones. You can let me know what the accurate explanation is.

But in any case, I have to admit the idea that I'm extrapolating your views inaccurately is pretty funny. This thread about Sam's took this byway when you stated your views of the views and attiftudes of literally hundreds (ok, closer to thousands) of people who shop at the store in Bay area, based on your interpretations of what they thought.I'm not arguing for the others, just on my own thoughts. Which I think you were inaccurate on.

So, let me state my position again, and you can state yours. I feel that fine wine is a luxury item (though to me paradoxically it is a neccessity, but that's my quirk and not actually reality). People who are almost certainly not living on the edge, can fight their own battles re deliveries of Jayer CP , Mugnier Musigny, and Le Pin. If I'm screwed on delivery (none of the above, but some decent older Bdx and 1er cru Burgs have been ordered in past). I'll fight MY own battles. I've never whined re a non-delivery, and don't plan on starting. I'm perfectly comfortable with me, you, or anyone else posting their negative experiences (and in public, naming names!). But I find it offensive to compare non-delivery of wine in the US (with all the possibilties for recourse- lawsuits, public outrage campaigns, etc) with the seizure of individuals for beliefs (or ethnicity) in police states. If the former happens to me, I'll ask for no help. If the latter happens, I expect my fellow citizens to assist.

Retail slights to the comparatively powerless I can get pretty incensed about. but if you can't fight for your wine, don't order it. It's a luxury item. I think I'm pretty solid on the "not letting the jackboots take your neighbors away" front.

Dale & Max - I hope you both realize that very little of what you are trying not to say makes any sense to the rest of us not who don't recall (or never saw) the original source material upon which your apparent disagreement is based (or not).

Thanks for interjecting this!

Just got word that another branch of Sam's - this time its Highland Park location - is closing.

Dear Valued Sam’s Customer,

It is with a heavy heart that we announce after three years of service to the north shore Sam’s Wines & Spirits will close its Highland Park location. The store is set to close at end of business on Sunday, September 13th. The current economic climate was a key factor in this decision.

The store is holding a closing sale between now and Sunday with savings up to 75% off a huge selection of wine, spirits, beer, gourmet foods and accessories. Please stop by today through Saturday, 10am – 6pm and Sunday, 11am – 5pm.

If you have items in will call you can pick them up or schedule a delivery out of the Highland Park store for the remainder of this week, otherwise all items will be transferred to our Lincoln Park store where the same can be done.

We realize you have many options available to you for your wine and spirits needs but sincerely hope you will visit us at our flagship Lincoln Park store, our Downers Grove store or visit Sam’s on-line at http://www.samswine.com where we can continue to offer you the same outstanding customer service, product selection and value that you’ve come to expect.

Thank you for your patronage over the years. We hope to see you soon.

Sincerely,

Richard DiStasio
President, Sam’s Wines & Spirits

The opening message in this thread mentioned new owners at Sam's. I just discovered today that the web site has been rebranded. samswine.com is now redirected to binnys.com which is a large Chicago area retailer. The Marcey St. location survives the takeover.

Yep, and if you were on Sam's mailing list you are now on Binny's mailing list.

Yep, and if you were on Sam's mailing list you are now on Binny's mailing list.

Yes, which I'm strongly inclined to unsubscribe from, given their focus on wines and spirits that I care not a hoot about. On a slightly related note, I recently got a phone call at home from Binny's: they were calling me to inform me of a change in Will Call policy that accompanied the Sam's to Binny's transition. The gist was that they'll now only store wine for a customer for a month, so they were letting me know that I had 30 days to pick up the couple of bottles waiting for me in Will Call (replacements for corked bottles). I didn't ask "or... what?" but I was tempted. Yes, the end of the affair indeed!

Mark Lipton

Dale & Max - I hope you both realize that very little of what you are trying not to say makes any sense to the rest of us not who don't recall (or never saw) the original source material upon which your apparent disagreement is based (or not).

This sounds like another Premier Cru thread to me...

Dale & Max - I hope you both realize that very little of what you are trying not to say makes any sense to the rest of us not who don't recall (or never saw) the original source material upon which your apparent disagreement is based (or not).

This sounds like another Premier Cru thread to me...

Wow. I get distracted and forget to pay attention to one little thread...and find out I missed a perfectly good squabble and train wreck in the making!

You guys kiss and make up now. (It's all Lipton's fault anyway.)

This is all a shame, Mark, as I remember Sam's in its golden years---when it looked like a warehouse, because that's what it was, and all they had was stacks of boxes on a concrete floor, and if you wanted anything they had to send it down from the upper floor on the conveyor system.

Yup, I feel the same, Hoke. I started shopping at Sam's when there was only one location, before their Marcey St. move (and boy, did I get some nice wines during their moving sale -- I just drank a bottle of Jadot Ursules '93 that I bagged then) and it was just as you describe: vast, sepulchral and cramped for space. But all good things must come to an end. I survived the demise of the Berkeley Co-Op, long may it rest, the loss of Cody's Books from Telegraph Ave. and the loss of Rather Ripped Records, too. I'll find a way to survive this as well.

Mark Lipton

I'm arriving at this party late. More like a wake than a party, though. I shopped at the Co-Op all the time and was a member of their credit union. I bought tons of books at Cody's and lots of vinyl at Ripped. Damn, I didn't know they were all gone. But, when I lived in Berkeley, there was just one Peet's, too, and Mr. Peet worked at the store. Chez Panisse opened their doors while I was living there. It was truly a wonderful place. Every week I made the route from the Co-Op, up the street to the Cheese Board and then on to Peet's.

Edited:
Now,that's senility for you - I didn't remember commenting on this before. What the hell. I do miss them all.

Yep, and if you were on Sam's mailing list you are now on Binny's mailing list.

Yes, which I'm strongly inclined to unsubscribe from, given their focus on wines and spirits that I care not a hoot about.

You honestly don't give a hoot about items like the Jack Daniels gift box which includes one bottle of Jack Daniels along with a Jack Daniels tee-shirt and belt buckle?

Mark,

No interest in this??

MEET SOPRANOS CAST MEMBERS AT BINNY'S SOUTH LOOP!
Thursday, December 3, 5:00-8:00pm
Tony Sirico (a.k.a. Paulie Walnuts) and Steve Schirripa (a.k.a. Bobby) are coming to our joint. Two of television's most famous “wise guys” will be signing bottles of Sopranos wine during their exclusive appearance at Binny's South Loop. An amazing holiday gift or stocking stuffer for under ten dollars. Bada Bing! Free valet service at the entrance on Jefferson Street!
Call 312-768-4400 for more information.
Chicago - South Loop
1132 S. Jefferson Street | Chicago | 312-768-4400

Mark,

No interest in this??

What can I say, Dave? I'm just an uncultchahed kinda guy.

Mark Lipton

Mark,

No interest in this??

What can I say, Dave? I'm just an uncultchahed kinda guy.

Mark Lipton

But...but...you live in INDIANA, man! And the north part at that. Unless...wait! You're not a Jim Beam drinker, are you? They have nice gift packs this year too.

Spending Turkey Day in Chicago. Stopped at the old Sam's on Marcey Street last night. Place looks pretty much the same, maybe less clutter in the aisles. My Sam's frequent buyer card is no good anymore, so I signed up for Binny's program. That works out considering they have far more locations around Chicago, including one across the street from my MIL's residence.