What goes up, must come down.
Thanks to Newton’s explanation of the laws of gravity, it’s really quite hard to disagree with this statement. Certainly tougher than to question the reliability of that other saying: ‘what goes round, comes round.’
The notion that everything is cyclical is understandably popular, especially with people who are unhappy with their current circumstances. A world in which bullies get their just deserts and good triumphs over evil is far more appealing than one without a conclusively happy ending.
But, of course, Newton never suggested that what has come down must bounce up again. There is no Newtonian-style law to support cyclicalism. And no reliable way to calculate how long it will take for something that’s gone round to come back round again, even if that’s what is going to happen. Inconveniently, as my very clever friend, Pedro Ballesteros Torres MW points out, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy (a measure of disorder) in a closed system actually cannot be cyclical.
One of my favourite examples of how cyclicalism has failed in the wine world is the performance of late-harvest wine. Despite a global sweet tooth that loves nothing better than Coke and Krispy Kreme donuts, this sector that once commanded higher prices than Médoc first growths, has languished in the ‘hard-to-sell’ basket for decades. Having been one of those who, long ago, predicted its return to favour, I now have to admit to a loss of confidence that this will ever happen. Or not in my lifetime.
I encounter a lot of cyclicalists these days. They are looking forward to fine wine bouncing back from its current low-value doldrums and wine in general regaining its appeal. Their reasoning is simple. Wine has been popular for 8,000 years and – in some examples – a reliable investment. All we have to do is sit back and wait for everything to return to the ‘norm’.
No norm
The problem is that, not only is there no Newtonian law; there is also a lot of evidence to support the doubters, and no clear definition of the ’norm’.
Human behaviour and attitudes have changed and a broad range of alternatives to wine have been invented that are not going to disappear. As in other parts of their lives, many people have simply moved on. Is anyone seriously banking on a revival of cigarette smoking, or a return to the the communal washing troughs that were still in use in French villages when I moved there in the 1970s? Anyone want to invest in my new snuff-making enterprise.
Fine wine as Greg Sherwood MW pointed out recently, has its own set of problems that are specifically related to demographics. Boomers, who are increasingly coming to the end of their lifespans, bought lots of it. According to some estimates there is as much as £5-6bn tied up in bonded warehouses and private cellars in the UK alone. Even at today’s depressed levels, many bottles are worth sums that make opening and drinking them unthinkable, even to that shrinking number of citizens who enjoy old wine.
In countries with inheritance taxes, the temptation to raise some cash by selling those ageing bottles will be strong, especially as there is no immediate prospect of them rising in value. Even in the US, with no such taxes, there will be good reasons to liquidate at least some of that wine.
If the vinous inheritors succumb to this temptation, however, they will only exacerbate the problem by helping to flood the market. Meanwhile, every year brings yet another vintage and still more fine wine.
I’m not saying that some wines and vintages will not prove to be exceptions to the rule. Or that the days of wine as an investment are over. Just that predicting when it will regain its appeal is far from simple.
Mind you, just now, prediction of any kind is harder than ever. How many would have foreseen that Florida’s legislators would be considering a bill that would make it easier to put 14 year-old schoolchildren who’ve been barred using social media to work on night shifts? Or that another federal bill - the SAVE act - is set to make voting harder for large numbers of American women. So, maybe the cyclicalists are right. If we are embracing child-labour, if you wait long enough, what’s gone round may come back, after all.
