Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:13:01.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Gurus: Parker Grades and en primeur Wine Prices*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

Héla Hadj Ali ,
Sébastien Lecocq  and
Michael Visser
Héla Hadj Ali
Affiliation:
INRA, Chemin de Borde Rouge, Auzeville, BP 27, 31326 Castanet Tolosan,France, email: [email protected].
Sébastien Lecocq
Affiliation:
INRA, 65 boulevard de Brandebourg, 94205 Ivry,France. Email: [email protected].
Michael Visser
Affiliation:
CREST and CNRS-ERMES, 15 boulevard Gabriel Péri, 92245 Malakoff,France. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to measure the impact of Robert Parker's oenological grades on Bordeaux wine prices. We study their impact on the so-called en primeur wine prices, i.e., the prices determined by the château owners when the wines are still extremely young. The Parker grades are usually published in the spring of each year, before the wine prices are established. However, the wine grades attributed in 2003 have been published much later, in the autumn, after the determination of the prices. This unusual reversal is exploited to estimate a Parker effect. We find that, on average, the effect is equal to 2.80 euros per bottle of wine. We also estimate grade-specific effects, and use these estimates to predict what the prices would have been had Parker attended the spring tasting in 2003. (JEL Classification: C21, D89, L15).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 2010 , pp. 22 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abadie, A. (2005). Semiparametric difference-in-difference estimators. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, C. and Chevalier, J. (1999). Identifying investor sentiment from price paths: the case of football betting. Journal of Business, 72, 493–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauwens, L. and Ginsburgh, V. (2000). Art experts and auctions. Are pre-sale estimates unbiased and fully informative? Louvain Economic Review, 66, 131–144.Google Scholar
Chossat, V. and Gergaud, O. (2003). Expert opinion and gastronomy: the recipe for success. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combris, P., Lecocq, S. and Visser, M. (1997). Estimation of a hedonic price equation for Bordeaux wine: does quality matter? Economic Journal, 107, 390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Vittorio, A. and Ginsburgh, V. (1996). Des enchères comme révélateurs du classement des vins. Journal de la Société Statistique de Paris, 137, 19–49.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. and Nauges, C. (2005). Identifying the effect of unobserved quality and experts' reviews in the pricing of experience goods: empirical application on Bordeaux wine. Working Paper, University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
Février, P., Roos, W. and Visser, M. (2005). The buyer's option in multi-unit ascending auctions: the case of wine auctions at Drouot. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14, 813–847.Google Scholar
Ginsburgh, V. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburgh, V., Monzak, M. and Monzak, A. (1994). Red wines of Medoc: what is wine tasting worth. Verona: Vineyard Data Quantification Society.Google Scholar
Hadj Ali, H. (2002). La commercialisation des vins en primeur. PhD Thesis, University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
Hadj Ali, H. and Nauges, C. (2007). Reputation and quality effects in the pricing of experience goods: the case of en primeur wine. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 91–103.Google Scholar
Härdie, W. (1990). Applied Nonparametric Regression. Cambridge, Massachussets: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heekman, J.J. (1990). Varieties of selection bias. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 80, 313–318.Google Scholar
Heekman, J.J., Ichimura, H. and Todd, P.E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heekman, J.J., Lochner, L. and Taber, C. (1998). General-equilibrium treatment effects: a study of tuition policy. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 88, 381–386.Google Scholar
Jones, G.V. and Storchmann, K.-H. (2001). Wine market prices and investment under uncertainty: an econometric model for Bordeaux crus classés. Agricultural Economics, 26, 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecocq, S. and Visser, M. (2006). Spatial variations in weather conditions and wine prices in Bordeaux. Journal of Wine Economics, 1, 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D.B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D.B. (1980). Discussion of paper by D. Basu. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 591–593.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A. (1986). Do demand curves for stocks slope down? Journal of Finance, 41, 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, B.W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press.Google Scholar