Let's see, 76 bottles valued at $300,000.00 total comes out to $3947.36 per bottle. Yea, that's a 1% problem if I ever heard one. I'm not losing sleep over this one.

Now if only those two had defrauded the entire nation from perches of Wall St., they would be guaranteed to never get prosecuted. Just ask Obama. After 8 years there are still no Wall St. arrests.

KCBS has been running this story for a couple of days (mispronouncing "Yountville" as outsiders often do). One expert they interviewed said, in passing remarks, that some ultra-premium wineries (including in California) set themselves up as making products not so much for actual consumption as investment. The astronomical market prices then naturally attract thieves.

As the 1% comment above already implied, wines at the prices quoted have very little connection with what almost anyone (even very serious longtime wine geeks -- I know quite a few of those) actually drinks.

From another source just after the original robbery at French Laundry:
Various vintages of Screaming Eagle and Romanée-Conti, which start at $3250 (DRC '07) and go up to $7950 (DRC '99). The thief responsible obviously had to know where to locate these bottles and what their value would be.
The SF Business Times is now reporting that the thieves stole a total of 76 bottles worth about $300,000. And it turns out that a couple of pilfered bottles of Romanée-Conti were actually worth more like $15,000 apiece.

At The French Laundry the fixed menu at about $300 per person, not including wine or dessert. Although you may not have friends that spend that much on wine, there are actually plenty that do. Agreed, it is the 1% (could even be the 5%)

Oh yes, diners spend 300++ at "the Laundry;" some also spend as much again on their wines, or more. I could tell you about it (I've had connections to the restaurant industry off and on for decades, including wine-license ownership). And some of my more obsessive wine-geek friends have spent much of their discretionary income on good wines for 30, 40, even 50 years, because it's something they're passionate about.

But in case I wasn't clear above, bottles at $4000 or $15000 have very, very little at all to do with any of that world, the real world of wine consumers (serious or casual). Because they're basically awful values. "Trophy" wines. The labels that rock stars and drug dealers know about, if they know nothing else about wine. People who buy purely by label, rather than for the experience in the glass (some real knowledge can give you amazing, even comparable, wine experiences for vastly less money; that is a traditional reason for learning about wine.) Those with big money who suddenly decide they want to become "wine connoisseurs" will spend millions in a hurry, buying trophy bottles in an effort to display some sort of credentials (at least to other people like themselves). Wine experts have written about the phenomenon for half a century. (Buyers like those also make up the main target for counterfeiters of trophy wines, who know who can afford them, and -- should the bottle ever actually be opened -- may well lack the palate experience to promptly spot the fake. A few years ago, internet wine dealers featured oversized bottles of a famous old vintage of Romanee-Conti, at prices approaching $100k, and may well have sold some. Problem: that particular wine was never bottled in the sizes offered -- all the bottles made are accounted for -- all public information, long known to experts and to anyone else who bothered to look it up.)

The high-end restaurants keep supplies of trophy wines, and do occasionally sell them. But they're a tiny part of the bottle volume. Even there, trophy wines just have very little to do with most wine consumption, even among affluent people.

I don't see anything amusing or trivial about this theft. It's Grand Larceny on a grand scale. I hope they get the book thrown at them. I bet they are among the "elite entitled" realm of thinking. They need a reality check.