Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Anything to do with Port.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: customer confusion

Post by jdaw1 » 05:02 Sun 24 Feb 2008

AHB wrote:Perhaps once this might have been true but with today's supermarkets putting the "price per 100cl" on their shelf labels this comparison is made much easier. I often rely on this simple calculation when buying products that come in different sizes, such as Olive Oil.
I said that “They aren’t wholly wrong†. Also, they aren’t wholly right. And anyway that is more of a battle than I can win: moving port from 75/106/EEC 1.(d) to 75/106/EEC 1.(a) is the most I can hope to do this month.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Letter to IVDP on 24 February 2008

Post by jdaw1 » 22:03 Mon 17 Mar 2008

On 24th February a letter was sent to Jorge Monteiro (President, Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e Porto), cc the Ministro da Economia e da Inovação and the Ministro da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas. In the original footnotes were numbered, and appeared at the foot of each page, but below are moved to be immediately underneath the mentioning paragraph. Also, phpBB 2 doesn’t quite permit replication of indents, paragraph spacing and separating lines.
I wrote:Thank you very much for your letter of 14th February, which helpfully details the IVDP’s stance and the reasoning behind it, and even does so in English. Before tackling the substance of your letter† , I happily accede to your request: yes, please do send a copy of my letters (the previous one, and this one†¡) to the Port Wine Shippers Association, and also to the IVDP’s legal advisers.
†  At www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10360#10360 this correspondence has been discussed by some of my port-loving friends. You are invited to comment in that thread. But, of course, I will keep confidential any reply that you mark as such.
†¡ If it would be easier for you to have this letter in PDF, even if only for clickable links, please email request to [my email address not shown on public bulletin board but available from www.jdawiseman.com/author.html].

Your letter raises four points that are discussed in detail below. In summary:

1. Even if the IVDP’s understanding of 75/106/EEC is correct, the IVDP’s rules should be as unrestrictive as possible.

2. The IVDP’s understanding of 75/106/EEC is incorrect: port actually lies within 1.(a) of 75/106/EEC, and hence allowed bottle sizes are, in litres, 0.10, ¼, 0.187, ⅜, ½, ¾, 1, 1½, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and anything ≥10L.

3. Even if my reading of the rules is wrong, it doesn’t matter: Brussels wants the rules to be as liberal as possible (Lisbon Agenda 2000), so will not criticise a more generous reading.

4. Even if that is wrong, there are other loopholes in EU rules, in which case the IVDP should be explicitly permitting the use of those loopholes.

So, on with the details.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. The IVDP’s letter describes its understanding of 75/106/EEC (as amended). Even if this reading is correct (which it isn’t), the IVDP’s rules are more restrictive than they need be. The IVDP’s reading of 75/106/EEC is that some bottle sizes up to and including 5L are allowed, but the IVDP prohibits anything larger than a 3L double-magnum. Even if 95% of the port houses would never bottle anything larger than 3L, the IVDP’s should allow those who do—and there are some—to sell those larger bottles.

Your letter also says:
However, we must underline that the use of very large bottles may be dangerous for the protection of this prestigious appellation of origin, as it may allow the practice of frauds.
This claim appears to be nonsensical. Forgeries happen to below-the-radar stuff. If a house bottled only 24 imperials of its 2007, an auctioneer can easily check provenance. And if Château Mouton Rothschild 2000 can be bottled in 5L and 15L sizes (and sold at an eye-watering price in New York), the more restrictive rules clearly aren’t needed “for the protection of this prestigious appellation†.

Summary: the IVDP’s rules about bottle sizes should be as generous as EU rules allow.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Next we come to a more technical reading of the details of the rules.

Wine is divided into various types by 75/106/EEC (as amended)† , of which port, being a non-sparkling non-French wine made from fermented grape, can only fall into 1.(a) or 1.(d). But which?
†  Page 13 of eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1975L0106:20040501:EN:PDF
[1.] (d) Vermouths and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts (CCT headi,g No 22.06); liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05 C)
Port clearly isn’t a Vermouth as it isn’t “flavoured with aromatic extracts†, so port falls into 1.(d) only if it lies within Common Customs Tariff†¡ paragraph 22.05. This has three sub-paragraphs, (a), (b), and (c), and port does not fall into any of those three, as I now describe.
†¡ Page 165 of eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:286:0001:0894:EN:PDF
[22.05] (a) grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol, that is to say, a product:

— having an actual alcoholic strength by volume of not less than 12 % vol but less than 15 % vol, and …
Neither an intermediate product, nor the final port product, has alcohol between 12% and 15%. So port doesn’t fall into 22.05 (a).
[22.05] (b) wine fortified for distillation, that is to say, a product: …

— obtained exclusively by the addition to wine containing no residual sugar …
The port I drink has more than “no residual sugar†, so is not 22.05 (b).

CCT 22.05 (c) is excluded from 75/106/EEC 1.(d), but fails anyway, so, even if a lettering error, doesn’t matter.
[22.05] (c) liqueur wine, that is to say, a product: …

— obtained from grape must or wine, which must come from vine varieties approved in the third country of origin for the production of liqueur wine and have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol, …
  • — by the addition during or after fermentation:

    • — of a product derived from the distillation of wine, or …
However, certain quality liqueur wines appearing on a list to be adopted may be obtained from unfermented fresh grape must which does not need to have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol.[/i]
The wine to which the alcohol is added does not “have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol† (see definition in Additional notes: ‘natural alcoholic strength by volume’ means the total alcoholic strength by volume of a product before any enrichment). And the “third country† part is puzzling: this might be describing something horrible made from imported grapes, like British Sherry. Even the last clause of 22.05 (c) fails to be port, as the alcohol is not added to something “unfermented†.

Just for emphasis, CCT 22.08 makes very clear that 22.05 isn’t port:
[22.08] Only vermouth and other wine of fresh grapes flavoured with plants or aromatic substances having an actual alcoholic strength by volume of not less than 7 % vol shall be regarded as products of heading 2205.
No flavouring with “plants†? No flavouring with “aromatic substances†? Not the ports I drink. Hence, in the Common Customs Tariff, port really isn’t 22.05. Hence in 75/106/EEC port is not 1.(d); port is 1.(a). Hence EU rules allow port to be bottled 0.10L, 0.25L, 0.375L, 0.50L, 0.75L, 1L, 1.5L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 9L, 10L, 0.187L, 4L, and 8L (in the order given in 75/106/EEC (as amended)).

Please, the IVDP should explicitly and clearly permit all these sizes, for new bottlings and for old.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. It doesn’t matter if I am wrong.

Lets say that the IVDP’s lawyers discover that, though port isn’t 75/106/EEC 1.(d) in English, perhaps it might be in Finnish or Hungarian or Irish. It doesn’t matter. Brussels understands that rules can help markets function, but that excessive rules just get in the way (Lisbon Agenda 2000). Hence if there is any reading of the rules that allows a 6L bottle, even if it is an unreasonable reading that is obviously wrong (not my reading!), you will be allowed to get away with it until the rules are ‘clarified’, that is, changed to be less restrictive. It is a political decision, and Brussels wants Italy to stop such needless regulation of everything.

Please, instruct your lawyers to be non-paranoid. The IVDP really can allow all bottle sizes permitted under 75/106/EEC 1.(a), including 6L.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4. Even if your lawyers are unnecessarily paranoid, there are other loopholes.

75/106/EEC (as amended) doesn’t actually regulate bottle sizes, though it might look like it does. It regulates labels, saying that they can have only certain values, and that the value must not be larger than the actual volume (with some small statistical inaccuracy). So it would be perfectly legal to put a 500cl label on a 600cl bottle, and add to the back label words such as:
  • This bottle, before being filled with port, was able to hold 600cl of liquid. EU regulations (75/106/EEC, including amendments up to 89/676/EEC) do not allow a bottle of port to be labelled as containing 600cl; hence the inaccurate “500cl† written on the front label. But we are confident that customers understand: before being filled with port this bottle could hold 600cl of liquid.
Nothing in 75/106/EEC prevents the labelling and sale of such a ‘pseudo-Imperial’. And, in the Eurosceptic British market, such a wording would please many customers. The IVDP’s website should blatantly describe this practice as a “necessary circumvention of silly bureaucratic rules†.

In short, if the IVDP’s lawyers insist that port is 75/106/EEC 1.(d), the IVDP should then explicitly allow and facilitate such pseudo-labelling.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter contains an interpretation of a Brussels Directive. I’m not a lawyer—otherwise I would be charging you thousands of euro for this letter. Instead it is free. But if you act on it, as you should, please encourage the port houses to believe that they have a moral obligation to sell me some interesting bottles at a price somewhere between fair and generous. UK delivery, despite the US postal address. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Julian D. A. Wiseman
PS: You mention “IVDP Regulation n.° 23/2006 (published in the Portuguese Official Journal, II, 12 of April of 2006)†, which I have been unable to locate. Is it similar to Regulation n.° 48/2006?
No reply as yet.

Lawyers investigating this argument, whether working for the IVDP, the port houses, or others, are invited to contact me: see www.jdawiseman.com/author.html for telephone and email.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Letter from IVDP, #2

Post by jdaw1 » 17:00 Mon 07 Apr 2008

Another letter has been received from the IVDP, dated 31st March 2008.
Jorge Monteiro, President, IVDP wrote:Thank you very for your letter of 24th February 2008. First of all allow we will send your letter to the Port Wine Shippers Association. In second place the IVDP regulation n.° 23/2006 is in our website.

Going directly to your comments, we will not make any observations concerning points 3 and 4 of your letter.

Concerning your reading of the Council Directive of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (75/106/EEC), we must underline that this Directive wants to approximate the regulations of the member states in order not to hinder trade. On the other hand the Directive says that “it is necessary to reduce as far as possible the number of volumes of contents that are too close to others of the same product and which consequently are liable to mislead the consumer†.

Our interpretation of the Directive is the following. Port wine is included in the 1. (d) of the annex III. In fact it cannot be 1 (a) because it refers to wine of fresh grapes, fresh grape must and grape must; and besides that, it excludes expressly liqueur wines. On the other hand liqueur wines are expressly referred on the 1. (d). This classification says “liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05C)†, but 22.05 is only an example, and Port wine has its own CCT classification.

Finally, and taking account the above indicated legal limits, the IVDP Interprofessional Council (where growers and shippers are represented) has decided the bottle size for Port wine, as we have said to you in our last letter.

We hope that with this letter it is clear that the IVDP complies with the legal rules in force and with the will of the representatives of the growers and shippers of Port wine.

Yours faithfully,

Jorge Monteiro
President

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Letter from IVDP, #2

Post by jdaw1 » 17:12 Mon 07 Apr 2008

Jorge Monteiro, President, IVDP wrote:Thank you very for your letter of 24th February 2008. First of all allow we will send your letter to the Port Wine Shippers Association.
Great.
Jorge Monteiro, President, IVDP wrote:In second place the IVDP regulation n.° 23/2006 is in our website.
The search function on ivdp.pt doesn’t find it. Please, would somebody concurring with JM’s sentence post a direct link.
Jorge Monteiro, President, IVDP wrote:Concerning your reading of the Council Directive of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (75/106/EEC), we must underline that this Directive wants to approximate the regulations of the member states in order not to hinder trade. On the other hand the Directive says that “it is necessary to reduce as far as possible the number of volumes of contents that are too close to others of the same product and which consequently are liable to mislead the consumer†.
Completely agree. But, alas, not relevant to the question at hand.
Jorge Monteiro, President, IVDP wrote:Our interpretation of the Directive is the following. Port wine is included in the 1. (d) of the annex III. In fact it cannot be 1 (a) because it refers to wine of fresh grapes, fresh grape must and grape must; and besides that, it excludes expressly liqueur wines. On the other hand liqueur wines are expressly referred on the 1. (d). This classification says “liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05C)†, but 22.05 is only an example, and Port wine has its own CCT classification.
The web version of [url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1975L0106:20040501:EN:PDF]75/106/EEC[/url], with computer-scanning errors, wrote:1. (a) Wine of fresh grapes; fresh grape must with fermentation arrested by the tradition of alcohol including wine maqe of unfermented grape juice blended with alcohol except for wines included in Common Customs tariff subheadings 22.05 A and B and liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05 C); grape must, in fermentation or with fermentation arrested otherwise than by the addition of olcohol (CCT heading No 22.04)

1. (d) Vermouths and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts (CCT headi,g No 22.06); liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05 C)
So, for JM’s reasons, port isn’t 1.(a). And for the reasons in my letter, it isn’t 1.(d). So port bottle sizes are entirely unconstrained by 75/106/EEC. Even better. I am even more right. So why the IVDP rules? Please explain. And why not make full usage of the clause that the IVDP claims is applicable? No explanation.

I think this approach isn’t budging the IVDP. A different track might now be required.

User avatar
uncle tom
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3132
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by uncle tom » 17:43 Mon 07 Apr 2008

A different track might now be required
What every country in the EC does except the UK - cheat.

Get them to box up that 6l bottle and write 2 x 3l on the outside

..oops!

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Letter from IVDP, #2

Post by jdaw1 » 20:10 Mon 07 Apr 2008

Jorge Monteiro, President, IVDP wrote:Going directly to your comments, we will not make any observations concerning points 3 and 4 of your letter.
Chicken! I remind readers of my “points 3 and 4†:
jdaw1 to the IVDP wrote:3. It doesn’t matter if I am wrong.

Lets say that the IVDP’s lawyers discover that, though port isn’t 75/106/EEC 1.(d) in English, perhaps it might be in Finnish or Hungarian or Irish. It doesn’t matter. Brussels understands that rules can help markets function, but that excessive rules just get in the way (Lisbon Agenda 2000). Hence if there is any reading of the rules that allows a 6L bottle, even if it is an unreasonable reading that is obviously wrong (not my reading!), you will be allowed to get away with it until the rules are ‘clarified’, that is, changed to be less restrictive. It is a political decision, and Brussels wants Italy to stop such needless regulation of everything.

Please, instruct your lawyers to be non-paranoid. The IVDP really can allow all bottle sizes permitted under 75/106/EEC 1.(a), including 6L.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4. Even if your lawyers are unnecessarily paranoid, there are other loopholes.

75/106/EEC (as amended) doesn’t actually regulate bottle sizes, though it might look like it does. It regulates labels, saying that they can have only certain values, and that the value must not be larger than the actual volume (with some small statistical inaccuracy). So it would be perfectly legal to put a 500cl label on a 600cl bottle, and add to the back label words such as:
  • This bottle, before being filled with port, was able to hold 600cl of liquid. EU regulations (75/106/EEC, including amendments up to 89/676/EEC) do not allow a bottle of port to be labelled as containing 600cl; hence the inaccurate “500cl† written on the front label. But we are confident that customers understand: before being filled with port this bottle could hold 600cl of liquid.
Nothing in 75/106/EEC prevents the labelling and sale of such a ‘pseudo-Imperial’. And, in the Eurosceptic British market, such a wording would please many customers. The IVDP’s website should blatantly describe this practice as a “necessary circumvention of silly bureaucratic rules†.

In short, if the IVDP’s lawyers insist that port is 75/106/EEC 1.(d), the IVDP should then explicitly allow and facilitate such pseudo-labelling.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 14:41 Thu 25 Dec 2014

FYI, Roy Hersh’s most recent :ftlop2014: FTLOP newsletter, December 2014, #83, is available free to all, subscribers and non-subscribers alike. Pages 4 to 11 hold an essay Roy commissioned from me, entitled ‘Big Bottles: Ending the Prohibition’. Enjoy.

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8159
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by djewesbury » 14:42 Thu 25 Dec 2014

Very pleased to see this listed in the email bulletin, and looking forward to reading it.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
differentdave
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 142
Joined: 18:38 Mon 25 Feb 2008
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by differentdave » 21:49 Fri 26 Dec 2014

Congrats Julian, downloaded his newsletter without reading this thread, was pleased and not surprised to see your name in his newsletter. Neing the receipent of multiple 6 l, 3l and 1.5l of 2011 vintage port I owe you a big THANK you. so thank YOU. Conratulations again!

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 22:30 Fri 26 Dec 2014

Happily I take credit for the 6 litre imperials: thank you for the acknowledgement.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 13:56 Sun 28 Dec 2014

Large bottles: ancient precedent

Auction by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods on 12 April 1937, “of Rare Wines & Liqueurs, Generously presented for Sale for the Benefit of The Funds of Queen Charlotte’s Hospital”.
Image
Image
Image
(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s; my picture #22590)

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 18:53 Mon 29 Dec 2014

Large bottles: ancient precedent

Auction by Messrs. W. & T. Restell, and Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, on 16 October 1941, being the Red Cross Sale.
Image
(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s; my picture #22836.)

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15565
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by DRT » 11:48 Sat 17 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Happily I take credit for the 6 litre imperials: thank you for the acknowledgement.
The spoils of war 88)
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
differentdave
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 142
Joined: 18:38 Mon 25 Feb 2008
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by differentdave » 22:26 Mon 19 Jan 2015

did you open the bottle this past weekend? If so how did it show?

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8159
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by djewesbury » 22:42 Mon 19 Jan 2015

See here.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 23:12 Sat 24 Jan 2015

There has been a legal and a cultural change about big bottles of Port. Last December Roy suggested that the origin of this change appear in his FTLOP newsletter #83, December 2014, with an agreed exclusivity of 30 days. It was an excellent suggestion of Roy’s.

The essay now appears at www.jdawiseman.com/papers/port_and_wine ... ition.html. It is substantially the same essay as that in Roy’s newsletter, plus some data from Niepoort (alas ✔s rather than numbers). Also it quotes the whole of the first letter to the IVDP, English and Portuguese, and includes some other minor extras. But it is substantially the same essay: if you read the version in the FTLOP newsletter, it’s not worth the effort of re-reading.

Request to Port houses: please do send more data for the table in the essay’s postscript, even for vintages long post-dating the essay.

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15565
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by DRT » 23:19 Sat 24 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Request to Port houses: please do send more data for the table in the essay’s postscript, even for vintages long post-dating the essay.
The IVDP post annual statistics relating to the production, export and price of Port. Perhaps you could ask them to also publish statistics showing how much is bottled in each format?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 12:54 Sun 25 Jan 2015

On [url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopforum/viewtopic.php?p=120778#p120778][img]http://www.theportforum.com/images/smilies/ftlop2014.gif[/img][/url] jdaw1 wrote:
Eric Menchen wrote:So what is the difference between 1(a) and 1(d)? The article I read didn't explain it, and I was curious while reading, and still want to know.
You asked.
To Jorge Monteiro, on 24th February 2008, jdaw1 wrote: 2. Next we come to a more technical reading of the details of the rules.

Wine is divided into various types by 75/106/EEC (as amended), of which port, being a non-sparkling non-French wine made from fermented grape, can only fall into 1.(a) or 1.(d). But which?
  • [1.] (d) Vermouths and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts (CCT heading No 22.06); liqueur wines (CCT subheading ex 22.05 C)
Port clearly isn’t a Vermouth as it isn’t “flavoured with aromatic extracts”, so port falls into 1.(d) only if it lies within Common Customs Tariff paragraph 22.05. This has three sub-paragraphs, (a), (b), and (c), and port does not fall into any of those three, as I now describe.
  • [22.05] (a) grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol, that is to say, a product:
    • having an actual alcoholic strength by volume of not less than 12 % vol but less than 15 % vol, and …
    [/i]
Neither an intermediate product, nor the final port product, has alcohol between 12% and 15%. So port doesn’t fall into 22.05 (a).
  • [22.05] (b) wine fortified for distillation, that is to say, a product: …
    • obtained exclusively by the addition to wine containing no residual sugar …
    [/i]
The port I drink has more than “no residual sugar”, so is not 22.05 (b).

CCT 22.05 (c) is excluded from 75/106/EEC 1.(d), but fails anyway, so, even if a lettering error, doesn’t matter.
  • [22.05] (c) liqueur wine, that is to say, a product: …
    • obtained from grape must or wine, which must come from vine varieties approved in the third country of origin for the production of liqueur wine and have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol, …
      • by the addition during or after fermentation:
        • of a product derived from the distillation of wine, or …
    However, certain quality liqueur wines appearing on a list to be adopted may be obtained from unfermented fresh grape must which does not need to have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol.[/i]
The wine to which the alcohol is added does not “have a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 12 % vol” (see definition in Additional notes: ‘natural alcoholic strength by volume’ means the total alcoholic strength by volume of a product before any enrichment). And the “third country” part is puzzling: this might be describing something horrible made from imported grapes, like British Sherry. Even the last clause of 22.05 (c) fails to be port, as the alcohol is not added to something “unfermented”.

Just for emphasis, CCT 22.08 makes very clear that 22.05 isn’t port:
  • [22.08] Only vermouth and other wine of fresh grapes flavoured with plants or aromatic substances having an actual alcoholic strength by volume of not less than 7 % vol shall be regarded as products of heading 2205.

No flavouring with “plants”? No flavouring with “aromatic substances”? Not the ports I drink. Hence, in the Common Customs Tariff, port really isn’t 22.05. Hence in 75/106/EEC port is not 1.(d); port is 1.(a). Hence EU rules allow port to be bottled 0.10L, 0.25L, 0.375L, 0.50L, 0.75L, 1L, 1.5L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 9L, 10L, 0.187L, 4L, and 8L (in the order given in 75/106/EEC (as amended)).

Please, the IVDP should explicitly and clearly permit all these sizes, for new bottlings and for old.
Hence my judgement that most of Roy’s readers just wouldn’t be interested. (Including me.)

Let’s re-phrase. There is no meaning to 1.(a), nor to 1.(d). They are not religious doctrines, giving purpose to the lives of the lost. Instead both are bureaucratic definitions referencing other bureaucratic definitions. That’s all. Which is why I thought that the newsletter would be less turgidly unreadable without them.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 20:54 Sun 25 Jan 2015

Some posts moved by jdaw1 to Tapatalk 2 with TPF & iPhone.

User avatar
Chris Doty
Warre’s Otima 20 year old Tawny
Posts: 701
Joined: 12:30 Fri 29 Jan 2010

Praise be to jdaw1

Post by Chris Doty » 19:33 Tue 27 Jan 2015

I don't know how it is possible that I could have been so fabulously unaware of the IVDP's curious stance on bottle formats, nor of Jdaw's heroic/historic campaign to restore sanity, pride, equality, and ballerdom to Portugal.

To save you chaps any suspense, size matters. And although I consider a 375ml of port to be possibly the most romantic bottle of wine, for straight pimping, for hardcore 'honeybadger doesn't give a ....' - it's go big or go home. I treasure all of my imperials, and now have even more reason to look upon them with awe.

Sincerest thanks Julian. I had already considered you to be among the most likely beneficiaries of my growing Methusulah collection, and now I have an even greater incentive to celebrate your company with these bottles. I do not see the 'bow' emoticon on the right, but were it available, it would go :here: in its absence, I will leave you with :tpf:

From Mumbai with affection,

CSD

ps - returning to London on the 14th of Feb. I have no known commitments on the 15th, and will likely spend the day merrily. while not an 'emergency', I would be most welcoming of company! woo woo

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 20:10 Tue 27 Jan 2015

Chris Doty wrote:equality
I did not campaign for equality. I want there to be both double-magnums and imperials, and former had better know that they are junior to the latter.
Chris Doty wrote:To save you chaps any suspense, size matters. And although I consider a 375ml of port to be possibly the most romantic bottle of wine, for straight pimping, for hardcore 'honeybadger doesn't give a ....' - it's go big or go home. I treasure all of my imperials, and now have even more reason to look upon them with awe.
Ahh, we differ. I enjoy being Big At Home.
Chris Doty wrote:returning to London on the 14th of Feb. I have no known commitments on the 15th, and will likely spend the day merrily. while not an 'emergency', I would be most welcoming of company! woo woo
Sunday 15th February 2015: I could do lunch. Rather than disrupting the big-bottle discussion, please start a thread.

Edit: CSD started Invitation to Lunch: February 15th.

User avatar
Chris Doty
Warre’s Otima 20 year old Tawny
Posts: 701
Joined: 12:30 Fri 29 Jan 2010

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by Chris Doty » 20:14 Tue 27 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
Chris Doty wrote:equality
I did not campaign for equality. I want there to be both double-magnums and imperials, and former had better know that they are junior to the latter.

perhaps I should have specified that I meant Portuguese wine makers should have the same bottling freedoms as their counterparts in France, Italy, etc. Obviously, bigger = better.
Chris Doty wrote:To save you chaps any suspense, size matters. And although I consider a 375ml of port to be possibly the most romantic bottle of wine, for straight pimping, for hardcore 'honeybadger doesn't give a ....' - it's go big or go home. I treasure all of my imperials, and now have even more reason to look upon them with awe.
Ahh, we differ. I enjoy being Big At Home.

wake the kids?

Chris Doty wrote:returning to London on the 14th of Feb. I have no known commitments on the 15th, and will likely spend the day merrily. while not an 'emergency', I would be most welcoming of company! woo woo
Sunday 15th February 2015: I could do lunch. Rather than disrupting the big-bottle discussion, please start a thread.
Fabulous.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 20:54 Tue 27 Jan 2015

FYI.
On [url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopforum/viewtopic.php?p=120806#p120806][img]http://www.theportforum.com/images/smilies/ftlop2014.gif[/img][/url] jdaw1 wrote:Request re Jorge Nicolau da Costa Monteiro

Roy,

Please allow a request about a subsequent newsletter.

The Big-Bottle essay explained that the then president of the IVDP, Jorge Nicolau da Costa Monteiro, did not allow big bottles. His term ended at the IVDP; his successor did allow big bottles; that new policy seems to have been a success.

This could be interpreted, not wrongly, as a criticism of Jorge Nicolau da Costa Monteiro.

Please allow a reply to this criticism. Please consider inviting JNdCM to write a response. He might well refuse: even so, offering would be the correct thing to do.

— JDAW.

User avatar
Chris Doty
Warre’s Otima 20 year old Tawny
Posts: 701
Joined: 12:30 Fri 29 Jan 2010

Re: Letter from IVDP, #2

Post by Chris Doty » 21:04 Tue 27 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:The search function on ivdp.pt doesn’t find it. Please, would somebody concurring with JM’s sentence post a direct link.
http://www.ivdp.pt/pt/docs/legislacao/228.pdf

My Portuguese is rubbish, but I think that's it (?)

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 21953
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Letter from IVDP, #2

Post by jdaw1 » 21:37 Tue 27 Jan 2015

Chris Doty wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:The search function on ivdp.pt doesn’t find it. Please, would somebody concurring with JM’s sentence post a direct link.
http://www.ivdp.pt/pt/docs/legislacao/228.pdf
Thank you for answering my question of 5¾ years ago.



Five posts moved by jdaw1 to Bureaucracy and speed.

Post Reply