Historical Perspective - Cockburn Vintage Ports from 1863 to

[John Danza]

I recently found an article in the August 1982 issue of The Journal of the International Wine & Food Society titled Cockburn Vintage Ports 1863-1975. I found this article pretty interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it gives some thoughts about the various vintages that we might not hear today, thirty years on. Things like what people thought of the vintages when they were new, etc.

The second thing I found amazing was that Cockburn on four separate occasions failed to declare vintages in years that were fabulous years that almost everyone else declared. Specifically, they didn't declare 1945, 1948, 1966 and 1977. How can they be that wrong, that often? On top of it, they declared 1947, which was a pretty decent year by all accounts but not widely declared, and 1967 which was a barely average year that only a couple of houses declared. This isn't meant to be argumentative, only an observation about strangely consistent behavior by a major port house.


Anyway, here's the article. I would love to know your thoughts.

[DRT]

Thanks for posting, John.

Is there an online resource where you can access these back volumes of the Journal?

[John Danza]

Thanks for posting, John.

Is there an online resource where you can access these back volumes of the Journal?

Not that I know of. I own a bunch of them because I collect them, being on the board of governors. I need to look through them more often, as I tend to buy them when I find them but then don't read them for a long time.

[Axel P]

Thanks, John.

Axel

[RAYC]

From the TNs on here, I would say the '47 is not to be sniffed at!

And - alongside the Nacional - in illustrious company in being picked over the '48.

I could be wrong - and perhaps someone who was also at the (London) Decanter tasting in November could correct me if so - but I seem to recall the Symingtons mentioning there was something of a hangover from the '63s when it came to release of the '66s and that the vintage was not a huge commercial success (nor, in qualitative terms, so critically acclaimed until a later date). Perhaps that goes some way to accounting for Cockburn's choice of holding out for the '67, though i must also say I think the port is very agreeable in its own right!