Which fairly modern ports are you least stocked up with

Simon Lisle · Post by **Simon Lisle** » 22:57 Fri 14 Sep 2007

With me it is the 55's and the 94's much to my shame

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 23:02 Fri 14 Sep 2007

Simon

The assertion that 55's are 'fairly modern' has jointly amazed me and depressed me!

You lucky sod!

I'm short on all vintages.

Alan

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 23:40 Fri 14 Sep 2007

The big desert in my cellar is the 34/35 split vintage - I am painfully short of both.

My stocks of '55 have recently been bolstered by Sotheby's (3 bottles of Taylor) but still well short of where I would like overall.

My stock of '94's is reasonable, but notably lacking the top Symington brands - Dow, Graham & Warre.

I've bid and lost many times on Dow, and a a couple of times on Graham.

Warre '94 seems to be a bit of a rarity though..

Tom

Post by **DRT** » 21:27 Mon 17 Sep 2007

I don't have many young ports (other than more Morgan 91 than a man could ever need

) mainly because I consider them to be over-priced and not worth the cost of cellaring.

If there is a gaping hole in my cellar it is the 1980's, excluding 1985. I only have 5 bottles from the 1980's that are not from 1985. But 40% of those are Noval Nacional's

Derek

PS: 1955 is not a modern vintage by any stretch of the imagination

Jay P · Post by **Jay P** » 06:08 Tue 18 Sep 2007

Plenty of the 94s, 1980s, and even 1970s for me, but thin on the 60s, and almost empty below that. The 34/35 split vintage?...give me a break! It's enough to make a man plan a trip to the UK! I hope to add some 55's soon though.

Jay

John Danza · Post by **John Danza** » 01:39 Wed 19 Sep 2007

I have less than I would like of 1977, 1983, and 1985. I've got some 1992 and 1994, but I'm not concentrating there as they're too expensive and I don't want to wait 20-30 years to drink them.

However, in keeping with Tom and Simon's thoughts, I'm woefully short on 1927s.

Jay P · Post by **Jay P** » 06:37 Wed 19 Sep 2007

If you have even one '27, I'm on my way to IL!

Jay

John Danza · Post by **John Danza** » 15:45 Wed 19 Sep 2007

Jay P wrote:If you have even one '27, I'm on my way to IL!

That's my problem, I don't have any!

A few years ago it used to be fairly easy to get 1927 Cockburn, a great wine, for about $400 a bottle. Now it's tough to find any 1927 for under $1000. Ah well, the search continues. Jay, if I get one, I'll give you a call so you can come by.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 15:51 Wed 19 Sep 2007

John,

Forgive my fellow Californian Port drinker

I'll just settle for something from the '50s or 60's....'27 sheash

John,

When ever you make it LA, let me know, I'd be glad to open some bottles for you.

John Danza · Post by **John Danza** » 16:07 Wed 19 Sep 2007

ADV wrote:John,

When ever you make it LA, let me know, I'd be glad to open some bottles for you.

I'll take you up on that! The same goes for any travels to the Chicago area.

All the best,
John

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 16:13 Wed 19 Sep 2007

27's come to auction from time to time in the UK. I only have a dozen bottles though - Croft, Fonseca, Offley, Martinez, Sandeman & Taylor

Tom

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 16:30 Wed 19 Sep 2007

My word!!!

You guys intrigued me, so I hopped on WineSearcher. There's a handful of 27 Cockburns and Crofts. They start at around £350 ($700), and they are all UK sources. The last one is an American source which slips in at a whopping £987!!!

Does anyone feel like explaining why there's such a huge price hike in Port prices in the U.S. ? This type of difference is quite common.
I thought American buyers would be as ruthless as UK Merchants and demand the best possible prices. Or could it be that the old stuff has always been here, and is just pitched at what people are wiling to pay, whereas the States has to find it first and buy it in. Remarkable Differential, whatever the reason.

Alan

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 17:37 Wed 19 Sep 2007

Alan,

There always seems to be one or two stores in the US that think because it is older they can sell it for outrageous prices. Then again, there is always a rich sucker that will pay it. The sad thing is I've seen older ports that have leaked and are still selling for way high prices. Capitalism at its best I guess

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 23:39 Wed 19 Sep 2007

there is always a rich sucker that will pay it

Actually, no.

Common in the US and not unknown here, is the practice of listing a rare and unusual bottle that you happen to own at a ludicrous price, with no serious expectation of selling it.

It makes your other stock appear more reasonably priced, and makes you look like one of the big boys..

"reputable wine merchant" is a great oxymoron!

Tom

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 07:54 Fri 21 Sep 2007

I've sometimes thought about doing what Tom has said happens with some wine merchants. I have one or two rare-ish bottles of port and I have occasionally toyed with the idea of offering them to a broker at a ridiculous price. Priced so that I don't want to sell them but if I was offered as much money as I was asking then it would be ridiculous not to accept. I would rationalise it to say "If I was offered that much money for a bottle of Croft '45 then I could afford to buy a case of Fonseca '66 instead". No-one who had the time or the knowledge to do the research would pay £1200 for a bottle of Croft '45 but there might be people around who just want a bottle in a hurry and don't care what it costs.

I've never got round to actually doing it though. I wonder what would happen...

Alex

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 11:21 Fri 21 Sep 2007

but there might be people around who just want a bottle in a hurry and don't care what it costs

That's a large part of the rationale behind outfits like everywine and vintagewinegifts - relying on people being too lazy to shop around.

Tom