To buy or not to buy, that is the question. (1963 Cockburn)

[JAC]

The Rare Wine Company's newsletter has 1963 Cockburn, in what they describe as "some of the most perfect bottles we've seen in years," for $195 a bottle. Is this a good buy?

They also have the 1983 Cockburn at $110 a bottle, but I gather from a fortheloveofport link in the tasting notes that this wine has a serious problem with TCA and it's probably one to pass on.

And how about Taylor (bottled by Grants of St. James) at $295?

The '63s are pretty expensive wines by my standards, and they'd have to be pretty special wines to be worth that price to me.

And finally, how is "Cockburn" properly pronounced? Is it something like "co-burn," of like a singed rooster, or something else entirely?
(I live in southeast Texas, where people named "Hebert" pronounce it "Hee-bert" (despite their Cajun roots), and "Cockburn" is pronounced just like it's spelled. I imagine things are different eleswhere.)

[g-man]

Coe - burn.

that sounds really $$$

i paid 150$ for my 63 cockburn however due to the fact that it's the 50 yr anniversary all the prices of the 63 has gone up.

the 83 tca probelm is a hit or miss, some folks are more senstive then others ...

i personall would go with the taylor over the cockburn if i had a special occasion tbh.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Both the Cockburn (as in the singed rooster) and Taylor from RWC are expensive in my eyes, but 2013 is not a year to be buying 1963 ports. The fiftieth anniversary has pushed prices up significantly. 1963 was a big port harvest so there is plenty around and if you are in no hurry you might well see better prices for '63s in 2-3 years time.

I will not buy any more Cockburn 1983. I've just had too many that taste of wet cardboard.

Perhaps save your money for another day, or perhaps aim for the 1966 vintage before those prices start to rise significantly in a year or two.

[mosesbotbol]

I've had '63 Cockburn many times. Some bottles are close to the big boys, others are just nothing special, but they "tend" to be priced well. I'd put '63 Cockburn on the level of '63 Croft; glad to drink it any day, but it's hardly Fonseca, Dow, or Graham. Would give even Sandeman a slight nod to the Cockburn...

RWC tends to sell first rate stuff, so I would have reasonable expectation their bottles are the better examples.

[JAC]

Sounds like a pass. Maybe I'll get myself a bottle or two of the '63 Barbeito Bual for my upcoming 50th birthday. I believe the price fo that at RWC is the same as it was four years ago.

[JAC]

What about a nice '77 Fonseca at $195 a bottle (from Rare Wine Company)? It seems like a lot, but what do I know?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Fonseca 1977 is a fabulous port. $195 seems a high price though - what does wine-searcher suggest is a fair price for F77?

[g-man]

Fonseca 1977 is a fabulous port. $195 seems a high price though - what does wine-searcher suggest is a fair price for F77?

I find the F77 @ 165$ a fair price.

[JAC]

Now they're offering '63 Dow in magnums at $670 and '63 Warre at $295 for a bottle or $620 for a magnum. Oporto bottled, in their original wood cases, and never left the shipper's cellars, they say. On the other hand, they have a nice bottle of '63 Barbieto Bual for only $545.

Is a magnum of 1963 Port worth more than a bottle of 1863 Madeira?

[Andy Velebil]

Wow that's a huge mark up over two 750's, even taking into account a small up charge due to extra bottle costs of a mag.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Wow that's a huge mark up over two 750's, even taking into account a small up charge due to extra bottle costs of a mag.

It's not a huge mark-up over the cost of 2 ex-cellars bottles @ $295!

[Andy Velebil]

Wow that's a huge mark up over two 750's, even taking into account a small up charge due to extra bottle costs of a mag.

It's not a huge mark-up over the cost of 2 ex-cellars bottles @ $295!

Sorry, I should have been more clear. As compared to current auction/retail prices.