2011 Declarations

[RAYC]

L'Assemblage are selling their remaining Capela at £195 per single bottle in bond and only on a 1:4 basis with other 2011 ports...link

BBR have now sold through their allocations of Vesuvio 2011 and 75cl bottles of Warre 2011 (methuselahs and halves remain!). Low stock of Taylor also.

[djewesbury]

L'Assemblage are selling their remaining Capela at £195 per single bottle in bond and only on a 1:4 basis with other 2011 ports...link

I thought this was a typo when I saw it on their site.. I'd just bought some Capela off them (£160 for 3) the same day. Seems like a very odd way to guarantee you don't sell your remaining bottles, especially when there will presumably be a few more cases coming onstream when other merchants announce their offers..

[RAYC]

especially when there will presumably be a few more cases coming onstream when other merchants announce their offers..

i would genuinely be surprised if many more cases will appear, rather than being sold on allocation to regular clients.

[christopherpfaff]

VIDEO: winemaker statements about VP 2011

I talked to 5 prominent winemakers of the Douro region and asked them about their opinion about the Vintage Port of 2011 and summarize this in a short video. The video is uploaded at my YouTube Channel and can be found by the link below. John Graham from Churchill´s, Oscar Quevedo from Quevedo, Christiano van Zeller from Quinta Vale Dona Maria, Sandra Tavares from Pintas and Tomas Roquette from Crasto gave there statements and were sure about the outstanding quality of 2011s. I think the conclusion is, yes it was a riper, warmer year with a good concentration of fruit but also perfect balanced with a well acid structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf5oYxIIIu0

[RAYC]

Tanners are releasing an own-label 2011 (i think it is Skeffington)

[jdaw1]

Tanners are releasing an own-label 2011 (i think it is Skeffington)

In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

[djewesbury]

In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

I always find this unusual - the combination of (loosely) imperial quantities (dozens and associated multiples of 6 or 8) - with metric units. When did 75 cl become the standard port bottle size? What were the quoted imperial measures of a case and a pipe before they began to be quoted in litres?

[jdaw1]

I always find this unusual - the combination of (loosely) imperial quantities (dozens and associated multiples of 6 or 8) - with metric units. When did 75 cl become the standard port bottle size? What were the quoted imperial measures of a case and a pipe before they began to be quoted in litres?

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

[Axel P]

Also Quinta do Grifo. I just received samples, but have to find out if its the single Quinta Port from Rozes.

Axel

[Glenn E.]

In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

I always find this unusual - the combination of (loosely) imperial quantities (dozens and associated multiples of 6 or 8) - with metric units. When did 75 cl become the standard port bottle size? What were the quoted imperial measures of a case and a pipe before they began to be quoted in litres?

Also, this site (http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictfaq.htm) claims:

How did the wine bottle come to be 75 cL in size? It has a long and complicated history but, briefly, in the 1600's when bottles were made by hand, the wine bottle was about 46.24 cubic inches (26 and two-thirds fluid ounces) in capacity, a measure which was known as a 'reputed quart'. This came from being one-quarter of a wine gallon which was the size of 8 troy pounds of wine. (Wine by the pound!) Metrication trimmed one and a half teaspoonsful off this to make it 75cL.

Another reference I found says that bottles tended to be 700-800 ml because that was roughly the lung capacity of glass blowers.

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

[djewesbury]

a wine gallon

Well I had never heard of a wine gallon. I was going to rest happy with jdaw's explanation of the old case size being 2 gallons, thus a pipe being 120 gallons, but now (and with the venerable backing of this source) I understand that a case is in fact 3 wine gallons (and that therefore a shipping pipe is 180 wine gallons). I also now understand the origin of the difference between Imperial and US gallons...

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

Was it common to see non-750 ml bottles before then? Or had it been effectively phased out long before?

[g-man]

a wine gallon

Well I had never heard of a wine gallon. I was going to rest happy with jdaw's explanation of the old case size being 2 gallons, thus a pipe being 120 gallons, but now (and with the venerable backing of this source) I understand that a case is in fact 3 wine gallons (and that therefore a shipping pipe is 180 wine gallons). I also now understand the origin of the difference between Imperial and US gallons...

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

Was it common to see non-750 ml bottles before then? Or had it been effectively phased out long before?

i have bottles from california from the 50s and 60s and they have all been 750ml

[RAYC]

This conversation should probably live in a different thread, but I've seen a lot of 70cl bottles for UK-bottled port/claret - as late as 1970.

[djewesbury]

Before we move sideways to a new thread - I was aware of the 70 cl size but this makes even less sense to me..

[jdaw1]

The Wine Society Spring List, May/September 1980:

[jdaw1]

Wikipedia: 1 imperial pint = 20 imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125 millilitres (exactly).

So 24 fl. oz. = 568.26125 ml × 24 ÷ 20 = 681.9135 ml, which ≠ the claimed 70 cl. Indeed, 70 cl ≈ 24.6365558 Imperial fluid ounces.

[Glenn E.]

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

Was it common to see non-750 ml bottles before then? Or had it been effectively phased out long before?

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

[djewesbury]

We need to be wary. There is a 4% difference between US and Imperial fluid ounces. Over a pipe that translates into a lot. Who's got the dipstick?

[djewesbury]

Well I had never heard of a wine gallon. I was going to rest happy with jdaw's explanation of the old case size being 2 gallons, thus a pipe being 120 gallons, but now (and with the venerable backing of this source) I understand that a case is in fact 3 wine gallons (and that therefore a shipping pipe is 180 wine gallons).

I am also quite amazed that nobody corrected my basic arithmetical error here..

[djewesbury]

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

Intriguing: two different, yet perfectly reasonable explanations, which arrive at almost exactly the same result.
I now understand that there is absolutely no relation between the wine (US) gallon - 231 cubic inches - and the Imperial gallon - the volume of 10 lbs of water.
Imperial measures were adopted in 1707, which I notice is the year of the Act of Union (when England bailed out Scotland, which had bankrupted itself in its bizarre colonial adventure in Darien, to the extent that there was not even any coin left in the country). If Scotland votes for independence next year, perhaps we can have the wine gallon back again.

[DRT]

Imperial measures were adopted in 1707, which I notice is the year of the Act of Union (when England bailed out Scotland, which had bankrupted itself in its bizarre colonial adventure in Darien, to the extent that there was not even any coin left in the country). If Scotland votes for independence next year, perhaps we can have the wine gallon back again.

That is the only rational argument I have heard in favour of Scottish independence. But hopefully we will never see the wine gallon again

[Glenn E.]

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

Intriguing: two different, yet perfectly reasonable explanations, which arrive at almost exactly the same result.

Since the British measurements pre-date the US ones, it would be entirely plausible that the "fifth" came into usage in the US because it was a common bottle size in the UK and that only the name was derived from the US gallon. (And that, perhaps, as an act of rebellion.) Remember, bottles were hand-made in those days. A volume difference of an ounce (or more) was probably pretty common.

[g-man]

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

Intriguing: two different, yet perfectly reasonable explanations, which arrive at almost exactly the same result.

Since the British measurements pre-date the US ones, it would be entirely plausible that the "fifth" came into usage in the US because it was a common bottle size in the UK and that only the name was derived from the US gallon. (And that, perhaps, as an act of rebellion.) Remember, bottles were hand-made in those days. A volume difference of an ounce (or more) was probably pretty common.

?

I believe machine made bottles started as early as the late 1800s?

surely by 1979 there were no longer making them by hand or did i miss read?

[RAYC]

By request of RAYC, this and subsequent two posts moved from 2011 Vintage Port review thread.

An important thing to point out is the Symington Family has kept wholesale pricing levels the same as from when the 2003 Vintage Ports were released. Kudo’s to them for keeping pricing at that level!!

While I don't doubt that there's more scope to price their more "popular" brands (eg: Graham) at more of a premium to their less well-followed brands (eg: Cockburn) than they currently do, or even to take more advantage when big points are awarded to a particular port by Suckling etc. (eg Dow 07), i do wonder how much rope there would be for port producers to play with before the types of complaints re: bordeaux en-primeur (that are so ubiquitous on wine-pages etc.) start getting applied to port. Taking Graham as an example, the 2011 is the most expensive vintage in the UK going back to 1985 and it is only once you get back into the 70s that prices really jump (best retail prices per case from reliable source in the UK (from winesearcher pro): 2011 - £470, 2007 - £420, 2003 - £390, 2000 - £415, 1997 - £340, 1994 - £375, 1991 - £370, 1985 - £520, 1983 - £450, 1980 - £514, 1977 - £600).

[Andy Velebil]

I think it's pretty unheard of for almost any corporation to keep its products priced the same from 8 years prior in this age of increased taxes, salaries and compensation, etc. TFP has stated they have only slightly raised their prices for their 2011 VP's. I haven't seen or been told what that slight increase is though. So for SFE to keep it the same from 8 years ago is very respectful.

Unfortunately, they have no control over what their importers/distributors/retailers do to jack up prices by the time we have to pay for them. But at least the reason for any uptick in price isn't the producer.

Honestly, I think VP could stand to handle a price increase. It's one of the last super bargains in the wine world and it's popularity, I predict, will rise in the coming years. Given most dry wines that score what VP's do by major reviewers typically command $100+ pricing (USD), VP at $65-85 is a real bargain and if pricing went up $10-20 per bottle at the wholesale level the market would still bear that from newer buyers. What may suffer is older buyers who get sticker shock, so to speak. But are older buyers still buying a lot of very young VP? Or is it the younger people looking to stock up for the future? I don't know the answer to that right now, so any thoughts are welcome.