Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Anything to do with Port.
User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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: 8153
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: 132
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14993
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: 132
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: 8153
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14993
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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: 690
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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: 690
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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: 690
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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
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.

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 01:06 Sat 14 Mar 2015

Some campaigns are successful. Others fail utterly.

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19689
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by jdaw1 » 22:12 Tue 19 May 2015

The back label of an imperial of Quevedo Quinta Vale D’Agodinho 2013:
Image

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14993
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Large bottle sizes: a campaign

Post by DRT » 22:35 Tue 19 May 2015

Nice to see Oscar continuing that now ancient tradition.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests