ThePortForum.com

Conversations elsewhere have prompted this curiosity piece. Which big houses, in general-declaration years, didn’t declare?

For these purposes let’s say that valid years are 2003, 2000, 1997, ’94, ’91 or ’92 split special case, ’85, ’83, ’80, ’77, ’70, ’66, ’63, ’60 (?), ’55, ’45, ’35, ’27 (not ’31).

For some retentive reason I think that such a list might be worth learning.

For starters:

• 1980:
  • Cockburn
• 1977:
  • Cockburn
  • Nacional
  • Noval

Cool Topic,

but I just found out that Cockburns has some 77 stock in their cellar. This is a bottle I would like to bring to the vertical (in September???)

Axel

With at least 24 declared VPs I think 1975 should be in this list, even though Jdaw doesn't like any of them that he has tasted

Derek

Based on information found in the works of Suckling, Broadbent and Mayson I have complied the following list, which is certainly incomplete.

• 2003:
  • No gaps found
• 2000:
  • No gaps found
• 1997:
  • No gaps found
• 1991/2:
  • No gaps found taking both vintages as one
• 1985:
  • No gaps found
• 1983:
  • Croft
  • Nacional
  • Noval
• 1980:
  • Cockburn
  • Martinez
  • Noval
• 1977:
  • Cockburn
  • Martinez
  • Nacional
  • Noval
• 1975:
  • No gaps found
• 1970:
  • No gaps found
• 1966:
  • Cockburn
  • Martinez
• 1963:
  • No gaps found
• 1960:
  • No gaps found
• 1955:
  • No gaps found
• 1945:
  • Cockburn
• 1935:
  • Insufficient data
• 1927:
  • No gaps found

A pattern seems to have emerged in that the vast majority of shippers seem to move as a pack, whilst the former owners of Cockburn, Martinez and Noval were either poor decision makers or had the largest cahoonas in the Douro and were brave enough to resist decalring bad wines.

Derek

Axel P wrote:but I just found out that Cockburns has some 77 stock in their cellar. This is a bottle I would like to bring to the vertical (in September???)

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=8134#8134]Here[/url] uncle tom wrote:30 years ago, Cockburn took a sabbatical from VP production, passing on both '77 and '80, because at the time, they were focused on volume products, and wanted to raise the image of their Special Reserve.

I don’t know who is wrong, but it’s at least one of you. Unless they did a ‘Special Quinta’ type family bottling.

Derek T.: good work, thank you. I should memorise.

http://www.grapesthewineco.com/cgi-bin/ ... ice=299.00

Noval Nacional 83

coulda sworn I've drunk an 83 regular noval in my past life. May have been a single quinta?

66 Cockburn

http://www.haskells.com/wine_details.as ... _no=615038

jdaw1 wrote:

Axel P wrote:but I just found out that Cockburns has some 77 stock in their cellar. This is a bottle I would like to bring to the vertical (in September???)

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=8134#8134]Here[/url] uncle tom wrote:30 years ago, Cockburn took a sabbatical from VP production, passing on both '77 and '80, because at the time, they were focused on volume products, and wanted to raise the image of their Special Reserve.

I don’t know who is wrong, but it’s at least one of you. Unless they did a ‘Special Quinta’ type family bottling.

Derek T.: good work, thank you. I should memorise.

http://www.fourwallswine.com/index.php? ... e=POR10398

does an LBV count? =)

jdaw1 wrote:

Axel P wrote:but I just found out that Cockburns has some 77 stock in their cellar. This is a bottle I would like to bring to the vertical (in September???)

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=8134#8134]Here[/url] uncle tom wrote:30 years ago, Cockburn took a sabbatical from VP production, passing on both '77 and '80, because at the time, they were focused on volume products, and wanted to raise the image of their Special Reserve.

I don’t know who is wrong, but it’s at least one of you. Unless they did a ‘Special Quinta’ type family bottling.

The 77 Cockburn was produced but not released, I think, and was kept for family consumption. A reference in Broadbent's book suggests that tension between the Directors of Cockburn/Martinez and their "overlords in England" may have been responsible for what the company now admits was an error of judgement.

jdaw1 wrote:Derek T.: good work, thank you. I should memorise

I have added a link to this thread in the Information About Port Sticky at the top of the Forum for future reference.

Derek

In 1983 Quinta do Noval released small quantities of two different SQVP's (yes an oximoron, as Noval is in itself a SQVP). They are

1983 Quinta do Noval, Quinta do Silval
1983 Quinta do Noval, Quinta do Marco

I have finally aquirred both and when the time is right I will open both side by side to compare them with each other.

Andy,

Knowing that Jdaw would not be counting SQVP's, apart from those normally perceived as being "real" VP, such as QdN, QdNN and QdV (from 1989 onwards) I did not include wines such as Silval and Marco in the analysis.

Are you sure it was Quinta do Silval and not just Silval? I know that debate has been had many times but I can't recall whether or not we arrived a a definative answer about the use of the brand v the status and ownership of the Quinta. This could perhaps do with a separate thread?

Derek

ADV wrote:In 1983 Quinta do Noval released small quantities of two different SQVP's (yes an oximoron, as Noval is in itself a SQVP). They are

1983 Quinta do Noval, Quinta do Silval
1983 Quinta do Noval, Quinta do Marco

I have finally aquirred both and when the time is right I will open both side by side to compare them with each other.

Or save them for a visit to New York. Others would be very interested in that comparison.

I'm doing some much needed yard work, but I'll post some pics later. The bottle says "Quinta do Silval" on it, along with Quinta do NOval.

Jdaw,
Not sure if I'll make NY...but i am still looking into it.

Thanks for your list, Derek.

Very helpful.

Axel

Jdaw,

Do not commit to memory yet! I am finding more whilst doing the research on declarations and will update the above list as I find them. The missing Croft 83 was added today.

Derek

We need a definition of "Big House".

In producing the list of declared VP's in 1983 I have found that the following, all of which declared in 1985, did not (apparently) declare in 1983:

• A Pinta dos Santos
• Burmester
• C da Silva
• Crasto, Quinta do
• Croft
• Dalva
• Delaforce
• Feist
• Feurheed
• Gilbert
• Gonzalez Byass
• Infantado, Quinta do
• Krohn
• Martinez
• Messias
• Morgan
• Noval Nacional, Quinta do
• Noval, Quinta do
• Osborne
• Pocas Junior
• Romaniera, Quinta da
• Rozes
• Sandeman
• Vieira de Souza

Do we want all of these in the above list of missing VP's or do we want to agree on a subset that fall into the subjective category of "Big House"?

Derek

sorry for bit of thread drift, but here is the pic I said I'd post


I can't find a pic of the Silval, but it says "Quinta do Silval" in red, instead of Q.do Marco as this one does.

Derek T. wrote:We need a definition of "Big House".

In producing the list of declared VP's in 1983 I have found that the following, all of which declared in 1985, did not (apparently) declare in 1983:

• A Pinta dos Santos
• Burmester
• C da Silva
• etc

Do we want all of these in the above list of missing VP's or do we want to agree on a subset that fall into the subjective category of "Big House"?

Derek

Perhaps doing this resolves the dilema?

Derek

For these purposes, big might include:

• Burmester
• Croft
• Delaforce
• Martinez
• Noval Nacional, Quinta do
• Noval, Quinta do
• Sandeman

but not the others. And some of these could be omitted.

This has been produced from the data collected over the past few days, which has not been verified by anyone else so may not be complete and/or accurate at this stage.

The selection of Big Shippers is my own and can be changed easily on request. The choice of Big Years was Jdaws and, again can be changed if required.



Now, imagine a chart like this spanning 100+ years and 130+ shippers printed on A0 paper and stuck on the wall of your home office or cellar. It's the Purple Sunshine Wallchart

Copyright TPF 2008

Very good.

But you have reversed the usual horizontal and vertical directions.

As for PDF generation: don’t worry about sizes. I’m going to make it from the data. (You’ve seen my tasting sheets: trust me, I can cope.)

To quote someone who I believe came from the North:

"Ah luv it"

I think it looks great is destined to become one of the historic charts in the folklore of port, ranking alongside Baron Forrester's maps.

Well, perhaps I exaggerate a little - but I do love it really. I wonder how much it would cost to get printed in glossy ink when it's ready.

Alex

jdaw1 wrote:Very good.

But you have reversed the usual horizontal and vertical directions.

I haven't seen another vintage chart in this format so am left wondering about the use of the word usual in that sentence.

jAHB wrote:I think it looks great is destined to become one of the historic charts in the folklore of port, ranking alongside Baron Forrester's maps.

Ahh, but can you click on one of the dots on the Barrn's map and be taken directly to a Tasting Note?

AHB wrote:Well, perhaps I exaggerate a little - but I do love it really. I wonder how much it would cost to get printed in glossy ink when it's ready.

Jessops do InkJet A0 posters for the full chart at £30 - or, we have mouse mats made of the cut down version at £6.99 each

Derek, Julian,

I agree that this looks absolutely fab, though I also support the suggestion that years go down and shippers across.

One other request. Rather than having sunshines, could we have empty circles (or another symbol of your choice)? I'm sure Julian is already considering what additional information can be imparted in the extra degree of freedom that the choice of symbol presents.

Anyway, with empty symbols, once up and running, we can colour 'em in as we drink 'em. Soon after we've started that, it becomes a game of VP Bingo. Minor prizes for collecting a whole year or shipper, and the big one for tasting the lot!!

Ghandih (whose ambition is mightily outpacing his bank account)

Ghandih wrote:Derek, Julian,

I agree that this looks absolutely fab, though I also support the suggestion that years go down and shippers across.

One other request. Rather than having sunshines, could we have empty circles (or another symbol of your choice)? I'm sure Julian is already considering what additional information can be imparted in the extra degree of freedom that the choice of symbol presents.

Anyway, with empty symbols, once up and running, we can colour 'em in as we drink 'em. Soon after we've started that, it becomes a game of VP Bingo. Minor prizes for collecting a whole year or shipper, and the big one for tasting the lot!!

Ghandih (whose ambition is mightily outpacing his bank account)

Ghandih,

Jdaw is in charge of output, I am just the data man.

Good suggestion on the empty circles. Wingdings have an empty sunshine symbol that will allow us to achieve more than each of our original suggestions have individually. This is teamwork at its very best.

Perhaps what could be denoted within the empty sunshine is a number representing the number of TPF TN's that exist for each wine? This would really only work for an online click-able version.

Derek