ThePortForum.com

The Symington website http://www.thevintageportsite.com has gone through an upgrade and now seems to be fully functional.

I noticed that they are posting monthly updates on the current year's growing season here. They have only posted up to April 08 so for but hopefully they will continue to update the reports throughout the year. If nothing else these may prove usefull benchmaks in subsequent years, assuming they retain the reports from previous online.

Worth a read.

Derek

DRT wrote:assuming they retain the reports from previous online.

Should we quote them, with proper credit and link, in a thread on , thus ensuring undeletabilty? There are pros and cons.
Pro: undeletabilty.
Pro: encourages Symington to believe that people care about these reports.
Con: if Symington value the right to re-write history (“we’re declaring because of perfect growing conditions throughout the year†), might deter Symington from posting such reports.
Con: they might always report excellent growing conditions—they do have a product to sell.

Also worthy of note, for one of our number at least, is S’s “Vintage Port of the Month†, being “Quinta do Vesuvio 1994 Vintage Port†.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:assuming they retain the reports from previous online.

Should we quote them, with proper credit and link, in a thread on , thus ensuring undeletabilty?

Perhaps one of the members who knows who to contact could email them to see what their long term intentions are?

It’s now an extremely nice website, though I don’t really understand why its best resources (the “insider report† and particularly the details on individual vintages) are not given more prominence over the standard “introduction to port† and “port and food† pages.

I think we should encourage them - the 'Douro Insider' bit is very interesting, but the updates are getting later each month - it would be a great shame if it was abandoned.

As to re-writing history; well there is little doubt that when the producers have it mind to declare a vintage, the weather can do no wrong. It seems reasonable to grant them a little licence for the purposes of marketing, in return for a 'warts 'n' all' version for the likes of us!

A respectable vintage port can be made in about 40% of vintages, and fewer than half are too poor for a declaration to be contemplated. Having a little more information to enable us to better separate the sheep from the goats would be welcome.

What bothers me at the moment is the excessive focus on immediate gratification when a vintage is declared, to the detriment of the longer term outlook. The independence and calibre of the critics currently in the limelight is less than breathtaking when it comes to judging a young wine's potential.

The willingness of the producers to celebrate the 2007 performance of grape varieties that have poor keeping qualities, while paying little attention to the 2005's; despite evidence that they probably have excellent long haul prospects; does suggest that those of us who have little interest in young wines need to be more selective, and therefore better informed.

Tom

I agree that these reports should be encouraged. The bottom line is that almost no other producer is willing to give us this information so we are not exactly spoiled for choice.

I think the informed reader will be able to spot the sales hype in the text and take it with a pinch of salt. What I find interesting is that in years to come we may be able to compare the weather pattern in any given month of the year with the same month from previous vintages. That has to be an improvement on the level of detail we have now as, up until now, the reports on the growing season have been written and published after the harvest and in close proximity to the next decision on whether or not to declare. Publishing these in comparitive real-time removes at least some of that attachment and should make them more reliable.

Derek

uncle tom wrote:As to re-writing history; well there is little doubt that when the producers have it mind to declare a vintage, the weather can do no wrong. It seems reasonable to grant them a little licence for the purposes of marketing, in return for a 'warts 'n' all' version for the likes of us!

What worried me was the possibility that they would rewrite their month-by-month reports having decided to declare. Really rewriting history, and thus preventing:

DRT wrote:What I find interesting is that in years to come we may be able to compare the weather pattern in any given month of the year with the same month from previous vintages.

We could know the warts by copying their reports.

Maybe one of us should keep a private copy of their reports?

jdaw1 wrote: What worried me was the possibility that they would rewrite their month-by-month reports having decided to declare. Really rewriting history, and thus preventing:

DRT wrote:What I find interesting is that in years to come we may be able to compare the weather pattern in any given month of the year with the same month from previous vintages.

That would be marketing suicide if they got caught and I don't think it would be worth the risk. It is more likely that they will take care not to go to extremes in the regular updates and to leave them open to interpritation.

jdaw1 wrote: We could know the warts by copying their reports.

Maybe one of us should keep a private copy of their reports?

I haven't checked but I am quite sure every page of that site will have a copyright statement attached so probably not advisable.

Fair enough all round.

I’ve just been looking at their pages on individual vintages in more detail. The level of spin is quite impressive in the brief summaries. You have to go back as far as 1981 before a year is described as anything less than “good† (which seems to be their phrase of choice for a non-declared vintage). They do, however, have some quotes from the winemakers which are a bit more honest.

For example, 1986 (which has a particular interest to me ) is described in the summary as:

A good Vintage, with very attractive Quinta Vintage Ports made. Not a general declaration.

which seem somewhat in contrast to the quotations they give:

Michael Symington wrote:"Exceptionally cold first two weeks of April...some frost damage, but full extent yet uncertain."

"To begin with the wet grapes showed low sugar readings, only 11.5 or so, and there was mounting anxiety that the continued rain would lead to the onset of rot....On Tuesday 23rd Sept it started to clear and then followed a spell of glorious, hot sunny weather that lasted unbroken until 10th October."

"In the lower Douro the quality is unlikely to be better than average this year, but the Upper Douro has certainly had a good vintage, from the quality as well as the quantity point of view, and the anxiety caused by the very unusual long wet spell in mid-September proved groundless."

-Jacob

JacobH wrote:

A good Vintage, with very attractive Quinta Vintage Ports made. Not a general declaration.

which seem somewhat in contrast to the quotations they give:

Michael Symington wrote:"Exceptionally cold first two weeks of April...some frost damage, but full extent yet uncertain."

"To begin with the wet grapes showed low sugar readings, only 11.5 or so, and there was mounting anxiety that the continued rain would lead to the onset of rot....On Tuesday 23rd Sept it started to clear and then followed a spell of glorious, hot sunny weather that lasted unbroken until 10th October."

"In the lower Douro the quality is unlikely to be better than average this year, but the Upper Douro has certainly had a good vintage, from the quality as well as the quantity point of view, and the anxiety caused by the very unusual long wet spell in mid-September proved groundless."

Perhaps it's just me but I think both of those quotes say the same thing: "OK, but not great"

DRT wrote:Perhaps it's just me but I think both of those quotes say the same thing: "OK, but not great"

Hmm…On second reading, that’s probably fair enough. I do think though, on re-reading through a few of these, that each summary in a non-declared year, is slightly spun towards the positive, but it is certainly more subtle way than those quotes attempted to show.

JacobH wrote: on re-reading through a few of these, that each summary in a non-declared year, is slightly spun towards the positive

That is why the pinch of salt is required. Above all that site is a marketing tool so every word on it is there to persuade us to buy port. We don't need to be persuaded, which is why we should try to read between the lines and work out whether or not is was actually raining and colder than normal in March

I think we need to accept that the producers are in business to sell port, and that when making pronouncements for wide circulation, they are not going to proactively rubbish a year unless it was one of the few that were really dire.

The use the word 'good' in a one line summary, when in truth the word 'mediocre' might be more factual, is, I think, entirely forgiveable.

Our interest goes deeper than a one line summary, and if we want them to place an honest and detailed account on the record, then we should not take issue if a slightly gilded version is broadcast for the benefit of those who have only a passing interest.

Tom

uncle tom wrote:Our interest goes deeper than a one line summary, and if we want them to place an honest and detailed account on the record, then we should not take issue if a slightly gilded version is broadcast for the benefit of those who have only a passing interest.

I entirely agree with that statement and it is what I have taken lots of posts to attempt to say

Derek

DRT wrote:

uncle tom wrote:Our interest goes deeper than a one line summary, and if we want them to place an honest and detailed account on the record, then we should not take issue if a slightly gilded version is broadcast for the benefit of those who have only a passing interest.

I entirely agree with that statement and it is what I have taken lots of posts to attempt to say

What DRT just said.

I would like to think they have a savvy enough webmaster who would inform them that, once published to the web, it is a permanent part of history. There are dozens of website recording tools that troll about recording snapshots of websites, so "changing history" would be suicidal. They'd be looking at a stink the size of the Brunello debacle.

(For journalistic integrity, it might be good if a systematic record of their content was kept, provided more than one person did it and no-one admitted to it for copyright reasons. Should they attempt to change history, they could be privately called on to change it back or risk exposure.)

Sniffing conspiracies around every corner ... you guys crack me up!

Do you seriously think that the Symington's would EVER publish a report publicly and then go back and change that after the fact? Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for the great laugh.

Should they attempt to change history, they could be privately called on to change it back or risk exposure.)

Josh,

This takes the cake!

Roy Hersh wrote:Sniffing conspiracies around every corner ... you guys crack me up!

Do you seriously think that the Symington's would EVER publish a report publicly and then go back and change that after the fact? Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for the great laugh.

Should they attempt to change history, they could be privately called on to change it back or risk exposure.)

Josh,

This takes the cake!

Roy,
Your amusement is in itself amusing but don't feel bad, most people don't have the same perspective I do on this. You see -- I work in Web PR for a multi-national. This kind of thing happens all the time, and it is not unusual for the little fish to call on the bigfish to fix-before-exposure.

That I can understand. BEFORE hand, yes. Tweak to justify the reality of the market place seems feasible. But others were alluding to a covert action that the SYM's would change their report AFTER it had been published on their website, which is absolutely ludicrous given their squeaky clean reputation over two centuries with nary a single bad word not to mention something far more nefarious as per the allusions above. The "before vs. after" the fact is a HUGE difference.

I am glad you're amused that I was.

Certainly a touch of marketing sneaks into those reviews -- the reviewer is proud of their product, their vines, etc. It can be as simple as standing too close to write objectively. No-one expects the content, when first published, to be free of a little bias.

What always amazes me is that some companies get the idea that publishing to the Web is different than publishing to a newspaper; that since it is published on their site they can adjust as needed and whenever needed. This isn't about treachery, it's a simple misunderstanding about the nature of the Web (especially the tendency for fan(atic)s and automated programs to regularly archive pages).

I think what we are seeing in this thread is that Port aficionados value the information Symington is posting, and to such a degree that they would go to lengths to protect it from, say, a web-naive marketing intern changing the content in a misguided attempt to help their employer. That's usually who does it -- someone who "doesn't get it" and thinks a blog post is somehow different than putting a press release out on the wire.

We know the Symington's make good Port. And we like that they are embracing a community that would watch the vineyards as close as a tennis match. So the message coming out here is "We like you more for this, please don't screw it up"

I have a slightly different view on how this is likely to go.

I accept Roy's point and reinforce my own that editing these online reports in months or years to come to hide what may be read as weaknesses in a vintage would be commercial suicide. I also accept SN's point that some idiot in the web team could do so just because he had nothing better to do and has no idea what the value of the report is to those who understand it.

What I think is more likely is that at the point of declaring a full vintage or a series of SQVPs the individual monthly reports will be removed for that year and replaced by a summarised report which supports what is being released. It is normal for a declaration (full or SQ) to be accompanied by a few words from the shipper, two years after the fact, on the conditions under which it was produced. What is not normal is for that summary to be published alongside individual monthly weather reports written during the season which would allow the informed reader to identify to outright marketing hype in the summary version. I wonder if the Syms will be brave enough to do this or will the men in grey suits drive the web content strategy?

Derek

DRT wrote:I also accept SN's point that some idiot in the web team

The not-understanding-the-web can be quite high up in an institution. When I joined the Bank of England the head of personnel seemed to believe that it was possible to ‘unpublish’ something from my own website, rather than merely give the appearance of having failed to do so.

— Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public

I think Roy is right to be dismissive of the conspiracy element.

We seem to have an epidemic of conspiracy theories at the moment, and it amazes me how people who otherwise appear quite intelligent, can become loyal supporters of theories that are ludicrously implausible.

BUT WAIT...!!

What dark and evil force is preventing the publication of the May edition of the Douro insider report? What amazing revelations does the report contain that the establishment feels it necessary to suppress...!!

- Or do they just need a gentle reminder that it does get read, is worth doing, and is very much appreciated!

Tom

uncle tom wrote:I think Roy is right to be dismissive of the conspiracy element.

We seem to have an epidemic of conspiracy theories at the moment, and it amazes me how people who otherwise appear quite intelligent, can become loyal supporters of theories that are ludicrously implausible.


Tom

I still believe in aliens .... and that the British government has issued a DA-Notice to keep the press from letting the public know.

g-man wrote:I still believe in aliens .... and that the British government has issued a DA-Notice to keep the press from letting the public know.

No no. The D-Notice was about the stash of 1927 Na… {off-stage strangulation noises}.

I still believe in aliens .... and that the British government has issued a DA-Notice to keep the press from letting the public know.

Look how long they were able to keep A Clockwork Orange (the film) under wraps in the UK.

Roy Hersh wrote:

I still believe in aliens .... and that the British government has issued a DA-Notice to keep the press from letting the public know.

Look how long they were able to keep A Clockwork Orange (the film) under wraps in the UK.

I never knew the Symingtons were responsible for keeping Clockwork Orange off release in the UK. How did you find that out?

needs an emoticon with tongue in cheek

AHB wrote:

Roy Hersh wrote:

I still believe in aliens .... and that the British government has issued a DA-Notice to keep the press from letting the public know.

Look how long they were able to keep A Clockwork Orange (the film) under wraps in the UK.

I never knew the Symingtons were responsible for keeping Clockwork Orange off release in the UK. How did you find that out?

needs an emoticon with tongue in cheek

Will this do?

This thread gave rise to an interesting conversation, in response to which I want to post again.

Above various paranoid suggestions were made, by me and others, about the possibility of weather reports being retrospectively changed in the light of a declaration. This concern was driven by stupidy suffered by me from stupid senior mangement earlier in that which I deign to call my career. (If you, reading this, are that same senior management, I invite you to sue me for libel. You were extremely stupid, and my defence will be justification. Please sue, or apologise for the grief you gave me.) But, happily, people who know the Symingtons say that they are cleverer and more honest than that. I am delighted to hear it, and have no reason to believe otherwise. And also I enjoy drinking their fine products.

Symingtons: please do continue to post weather reports, and keep them on your website. We do value them.

I have registered and joined the forum on http://www.thevintageportsite.com and have posted an email encouraging them to post weather reports more quickly. It may help if others do likewise, providing it is done nicely