AHB wrote:Mmmm. Cockburn Crusted bottled 1968 - otherwise known as the 1966 vintage that was never declared.
Is that consistent with pricing cheaper than that of Taylor crusted bottled 1963.
The only example we know of that could help prove this theory is the Cockburn Crusted 1977. That was undeclared 1977 VP bottled (and corked) as Cockburn Crusted 1977. If that was a continuation of a common practice then the Cockburn Crusted 1968 would be unreleased VP from 1968, not 1966. If it were unreleased VP from 1966 it would be Cockburn Crusted 1966.
I think it is just ordinary crusted port, bottled in 1968, probably from a mixture of vintages from the two or three preceding years.
As for the price difference, that is easily explained by the fact that the Taylor has more bottle age and by the fact that in this time period Taylor outranked Cockburn in the pricing stakes.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:As for the price difference, that is easily explained by the fact that the Taylor has more bottle age and by the fact that in this time period Taylor outranked Cockburn in the pricing stakes.
Agreed. And the price difference suggests that the general consensus at the time was that the Cockburn was indeed a crusted.
jdaw1 wrote:Auction, Christie’s, 30 March 1978.
(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s; my picture #24516.)
Being my birth year, If anyone comes across any of these let me know or buy them. Port from this year is quite hard to come by, though not necessarily great.
jdaw1 wrote:Auction, Christie’s, 30 March 1978.
(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s; my picture #24516.)
Being my birth year, If anyone comes across any of these let me know or buy them. Port from this year is quite hard to come by, though not necessarily great.
Does the 1973 here refer to bottling date or the vintage of wine? I had assumed bottling date in this context, but hey may have done things differently then. What was the Martinez 73 crusted that we had recently?
RAYC wrote:Does the 1973 here refer to bottling date or the vintage of wine? I had assumed bottling date in this context, but hey may have done things differently then. What was the Martinez 73 crusted that we had recently?
Crusted is typically a blend of vintages, so the date is that of bottling. Of course there might be exceptions, but this is the default.
RAYC wrote:Does the 1973 here refer to bottling date or the vintage of wine? I had assumed bottling date in this context, but hey may have done things differently then. What was the Martinez 73 crusted that we had recently?
It was bottled 1973 (link to label image in the VPID).
jdaw1 wrote: Of course there might be exceptions, but this is the default.
Yes - it was just that that particular listing, in contrast to some of the other auction listings, did not specify that this was the bottling date (and Andy's subsequent reference to "Port of this year" gave me pause for thought given what Cockburn did in 1977 and, perhaps more directly comparable, what Graham did with Malvedos pre-Symington ownership).
As far as I am aware the Ck77 has never been sold by the producer. Some have been given away and a few of those might have reached the secondary market. The "Crusted" status is pretty meaningless in this instance as it is an unapproved VP that was bottled for consumption by the Cockburn Directors and their guests. It is my understanding that the Symngtons are holding to that long-established tradition.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
Wine & Food No. 127, Autumn 1965, page 86, records “A 1955 Claret Dinner” held by the Westwood branch of the Wine & Food Society on 7 April of that year. One of the wines was “Cockburn Crusted, btld. 1938, Avery”.
DRT wrote:As far as I am aware the Ck77 has never been sold by the producer. Some have been given away and a few of those might have reached the secondary market. The "Crusted" status is pretty meaningless in this instance as it is an unapproved VP that was bottled for consumption by the Cockburn Directors and their guests. It is my understanding that the Symngtons are holding to that long-established tradition.
Now reclassified as Vintage Port and sold on the open market so should be removed from this database if it was added.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:As far as I am aware the Ck77 has never been sold by the producer. Some have been given away and a few of those might have reached the secondary market. The "Crusted" status is pretty meaningless in this instance as it is an unapproved VP that was bottled for consumption by the Cockburn Directors and their guests. It is my understanding that the Symngtons are holding to that long-established tradition.
Now reclassified as Vintage Port and sold on the open market so should be removed from this database if it was added.
Hmm, but it was originally approved and consumed (and given away) as a crusted. Only later did it become a VP. I'd suggest leaving it for the record with an "*" indicating its later re-written history.
And one pedantic addition, it was registered as a Crusted to hide it on the books from the parent company as they were instructed not to make a 1977 VP. Quite cleaver of them I must say.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑20:59 Wed 14 Oct 2009Harrods, Wine List Winter 1979/80 [my ref 02004], under the title ‟Crusting Port”:
• ‟Smith Woodhouse Bottled 1978 £5.00”;
• ‟Taylor Bottled 1974 £5.70”.
“Taylor Crusted, Bottled 1974” also present in the Autumn 1982 catalogue of Edward Sheldon, at £6.38 per bottle, or “case rate” of £6.06, or “6 case rate” of £5.76 (excl. VAT, which was then 15%).