Is the secondary market price for Port changing?

[Alex Bridgeman]

One of the topics of conversation which often comes up at a tasting is that of the cycle of the pricing of Vintage Port from release, through a dip around 8-18 years after release, recovery 19-25 years after, a very gentle increase with step changes 30, 40 and 50 years after the vintage until the price increases more rapidly with growing rarity 60+ years after the vintage.

We’ve speculated that this might change with the smaller declarations we’ve seen over the last 20 years although we have seen the dip and recovery cycle for 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003.

Does anyone have a feel for how prices are doing for vintages such as 2007, 2009 and 2011? Are we seeing things change?

[winesecretary]

Over the last three years, I have bought a fair amount of 2007s at auction for what I consider to be small money (around 40 a bottle for big names). That's at or below release price once duty and VAT are factored. So, the traditional cycle theory is true of that vintage at least.

[uncle tom]

Does anyone have a feel for how prices are doing for vintages such as 2007, 2009 and 2011? Are we seeing things change?

Prices used to dip sharply when the vintages first came onto the secondary market, now they tend to dip a little and stall, but still fail to keep pace with inflation. 2007/09/11 are tending to trade at around 10% below release in cash terms (inc. BP) So bad news for the vendors.

It's a pity - I'm still convinced that if VP volumes were trebled and the release price halved, not only would we get a more 'normal' secondary market, but the producers would make significantly more money.

Of course, this won't happen overnight, and it's very hard for them to advertise release prices that are lower than the previous ones. A special deal on ten dozen 'investment' parcels might be one route to a more sensible market.

[MigSU]

I don't believe you could triple the VP production and maintain quality across the board.

On the matter at hand: you gentlemen clearly have more of an awareness of the secondary markets than I do, so maybe you could enlighten me as to what is the logic behind the price drop, relative to the release price. Is it due to uncertain provenance and storing conditions? Because if anything, prices should rise, as it's a product that, as time goes by, becomes increasingly difficult to get in wine shops and from wine merchants.

[uncle tom]

I don't believe you could triple the VP production and maintain quality across the board.

Given the volumes of past classic declarations compared to current ones, it's clear that a lot of top juice is getting consigned to lesser products.

In theory, I agree, in practice, I think it's a modest consideration.

so maybe you could enlighten me as to what is the logic behind the price drop, relative to the release price. Is it due to uncertain provenance and storing conditions?

Nothing to do with storage - just a massive dis-connect between those who buy at release, and those who actually drink the wine, years later.

[DRT]

I'm still convinced that if VP volumes were trebled and the release price halved, not only would we get a more 'normal' secondary market, but the producers would make significantly more money.

If volumes were trebled the producers would go back to having the majority of the vintage being stored in Gaia rather than sold, just as it was in the 80's and 90's. Cutting the price would make a difference to a small part of the market (i.e. the few dozen people here and in similar places), but wouldn't empty the cellars. It would also cheapen the product as a whole - back to the bad old days for the industry where a special wine stored in cask for 50 years commands a price of twenty quid.

Top class VP is released in a range of £30-£60 a bottle. Wines worthy of high 90's to 100 points in the trade's accepted scale. That might buy you a fifth growth Claret or a half decent Rioja. If Port is to ever reach the heights of recognition it deserves in the wine world the price needs to go up, not down.

This, however, is a major problem for the industry and an absolute goldmine for people like us...

Screenshot 2021-11-10 at 20.52.45.png (299.68 KiB) Viewed 5543 times

From BBR's website today.

[DRT]

One of the topics of conversation which often comes up at a tasting is that of the cycle of the pricing of Vintage Port from release, through a dip around 8-18 years after release, recovery 19-25 years after, a very gentle increase with step changes 30, 40 and 50 years after the vintage until the price increases more rapidly with growing rarity 60+ years after the vintage.

We’ve speculated that this might change with the smaller declarations we’ve seen over the last 20 years although we have seen the dip and recovery cycle for 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003.

Does anyone have a feel for how prices are doing for vintages such as 2007, 2009 and 2011? Are we seeing things change?

Taylor VP as an example (prices are from Wine Searcher lowest price excluding Duty and VAT (without "Pro" access)...

2018 - £54
2017 - £52
2016 - £47
2011 - £43
2009 - £40
2007 - £38
2003 - £41
2000 - £48
1997 - £45
1994 - £85
1992 - £148
1985 - £52
1983 - £60
1980 - £50
1977 - £120
1975 - £65
1970 - £125

So, apart from two exceptions, you can buy Taylor VP from three years old to forty one years old at roughly the same price. Until the glut of VP from the 80's and 90's is drunk the industry has a major problem with pricing. I love Taylor 1985 and I love Taylor 2017. Both are £52. I know which one I will buy in my lifetime.

[uncle tom]

If volumes were trebled the producers would go back to having the majority of the vintage being stored in Gaia rather than sold

I disagree. In all classes of wine, increasing price has a huge depressant effect on sales volume. Conversely there is good reason to expect a tripled volume at half price to result in a much easier sales campaign. The person who might have bought one six pack would be easily motivated to double their investment and buy two dozens instead, and others who would otherwise have felt priced out would enter the market.

[DRT]

If volumes were trebled the producers would go back to having the majority of the vintage being stored in Gaia rather than sold

I disagree. In all classes of wine, increasing price has a huge depressant effect on sales volume. Conversely there is good reason to expect a tripled volume at half price to result in a much easier sales campaign. The person who might have bought one six pack would be easily motivated to double their investment and buy two dozens instead, and others who would otherwise have felt priced out would enter the market.

Port producers do not pay the mortgage with the proceeds of their top wines. They pay it with the proceeds from huge volumes or lower tier wines. Tripling the quantity of their premium wine only serves to maintain the perception of VP as being a cheap wine rather than being special, rare and worthy of comparison with the top tier wines from other regions.

[Andy Velebil]

If volumes were trebled the producers would go back to having the majority of the vintage being stored in Gaia rather than sold

I disagree. In all classes of wine, increasing price has a huge depressant effect on sales volume. Conversely there is good reason to expect a tripled volume at half price to result in a much easier sales campaign. The person who might have bought one six pack would be easily motivated to double their investment and buy two dozens instead, and others who would otherwise have felt priced out would enter the market.

Tom,
For top end wines, you are completely incorrect in modern retail markets.

-What DRT said here...

Port producers do not pay the mortgage with the proceeds of their top wines. They pay it with the proceeds from huge volumes or lower tier wines. Tripling the quantity of their premium wine only serves to maintain the perception of VP as being a cheap wine rather than being special, rare and worthy of comparison with the top tier wines from other regions.

[JacobH]

Tripling the quantity of their premium wine only serves to maintain the perception of VP as being a cheap wine rather than being special, rare and worthy of comparison with the top tier wines from other regions.

I don’t doubt this is true but I do sometimes think that some shippers are a bit unrealistic in their comparisons. Port is a special category wine. along with other fortifieds and sweet wines, & will never be as popular as a table wine. Whilst I am sure they would love it to be priced as a first growth claret or similar, it is just never going to happen, and I wonder just how much they are going to be able to push the prices of some releases before saleability drops off. It must already be the most prestigious special category wine globally. Or, if not, I think it is only second to Sauternes.

[Glenn E.]

It must already be the most prestigious special category wine globally. Or, if not, I think it is only second to Sauternes.

d'Yquem was €275 on release in 2017 and they released 80,000 bottles of it. So Port is realistically no better than second, globally.

It will also depend on how you want to define both "prestigious" and "special category wine"... Port is very well known in England, but much less so globally. Other wines such as Sauternes are far better known elsewhere in the world. Does Chianti count as a "special category wine" also?

[DRT]

Tripling the quantity of their premium wine only serves to maintain the perception of VP as being a cheap wine rather than being special, rare and worthy of comparison with the top tier wines from other regions.

I don’t doubt this is true but I do sometimes think that some shippers are a bit unrealistic in their comparisons. Port is a special category wine. along with other fortifieds and sweet wines, & will never be as popular as a table wine. Whilst I am sure they would love it to be priced as a first growth claret or similar, it is just never going to happen, and I wonder just how much they are going to be able to push the prices of some releases before saleability drops off. It must already be the most prestigious special category wine globally. Or, if not, I think it is only second to Sauternes.

I think this is all fair, and I am not suggesting for one minute that VP should be released at £2000 a bottle like some first growth clarets are. What I am arguing is that, given the comparative quality and exceptional rarity of top-tier VP compared with wines from other regions, the notion of halving the price from around £50 to £25 is just ridiculous.

[JacobH]

I think this is all fair, and I am not suggesting for one minute that VP should be released at £2000 a bottle like some first growth clarets are. What I am arguing is that, given the comparative quality and exceptional rarity of top-tier VP compared with wines from other regions, the notion of halving the price from around £50 to £25 is just ridiculous.

There’s a joke about Aldi’s £35 40-year-old tawny here but I won’t make it!

d'Yquem was €275 on release in 2017 and they released 80,000 bottles of it. So Port is realistically no better than second, globally.

It will also depend on how you want to define both "prestigious" and "special category wine"... Port is very well known in England, but much less so globally. Other wines such as Sauternes are far better known elsewhere in the world. Does Chianti count as a "special category wine" also?

By special category, I mean fortified, sweet or aromatised wine since they are not regularly consumed by most consumers of wine, unlike table & sparkling wines. I’d probably also include a fully oxidised unfortified wine in that category but I don’t think anyone makes those. Clearly there are some edge cases such as Vin Jaune or retsina.

In terms of prestige, I was thinking about higher-priced wines where the wine’s price is primarily determined by quality rather than scarcity. So, for example, I’m pretty sure a 10-year-old Carcavelos costs more than a 10-year-old tawny but that’s because you can’t readily find the former. Most fortified wines are significantly cheaper than Port, even though many of them have incredibly elaborate production processes. Sherry is perhaps the most obvious example of this. Or on the pudding wine front, something like Tokaji.

I don’t really drink much Sauternes but I will readily accept it is the global leader if Yquem is flogging that volume at that cost!

[uncle tom]

the notion of halving the price from around £50 to £25 is just ridiculous

It's only ridiculous if you try to benchmark from totally different products with different market dynamics, and fail to consider whether the current marketing strategy for vintage port is working or not.

The producers were aware of a stock overhang about twenty years ago. When the 2000 vintage was launched there was quite a big push to get people drinking VP young. This worked, but only to a degree. Then there were informal agreements to limit the volume of VP production. VP may only be only a modest percentage of the port producers turnover, but as the production of standard ports is virtually profit-less; the profits yielded by the special categories, and vintage in particular, are very important.

The strategy, aimed at creating an ever hungrier market for VP, came at great cost. The collective profit loss from the reduced size of the declarations runs to several millions.

So is it working? Has the market been drinking up the excess supply and driving prices higher? Yes, but again, only to a degree.

Take the 1970 vintage. A huge declaration and a superb vintage. Of the vintage port made from that year however, it is likely that perhaps 98% has now either been drunk or is with its final owner. Very little of the production is likely to be offered to market going forward, so there is no significant glut of supply left.

The retail pricing however, is currently averaging little more than double the release price of VP half a century younger.

If the theory of an ever hungrier market paying ever increasing sums as the supply side rarefied held good, then the ratio of release to 50 years hence should surely be much greater now.

Rather than propel prices forward to dizzy new heights, the primary effect of the decade long supply squeeze appears to have been to reduce consumption.

Less consumption and less market presence on the back of reduced profits - it's hard to argue the strategy has been a huge success, or worth the profit sacrifice.

I don't blame the producers for giving the strategy a try, but going forward I think there's a need to restore production volumes and cut deals with those willing to buy in quantity to lay down.

[jdaw1]

Rather than propel prices forward to dizzy new heights, the primary effect of the decade long supply squeeze appears to have been to reduce consumption.

This is plausible. Plenty should be made, and sold at full price. Quantity to maintain consumption. Full price because it is the senior category, and seniority merits respect. Rather than sell cheaply, prefer to hold and late-release.

Indeed, the Port companies could consider a collective purchase of Scottish storage facility, to hold that which is not sold quickly at full price.

[JacobH]

This is an interesting discussion.

I noticed that Sarah Ahmed’s review of the 2019 releases included this comment:

In the latest press release accompanying the declarations, Noval indicated that “even in the more generous years, volumes of our Vintage Ports are always extremely small: at the very most, up to 15% of the production of our great vineyard terroir.”

In the case of 2019, the selection of 2780 cases represents 14% of our production.

This tempts me into some back-of-the-envelope calculations. I assume that these production volumes are referring to Quinta do Noval itself rather than all the vineyards which make up the Noval business. However, if Quinta do Noval were an independent quinta and the average profit margin on a bottle of VP is, say, 3 times that of the average bottle of Port, wouldn’t this suggest that VP is actually a very substantial contributor to the profitability of the smaller shippers? I appreciate it may be different for the bigger players.

[uncle tom]

the average profit margin on a bottle of VP is, say, 3 times that of the average bottle of Port

If you set aside the sunk costs of each declaration in terms of time spent blending, gaining IVDP approval, artwork, presentations to the media etc. etc. - the profitability of VP compared to other classes of port is massive, sometimes as much as eight fold greater per bottle than the profit on the LBV from the same house.

That said, there is clear evidence of an excess supply of LBV on the market at the moment, leading to some discounting.

Reducing LBV production by a third whilst increasing the net profit target by a half would be profit neutral. The effect on the consumer retail price, bearing in mind the dead weight of production costs and duty, would only be an increase of around 12-20%, unlikely to cause a massive consumer revolt.

It would however liberate a third of the juice currently allocated to LBV to be released as VP.

[Doggett]

the average profit margin on a bottle of VP is, say, 3 times that of the average bottle of Port

It would however liberate a third of the juice currently allocated to LBV to be released as VP.

That is a lot of juice diverted back to VP and surely not all of it is of top class VP quality, so would that not be risking diluting the overall quality of a VP declaration. I am all for more volume and even more general declared years, but not if it were to sacrifice the quality of VP. I guess the LBV option gives them guaranteed volume every year. However if we have years like 2010 more often, then the VP volumes and the narrative to the market would mean a business model that was more ‘feast or famine’, which is not a sensible way forward. Thus the Reserve Ruby, LBV and Tawny sales and volumes provide financial stability.

[PhilW]

In the latest press release accompanying the declarations, Noval indicated that “even in the more generous years, volumes of our Vintage Ports are always extremely small: at the very most, up to 15% of the production of our great vineyard terroir.”
.

This tempts me into some back-of-the-envelope calculations. I assume that these production volumes are referring to Quinta do Noval itself rather than all the vineyards which make up the Noval business. However, if Quinta do Noval were an independent quinta and the average profit margin on a bottle of VP is, say, 3 times that of the average bottle of Port, wouldn’t this suggest that VP is actually a very substantial contributor to the profitability of the smaller shippers? I appreciate it may be different for the bigger players.

Using your figures/assumptions, plus a few more assumptions:
- volume of VP as mean of 9% of production in declared years (estimate based on "at most, up to 15%")
- VP declared on average of 1 year in 3 (rough estimate)
- profit margin on bottle of VP as 3x, where x is mean profit for all other non-VP
- for simplicity, am assuming a fixed number of bottles made every year, N
If so, then
- in non-declared years, profit = Nx
- in declared years, profit = (9*3x + 91*x)*N/100 == 1.18 * Nx
- with only 1/3 of years as declared, that makes the mean per year profit = 1.06 * Nx which is only a 6% increase; which is a modest, but I would suggest not substantial contributor for including VP within the profile; albeit that I would suggest it has additional indirect potential benefit e.g. in helping to sell the lesser wines.

[uncle tom]

That is a lot of juice diverted back to VP and surely not all of it is of top class VP quality

And the producers know what will make the grade, and what won't. I personally think too much good juice is being sold too cheaply as LBV, and worse, a lot of fine juice that deserves to be bottle aged, is being filtered to feed that market.

There is currently little price distinction between reserves and LBVs and then a big leap to vintage. A more even spread of both prices and production volumes, would, I think, prove more profitable.

would mean a business model that was more ‘feast or famine'

In the early days of modern LBV, the dominant LBV production years were the better undeclared ones. There's no imperative to make an LBV every year, and making the best use of each year's harvest in response to it's quality is logical.

[JacobH]

Using your figures/assumptions, plus a few more assumptions:
- volume of VP as mean of 9% of production in declared years (estimate based on "at most, up to 15%")
- VP declared on average of 1 year in 3 (rough estimate)
- profit margin on bottle of VP as 3x, where x is mean profit for all other non-VP
- for simplicity, am assuming a fixed number of bottles made every year, N
If so, then
- in non-declared years, profit = Nx
- in declared years, profit = (9*3x + 91*x)*N/100 == 1.18 * Nx
- with only 1/3 of years as declared, that makes the mean per year profit = 1.06 * Nx which is only a 6% increase; which is a modest, but I would suggest not substantial contributor for including VP within the profile; albeit that I would suggest it has additional indirect potential benefit e.g. in helping to sell the lesser wines.

We’re speculating wildly, but a few points:

1. Most smaller producers are declaring almost every year these days. I think it’s eight-in-a-row for Noval. If we upped the declaration rate to 50% that would give, on your figures, a 12% overall profit to the company which would be pretty substantial for any business.
2. I am not sure if production volumes fluctuate down significantly in weaker years when VP is not made.
3. I take Tom’s point that the profit margin could be much higher than 3 times average but I have no idea if that is correct or not.

Be that all as it may, what really strikes me from your calculations is the fluctuations. If I knew that a year with a declaration could produce 18% more profit than a year without it, I think I’d consider it really, really important.

[winesecretary]

As Jacob, in particular, identifies the strategy for vintage declaration is more heterogenous now than (we perceive it to have been) 75 years ago. There are a variety of reasons for that one of which is that the port market has many more players. The reality though is that many quintas in most years will have at least some grapes of vintage quality. To take a hypothetical example of a quinta with the potential to produce 25000 cases of port a year - in 'vintage' years it VP may be 30% of the crop thus 7500 cases. In poor years it may be 3% of the crop thus 750 cases. If it is worth their while to commercialise both as VP then good luck to them. I won't buy both vintages, though (unless, possibly, it's Niepoort) because I like variety.

[Glenn E.]

Remember that - according to the IVDP - the volume of VP sold is something like 2-3% of total production. Not 15%. Not even 9%. This is where taking numbers from a small house causes problems, because in years that they declare they probably use a significant portion of their juice to make VP. But that's still barely a drop in the bucket overall.

Admittedly that 2-3% number is a rolling average, but it's the appropriate number to use for this calculation because it incorporates both declared and undeclared years.

[Glenn E.]

And the producers know what will make the grade, and what won't. I personally think too much good juice is being sold too cheaply as LBV, and worse, a lot of fine juice that deserves to be bottle aged, is being filtered to feed that market.

There is currently little price distinction between reserves and LBVs and then a big leap to vintage. A more even spread of both prices and production volumes, would, I think, prove more profitable.

I agree with this sentiment, but not with your conclusion (which, from the top, is that VP production should be increased and its price lowered). My conclusion is that producers should be charging more for their LBV. If it contains as much VP-quality juice as you seem to be implying, then its price should be higher to make that point.

That would also provide room for the quality and price of Ruby Reserve to each be increased.

[MigSU]

I agree with you, Glenn. Raise the price of LBV to a level that befits the wine inside the bottle, and open up space for a proper quality Ruby Reserve.

[uncle tom]

My conclusion is that producers should be charging more for their LBV. If it contains as much VP-quality juice as you seem to be implying, then its price should be higher to make that point.

They should be charging more, but as the market for LBV is currently glutted, the supply side of LBV needs to be curtailed to make way for more VP.

The route to getting people to spend more money overall on port is to provide comfortable stepping stones - reserve to LBV is currently an awkward hop, then from LBV to vintage is a bridge too far.

Ruby > Reserve > LBV > SQVP/Crusted > VP

- In easy steps that lead the consumer on a voyage of discovery

[JacobH]

I’ve mentioned before that something that frequently surprises me about Port is that, beyond Fonseca Guimaraens, no-one has produced a second-label Vintage Port over a sustained period of time. To me it would make much more sense to me if products like the Warre unfiltered LBV were bottled after 2 or 3 years and then sold as a “Junior Vintage Port”, justifying the premium over the filtered LBVs. But since the Warre LBV seems to exist happily in the same portfolio as the Symingtons’ filtered LBVs, I guess that consumers just aren’t that bothered about these distinctions. A Junior VP would avoid the strange situation, though, that a Taylor de Vargellas is a (very good) supermarket Port whilst the Vargellas VV is a super-premium one.

Remember that - according to the IVDP - the volume of VP sold is something like 2-3% of total production. Not 15%. Not even 9%. This is where taking numbers from a small house causes problems, because in years that they declare they probably use a significant portion of their juice to make VP. But that's still barely a drop in the bucket overall.

Admittedly that 2-3% number is a rolling average, but it's the appropriate number to use for this calculation because it incorporates both declared and undeclared years.

Yes. I was thinking of the smaller companies and independents that are focused on quality Ports, rather than the industry as a whole since I think the overall numbers are distorted downwards by the vast quantities of cheap Port sold in certain markets. For example, if Cálem sells 3,000,000 bottles of Velhotes to the Portuguese market each year, I imagine that their ratio of VP to other Ports is somewhat small than Noval.

[Doggett]

Having read and thought about all of the points made, I think we are very lucky and don’t have much to complain about. Prices have been going up, but probably not by the same factors as other quality wines. Despite that, we can still readily buy a lovely Ruby Reserve for £10-15, LBV for £10-15, ‘premium’ LBV for £18-30 and Crusted for the same amount. Single Quinta ports at approx £30 and VP for £60-80 on release before case discounts etc. Tawny and Colheitas are much more available than ever and the price points by no means reflect the quality or the time and effort that goes into the wine making to produce them. The secondary market still has bargains to be had on the mature port front albeit that members here have contributed to increasing scarcity.

So my conclusion is that as consumers we are very lucky and that Port as a market seems pretty healthy at the moment (Harper’s reports this month that from 2019 to 2020 Port sales by value rose 5.86% in the UK to €46.8m and that was on top of an increase in 2019 from 2018 of 7.36%) with lots of innovation and products. Things like Churchill’s Port Club and all the Quevedo virtual tastings have also engaged people with some of the smaller brands and increased the desire to explore. Hopefully these initiatives and the efforts of the b.f.t. and Wines of Portugal will continue to drive port sales and provide the producers to keep making the amazing juice they do [at very reasonable prices] for generations to come.

[Glenn E.]

I’ve mentioned before that something that frequently surprises me about Port is that, beyond Fonseca Guimaraens, no-one has produced a second-label Vintage Port over a sustained period of time.

Graham's Malvedos was a second label Port for decades. It didn't become a single-quinta Port until, IIRC, 1998 or 1999. But that's the only other example I can think of, so your point still stands.

[MigSU]

Noval Silval was also a similar thing (quinta name, but a de facto second Port).

[uncle tom]

Graham's Malvedos was a second label Port for decades. It didn't become a single-quinta Port until, IIRC, 1998 or 1999.

Malvedos has been regularly bottled as an SQVP since 1950, but is not often seen prior to '61

[PhilW]

Graham's Malvedos was a second label Port for decades. It didn't become a single-quinta Port until, IIRC, 1998 or 1999.

Malvedos has been regularly bottled as an SQVP since 1950, but is not often seen prior to '61

It might have been produced as an SQVP prior to 1997, but it was labelled as a secondary brand "Graham's Malvedos" until '96, and only labelled as an SQVP "Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos" from 1998.

[uncle tom]

It might have been produced as an SQVP prior to 1997, but it was labelled as a secondary brand "Graham's Malvedos" until '96, and only labelled as an SQVP "Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos" from 1998

I'm not sure that change was very significant. If you ask the producers whether an SQVP is made entirely from the grapes of the named quinta, they tend to reply in terms of 'in theory, yes'

If the wine of a single quinta proves a bit mono-dimensional one year, what happens in practice may be slightly different.

[JacobH]

Noval Silval was also a similar thing (quinta name, but a de facto second Port).

The other two that come to mind are Niepoort Secundum and Sandeman Vau. I think these three are quite interesting because they were often made in the same years as a full declaration rather than just in secondary years (like the FG) so are proper second labels.

The first Port I bought en premieur was the 2007 Silval- I wanted to buy the 2007 Noval but couldn't afford it and so bought the Silval as an alternative which is why I think there might be a place for this.

[Alex Bridgeman]

It's been interesting reading through the debate and catching up on the points being made.

The one point we don't seem to have considered is the boom in demand for Tawny Ports, especially the 10YO and 20YO and the growing interesting and demand for White Ports with indication of age. The IVDP annual beneficio has not changed much over the last 20 years so the juice to support the growth in Tawny / White sales must be coming from somewhere. I once asked a producer what was happening to the juice that would have been going into VP a couple of decades when VP volumes were 10 times what they were today, and whether the reduction in VP volumes meant increased volumes of LBV. The answer I got was that different parcels were now being vinified as Port (all within the beneficio volumes permitted) but that much, much more of the volume was being retained and matured in barrel to be used to support future tawny production. He also observed that white grapes parcels were now being picked, vinified separately and used for Port production rather than for table wine production.

[jdaw1]

and Sandeman Vau.

Vau was meant to be a quicker-maturing VP, produced in general-declaration years such as 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2011 (as well as in 1996, 1999, and 2002).

[DRT]

Graham's Malvedos was a second label Port for decades. It didn't become a single-quinta Port until, IIRC, 1998 or 1999.

Malvedos has been regularly bottled as an SQVP since 1950, but is not often seen prior to '61

Malvedos was originally used as a brand name by Graham with much of the wine coming from the Rio Torto. It then seemed to change into a wine made from the Malvedos quinta and surrounding properties that were subsequently acquired by the Symingtons and merged into what we know as Quinta dos Malvedos today. It is only in the last 10 years or so that the name on the bottle changed to Quinta dos Malvedos because all of the wine now comes from the quinta.

[JacobH]

and Sandeman Vau.

Vau was meant to be a quicker-maturing VP, produced in general-declaration years such as 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2011 (as well as in 1996, 1999, and 2002).

I think that was also the aim of Niepoort Secundum which they also put out in a mixture of years: 2003, 2001, 2000 and 1999. Pity there doesn’t seem to be a year where the SV, NS, QdNS & FG were all made so we could do a comparative tasting!

The one point we don't seem to have considered is the boom in demand for Tawny Ports, especially the 10YO and 20YO and the growing interesting and demand for White Ports with indication of age. The IVDP annual beneficio has not changed much over the last 20 years so the juice to support the growth in Tawny / White sales must be coming from somewhere. I once asked a producer what was happening to the juice that would have been going into VP a couple of decades when VP volumes were 10 times what they were today, and whether the reduction in VP volumes meant increased volumes of LBV. The answer I got was that different parcels were now being vinified as Port (all within the beneficio volumes permitted) but that much, much more of the volume was being retained and matured in barrel to be used to support future tawny production. He also observed that white grapes parcels were now being picked, vinified separately and used for Port production rather than for table wine production.

I wonder whether the other aspect of this has been what appears to me an increasing appetite for Douro table wines? I appreciate that received wisdom is that grapes in the Douro are—with only one or two exceptions—more valuable for Ports than table wines, but I am seeing more and more producers making table wines that are not particularly cheap. Again, I am speculating widely, but I assume if you want to make the archetypal Douro tinto reserve, you are probably looking at similar grapes to what might otherwise be suitable for ruby Port production. So if you can vinify more of those into a decent table wine, you could use more of your beneficío allowance to make tawny ports.

[Glenn E.]

Graham's Malvedos was a second label Port for decades. It didn't become a single-quinta Port until, IIRC, 1998 or 1999.

Malvedos has been regularly bottled as an SQVP since 1950, but is not often seen prior to '61

As Derek explained, this is not true. It wasn't even arguably an SQVP until at minimum the 1970s, and that argument isn't all that strong until the 1990s shortly before it actually became what we call an SQVP.

If you want to argue about what really is or is not an SQVP that's a different discussion. But through the 1995 vintage, "Malvedos" was a second label for Graham's Ports and starting with the 1998 vintage "Quinta dos Malvedos" became an SQVP.

[uncle tom]

If you want to argue about what really is or is not an SQVP that's a different discussion. But through the 1995 vintage, "Malvedos" was a second label for Graham's Ports and starting with the 1998 vintage "Quinta dos Malvedos" became an SQVP.

The quinta names are brand names and need to be seen as brand names more than geographic constraints.

In a competitive market, the winemakers need the leeway to make the best wine possible from all the stocks available to them. You don't make a better wine by shackling your winemaker, so whilst there are probably SQ wines that are 100% made from the quinta on the label, we shouldn't expect a producer to spurn the opportunity to make a better wine on the altar of keeping the source to a single estate.

[Glenn E.]

The quinta names are brand names and need to be seen as brand names more than geographic constraints.

Not historically, and not according to current Portuguese law. In layman's terms if it says "Quinta" on the label, the wine must come from the quinta in question.

If you are arguing that the law is silly and that it should be changed, I won't argue. But if you're arguing that this isn't true, you're just wrong.

[DRT]

The quinta names are brand names and need to be seen as brand names more than geographic constraints.

Not historically, and not according to current Portuguese law. In layman's terms if it says "Quinta" on the label, the wine must come from the quinta in question.

If you are arguing that the law is silly and that it should be changed, I won't argue. But if you're arguing that this isn't true, you're just wrong.

+1

[uncle tom]

and not according to current Portuguese law. In layman's terms if it says "Quinta" on the label, the wine must come from the quinta in question

Aside from the fact that the southern european nations are so awash with rules and regulations that compliance is selective, and seen through the prism of that which is enforced, or is enforceable; where exactly is this law laid down?

The official labelling manual seems to prohibit the use of the word 'Quinta' in the name of the registered producer and also seems to outlaw a number of terms, such as 'wood aged' - or words to that effect, which have, at least until fairly recently, been quite widely used. It appears to be silent on this matter however.

https://www.ivv.gov.pt/np4/%7B$clientSe ... L_2017.pdf

The 2008 Consumer Protection Regulations, a feeble and complex EU replacement for the UK's old Trade Descriptions Act, could probably be invoked if the label claimed the wine was made exclusively from the one property when it was not; but in the absence of that explicit claim there does not appear to be an offence.

The IVDP, in its guidance, states that single quinta vintage ports are:

"not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate"

This would appear to acknowledge the option of using wine from other quintas owned by the producer, when blending an SQ port.

[MigSU]

I think you're misreading it. "Or wine estate" seems to me to be explaining what a "Quinta" is. I read it as "not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, i.e., a wine estate".

[DRT]

I think you're misreading it. "Or wine estate" seems to me to be explaining what a "Quinta" is. I read it as "not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, i.e., a wine estate".

Exactly right. That sentence is setting out the two conditions that must be met in order to use the term "single quinta vintage port".

[uncle tom]

I think you're misreading it. "Or wine estate" seems to me to be explaining what a "Quinta" is. I read it as "not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, i.e., a wine estate".

Possibly. As 'Quinta' translates into English as 'Thursday', the obvious synonym to translate is vinhedo which translates as vineyard. The choice of the words 'wine estate' has a wider meaning.

[DRT]

Screenshot 2021-11-26 at 10.58.13.png (66.33 KiB) Viewed 4142 times

[JacobH]

This has encouraged me to look at etymology which is quite interesting. I think quinta-feira--Thursday--comes from the Latin “quintus” meaning “fifth” and “feria” which classically meant a “festival” but later a “weekday”. So “Fifth Day”.

The word “quinta” meaning “estate” seems to have the same route but via. the word “quintana” which seems to have meant the street in a Roman military camp which separated the fifth and sixth units’ tents and containing the marketplace. Still a bit of a stretch to get to it meaning a villa or estate, although I suppose one see where it might come from. I’ve also never quite understood whether there is a difference between quinta and herdade beyond regional usage but that’s a separate point!

[MigSU]

This has encouraged me to look at etymology which is quite interesting. I think quinta-feira--Thursday--comes from the Latin “quintus” meaning “fifth” and “feria” which classically meant a “festival” but later a “weekday”. So “Fifth Day”.

The word “quinta” meaning “estate” seems to have the same route but via. the word “quintana” which seems to have meant the street in a Roman military camp which separated the fifth and sixth units’ tents and containing the marketplace. Still a bit of a stretch to get to it meaning a villa or estate, although I suppose one see where it might come from. I’ve also never quite understood whether there is a difference between quinta and herdade beyond regional usage but that’s a separate point!

It's a regional thing. They are basically the same.