2011 Declarations

[RAYC]

L'Assemblage are selling their remaining Capela at £195 per single bottle in bond and only on a 1:4 basis with other 2011 ports...link

BBR have now sold through their allocations of Vesuvio 2011 and 75cl bottles of Warre 2011 (methuselahs and halves remain!). Low stock of Taylor also.

[djewesbury]

L'Assemblage are selling their remaining Capela at £195 per single bottle in bond and only on a 1:4 basis with other 2011 ports...link

I thought this was a typo when I saw it on their site.. I'd just bought some Capela off them (£160 for 3) the same day. Seems like a very odd way to guarantee you don't sell your remaining bottles, especially when there will presumably be a few more cases coming onstream when other merchants announce their offers..

[RAYC]

especially when there will presumably be a few more cases coming onstream when other merchants announce their offers..

i would genuinely be surprised if many more cases will appear, rather than being sold on allocation to regular clients.

[christopherpfaff]

VIDEO: winemaker statements about VP 2011

I talked to 5 prominent winemakers of the Douro region and asked them about their opinion about the Vintage Port of 2011 and summarize this in a short video. The video is uploaded at my YouTube Channel and can be found by the link below. John Graham from Churchill´s, Oscar Quevedo from Quevedo, Christiano van Zeller from Quinta Vale Dona Maria, Sandra Tavares from Pintas and Tomas Roquette from Crasto gave there statements and were sure about the outstanding quality of 2011s. I think the conclusion is, yes it was a riper, warmer year with a good concentration of fruit but also perfect balanced with a well acid structure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf5oYxIIIu0

[RAYC]

Tanners are releasing an own-label 2011 (i think it is Skeffington)

[jdaw1]

Tanners are releasing an own-label 2011 (i think it is Skeffington)

In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

[djewesbury]

In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

I always find this unusual - the combination of (loosely) imperial quantities (dozens and associated multiples of 6 or 8) - with metric units. When did 75 cl become the standard port bottle size? What were the quoted imperial measures of a case and a pipe before they began to be quoted in litres?

[jdaw1]

I always find this unusual - the combination of (loosely) imperial quantities (dozens and associated multiples of 6 or 8) - with metric units. When did 75 cl become the standard port bottle size? What were the quoted imperial measures of a case and a pipe before they began to be quoted in litres?

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

[Axel P]

Also Quinta do Grifo. I just received samples, but have to find out if its the single Quinta Port from Rozes.

Axel

[Glenn E.]

In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

I always find this unusual - the combination of (loosely) imperial quantities (dozens and associated multiples of 6 or 8) - with metric units. When did 75 cl become the standard port bottle size? What were the quoted imperial measures of a case and a pipe before they began to be quoted in litres?

Also, this site (http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictfaq.htm) claims:

How did the wine bottle come to be 75 cL in size? It has a long and complicated history but, briefly, in the 1600's when bottles were made by hand, the wine bottle was about 46.24 cubic inches (26 and two-thirds fluid ounces) in capacity, a measure which was known as a 'reputed quart'. This came from being one-quarter of a wine gallon which was the size of 8 troy pounds of wine. (Wine by the pound!) Metrication trimmed one and a half teaspoonsful off this to make it 75cL.

Another reference I found says that bottles tended to be 700-800 ml because that was roughly the lung capacity of glass blowers.

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

[djewesbury]

a wine gallon

Well I had never heard of a wine gallon. I was going to rest happy with jdaw's explanation of the old case size being 2 gallons, thus a pipe being 120 gallons, but now (and with the venerable backing of this source) I understand that a case is in fact 3 wine gallons (and that therefore a shipping pipe is 180 wine gallons). I also now understand the origin of the difference between Imperial and US gallons...

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

Was it common to see non-750 ml bottles before then? Or had it been effectively phased out long before?

[g-man]

a wine gallon

Well I had never heard of a wine gallon. I was going to rest happy with jdaw's explanation of the old case size being 2 gallons, thus a pipe being 120 gallons, but now (and with the venerable backing of this source) I understand that a case is in fact 3 wine gallons (and that therefore a shipping pipe is 180 wine gallons). I also now understand the origin of the difference between Imperial and US gallons...

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

Was it common to see non-750 ml bottles before then? Or had it been effectively phased out long before?

i have bottles from california from the 50s and 60s and they have all been 750ml

[RAYC]

This conversation should probably live in a different thread, but I've seen a lot of 70cl bottles for UK-bottled port/claret - as late as 1970.

[djewesbury]

Before we move sideways to a new thread - I was aware of the 70 cl size but this makes even less sense to me..

[jdaw1]

The Wine Society Spring List, May/September 1980:

[jdaw1]

Wikipedia: 1 imperial pint = 20 imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125 millilitres (exactly).

So 24 fl. oz. = 568.26125 ml × 24 ÷ 20 = 681.9135 ml, which ≠ the claimed 70 cl. Indeed, 70 cl ≈ 24.6365558 Imperial fluid ounces.

[Glenn E.]

In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

Was it common to see non-750 ml bottles before then? Or had it been effectively phased out long before?

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

[djewesbury]

We need to be wary. There is a 4% difference between US and Imperial fluid ounces. Over a pipe that translates into a lot. Who's got the dipstick?

[djewesbury]

Well I had never heard of a wine gallon. I was going to rest happy with jdaw's explanation of the old case size being 2 gallons, thus a pipe being 120 gallons, but now (and with the venerable backing of this source) I understand that a case is in fact 3 wine gallons (and that therefore a shipping pipe is 180 wine gallons).

I am also quite amazed that nobody corrected my basic arithmetical error here..

[djewesbury]

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

Intriguing: two different, yet perfectly reasonable explanations, which arrive at almost exactly the same result.
I now understand that there is absolutely no relation between the wine (US) gallon - 231 cubic inches - and the Imperial gallon - the volume of 10 lbs of water.
Imperial measures were adopted in 1707, which I notice is the year of the Act of Union (when England bailed out Scotland, which had bankrupted itself in its bizarre colonial adventure in Darien, to the extent that there was not even any coin left in the country). If Scotland votes for independence next year, perhaps we can have the wine gallon back again.

[DRT]

Imperial measures were adopted in 1707, which I notice is the year of the Act of Union (when England bailed out Scotland, which had bankrupted itself in its bizarre colonial adventure in Darien, to the extent that there was not even any coin left in the country). If Scotland votes for independence next year, perhaps we can have the wine gallon back again.

That is the only rational argument I have heard in favour of Scottish independence. But hopefully we will never see the wine gallon again

[Glenn E.]

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

Intriguing: two different, yet perfectly reasonable explanations, which arrive at almost exactly the same result.

Since the British measurements pre-date the US ones, it would be entirely plausible that the "fifth" came into usage in the US because it was a common bottle size in the UK and that only the name was derived from the US gallon. (And that, perhaps, as an act of rebellion.) Remember, bottles were hand-made in those days. A volume difference of an ounce (or more) was probably pretty common.

[g-man]

the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

In the US, a "fifth" was a fairly common size for bottles, which was 1/5 of a US gallon. 1/5 of 1 US gallon is 25.6 oz or ~757 ml. Rounding down to 750 ml officially took place in 1979, but was reasonably common practice before then as well. It doesn't even technically require a bottle change, as that's only a difference of just under 1/4 oz. A slightly lower fill level is all you need.

Intriguing: two different, yet perfectly reasonable explanations, which arrive at almost exactly the same result.

Since the British measurements pre-date the US ones, it would be entirely plausible that the "fifth" came into usage in the US because it was a common bottle size in the UK and that only the name was derived from the US gallon. (And that, perhaps, as an act of rebellion.) Remember, bottles were hand-made in those days. A volume difference of an ounce (or more) was probably pretty common.

?

I believe machine made bottles started as early as the late 1800s?

surely by 1979 there were no longer making them by hand or did i miss read?

[RAYC]

By request of RAYC, this and subsequent two posts moved from 2011 Vintage Port review thread.

An important thing to point out is the Symington Family has kept wholesale pricing levels the same as from when the 2003 Vintage Ports were released. Kudo’s to them for keeping pricing at that level!!

While I don't doubt that there's more scope to price their more "popular" brands (eg: Graham) at more of a premium to their less well-followed brands (eg: Cockburn) than they currently do, or even to take more advantage when big points are awarded to a particular port by Suckling etc. (eg Dow 07), i do wonder how much rope there would be for port producers to play with before the types of complaints re: bordeaux en-primeur (that are so ubiquitous on wine-pages etc.) start getting applied to port. Taking Graham as an example, the 2011 is the most expensive vintage in the UK going back to 1985 and it is only once you get back into the 70s that prices really jump (best retail prices per case from reliable source in the UK (from winesearcher pro): 2011 - £470, 2007 - £420, 2003 - £390, 2000 - £415, 1997 - £340, 1994 - £375, 1991 - £370, 1985 - £520, 1983 - £450, 1980 - £514, 1977 - £600).

[Andy Velebil]

I think it's pretty unheard of for almost any corporation to keep its products priced the same from 8 years prior in this age of increased taxes, salaries and compensation, etc. TFP has stated they have only slightly raised their prices for their 2011 VP's. I haven't seen or been told what that slight increase is though. So for SFE to keep it the same from 8 years ago is very respectful.

Unfortunately, they have no control over what their importers/distributors/retailers do to jack up prices by the time we have to pay for them. But at least the reason for any uptick in price isn't the producer.

Honestly, I think VP could stand to handle a price increase. It's one of the last super bargains in the wine world and it's popularity, I predict, will rise in the coming years. Given most dry wines that score what VP's do by major reviewers typically command $100+ pricing (USD), VP at $65-85 is a real bargain and if pricing went up $10-20 per bottle at the wholesale level the market would still bear that from newer buyers. What may suffer is older buyers who get sticker shock, so to speak. But are older buyers still buying a lot of very young VP? Or is it the younger people looking to stock up for the future? I don't know the answer to that right now, so any thoughts are welcome.

[RAYC]

If Graham 1994, rated 96 by Parker and 95 by Suckling, is available to the end consumer at the best part of £10 per bottle cheaper than Graham 2011 (but with the best part of two decades of professional storage behind it), this suggests to me that it is commercial realism as much as "respectfulness" that is governing port en primeur prices.

Fantastic for us while it lasts, and no doubt something the port producers hope to change through their efforts to promote the profile of port (and i wish them best of luck in their efforts, since this is their livelihood), but i don't buy that prices are kept low out of any sense of altruism.

[jdaw1]

By request of RAYC, previous three posts moved from 2011 Vintage Port review thread.

[Glenn E.]

I believe machine made bottles started as early as the late 1800s?

surely by 1979 there were no longer making them by hand or did i miss read?

You mis-read.

Since the British measurements pre-date the US ones, it would be entirely plausible that the "fifth" came into usage in the US because it was a common bottle size in the UK and that only the name was derived from the US gallon. (And that, perhaps, as an act of rebellion.) Remember, bottles were hand-made in those days.

One might interpret this section to refer to the late 1700s or early 1800s. The term "fifth" was in common usage by the late 1800s, so clearly originated before then and before bottles were commonly machine made.

Standardization to the "metric fifth" only took place in 1979, but was also in widespread use long before it was official.

[Eric C]

I´ve been informed, that Quinta Seara d´Ordens declared 2011 Vintage https://www.facebook.com/DerPortweinberater

[Alex Bridgeman]

Taking Graham as an example, the 2011 is the most expensive vintage in the UK going back to 1985 and it is only once you get back into the 70s that prices really jump (best retail prices per case from reliable source in the UK (from winesearcher pro): 2011 - £470, 2007 - £420, 2003 - £390, 2000 - £415, 1997 - £340, 1994 - £375, 1991 - £370, 1985 - £520, 1983 - £450, 1980 - £514, 1977 - £600).

Do we know what the volumes of production were in each of these vintage years? I have a theory that the volumes of declarations have been shrinking recently. If that is the case, we might see this very well known (at least to us port buyers who are long in the tooth) dip in prices as ports close down become less pronounced as smaller amounts of port are traded on the secondary market in the first 10-15 years after release.

And honestly, who wants to buy the 1997 vintage these days. It's not very enjoyable to drink now and still needs 10 years before it hits its stride. It really ought to be cheaper than other vintages since it does not have the advantage of known provenance when ready for drinking nor the advantage of being ready for drinking now.

If anyone can add volumes to Rob's post, I would be really interested.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Noval and Noval Nacional are now officially declared.

[jdaw1]

Noval and Noval Nacional are now officially declared.

It would be better if that were mentioned on quintadonoval.com. Indeed, attempting to sign on to the newsletter produces ‟Cette page n'existe pas, vous allez être redirigé vers la page d'acceuil”. Sigh.

[djewesbury]

Where is the declaration listed, or is the information from a personal communication?

[djewesbury]

Found it
http://www.christianseely.com/2013/05/1 ... tage-port/

[Alex Bridgeman]

Where is the declaration listed, or is the information from a personal communication?

I've got the press release, but can't upload pdf files. However, the text reads:

QUINTA DO NOVAL DECLARES THE 2011 VINTAGE

This week, iconic Port producer Quinta do Noval announces the declaration of not only its 2011 classic Noval Vintage, but also the rare Nacional Vintage ”“ last seen in 2003, almost ten years ago.
‘Immediately after the foot treading in the lagares that September, we knew we were in the presence of what could be a great vintage year’, explains Managing Director Christian Seely. ‘The 2011 wines - many made from our replanted sites, now well into maturity - showed excellent aromas, with the true deep rich colour we look for in a wine with magnificent ageing potential. Over the past eighteen months the wines in cask have lived up to that expectation, and we are delighted , and proud, to make this declaration.’
Ironically, 2011 was a difficult and challenging year in the vineyard. Above average rainfall through the previous winter had replenished the underground water reserves, which compensated for the erratic climate through spring and summer ”“ heat waves, high nocturnal temperatures, strong drying winds and virtually no rain. Until the end of September, when the harvest began.
However, Noval decided to postpone picking for a week or so, to allow the vines to take advantage of this longed-for water, and the fruit to reach full maturity. It turned out to be the right decision, enabling this late harvest to take place in glorious, hot sunshine.
The resulting wines are already demonstrating their unique Noval pedigree. Of the Noval classic Vintage, Technical Director Antonio Agrellos says: ‘Very seductive ”“ a wonderful balance of intense concentration and delicacy with complex aromas redolent of violets, and fruit with purity and freshness.’. Looking at the Noval Nacional, he comments: ‘A strong distinctive personality with a brooding presence, where the tannins are powerful yet refined and the fruit very intense and concentrated. A balance that explodes in the mouth....’

[RAYC]

Taking Graham as an example, the 2011 is the most expensive vintage in the UK going back to 1985 and it is only once you get back into the 70s that prices really jump (best retail prices per case from reliable source in the UK (from winesearcher pro): 2011 - £470, 2007 - £420, 2003 - £390, 2000 - £415, 1997 - £340, 1994 - £375, 1991 - £370, 1985 - £520, 1983 - £450, 1980 - £514, 1977 - £600).

Do we know what the volumes of production were in each of these vintage years? I have a theory that the volumes of declarations have been shrinking recently. If that is the case, we might see this very well known (at least to us port buyers who are long in the tooth) dip in prices as ports close down become less pronounced as smaller amounts of port are traded on the secondary market in the first 10-15 years after release.

And honestly, who wants to buy the 1997 vintage these days. It's not very enjoyable to drink now and still needs 10 years before it hits its stride. It really ought to be cheaper than other vintages since it does not have the advantage of known provenance when ready for drinking nor the advantage of being ready for drinking now.

If anyone can add volumes to Rob's post, I would be really interested.

2011 - 8,000 cases
2007 - 6,000 cases (source: Wine Spectator TN)
2003 - 9,000 cases / 8,500 cases (sources: Roy Hersh TN and Wine Spectator TN respectively)
2000 - 9,000 cases (source: Suckling TN)
1994 - 11,000 cases (source: Wine Spectator TN)

I don't know whether you were being tongue-in-cheek about the 1997 vintage, but although it is 10 years away from hitting its stride, its 16 years closer than the current 2011s with professional storage fees paid for approximately 13 of those (£100)! In terms of your point re: provenance, most of the prices quoted are for cases that have never left bond. Of course, quality of vintage is another matter.

[djewesbury]

One thing that nobody has mentioned is the diminishing beneficio. Isn't the very tiny size of the 2011 vintage a combination of factors, the decision to limit supply by the producers PLUS the (possibly, prior) decision to limit supply by the IVDP? And what weight should we give to each of those factors?

[jdaw1]

I don’t think that they’re ‟limiting supply”. Instead VP has ceased to be relevant, except as a promotional tool for lower-grade massive-volume wines. E.g., GST will sell about 140 dozen, at about £60 a bottle retail. The whole lot is about £100k, a bit more than the Symingtons will spend on flights and trade fairs promoting it, but not by such a large margin. We care about VP. What we write and promote (‟Shipper Xxxx is The Dog’s”) is what matters. Selling a few dozen to us for what feels like £lots to us, and feels like £nowt to them, just doesn’t matter.

[RAYC]

Vintage Port is the icing on the cake...our main business is LBV and other styles

I'd be surprised if a class of port that accounts for 2% (?) of total port production would be particularly affected by the beneficio. Plus, in historic terms (i.e. looking at more than a 10yr trend), beneficio levels are not particularly low. I think the beneficio throughout most of the 1980s was under 80,000 pipes.

[DRT]

One thing that nobody has mentioned is the diminishing beneficio. Isn't the very tiny size of the 2011 vintage a combination of factors, the decision to limit supply by the producers PLUS the (possibly, prior) decision to limit supply by the IVDP? And what weight should we give to each of those factors?

The Beneficio can never affect the volume of VP produced. VP is a tiny fraction of what is pumped out of the Douro. The Beneficio is agnostic when it comes to Port style, so the only impact it has is in what grape growers can sell. If the IVDP decide that only 20 grapes can be used for Port and the producers need 18 for their VP there would be 2 grapes left for everything else. The reality is that the Beneficio allows many trillions of grapes to become Port and only a very few million become VP.

Selling a few dozen to us for what feels like £lots to us, and feels like £nowt to them, just doesn’t matter.

Nail on the head. Let's not get carried away with ourselves here. We buy a reasonable amount of the top end wines that these guys produce, most of which we buy on the secondary market so the producer sees exactly nothing from those purchases. The distributors that were allocated very small amounts of GST (who happen to be the life blood of the producer because they also sell many millions of gallons of cheap stuff) will have done the natural thing and allocated those bottles to the customers who spend the most money with them. Not something that should surprise anyone who has ever done business.

I appreciate that it is frustrating that some of us have been unable to bag a case or two of one of the rarest wines ever produced, but let's not bite the hand that feeds us.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I don't know whether you were being tongue-in-cheek about the 1997 vintage, but although it is 10 years away from hitting its stride, its 16 years closer than the current 2011s with professional storage fees paid for approximately 13 of those (£100)! In terms of your point re: provenance, most of the prices quoted are for cases that have never left bond. Of course, quality of vintage is another matter.

Thanks for the volumes - less noticeable reduction in volume than I was expecting.

And no, I wasn't being tongue in cheek about the 1997 vintage. If I buy 1997 now I am looking for a very keen price AND confidence in the storage conditions. I will have to hold on to this for 5 years before I really want to start drinking them. I am prepared to pay a premium for wines bought on release so that I know I have them and also know that I will not be a risk of buying wines which have been poorly stored - but completely accept your point that most 1997s being offered these days have been kept in temperature controlled bonded warehouses since being shipped.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Taking Graham as an example, the 2011 is the most expensive vintage in the UK going back to 1985 and it is only once you get back into the 70s that prices really jump (best retail prices per case from reliable source in the UK (from winesearcher pro): 2011 - £470, 2007 - £420, 2003 - £390, 2000 - £415, 1997 - £340, 1994 - £375, 1991 - £370, 1985 - £520, 1983 - £450, 1980 - £514, 1977 - £600).

I've been really interested in the shapes of pricing curves for vintage port for some time, but never put into practice what I had observed when it came to buying port. So purely out of interest, I thought I would extend Rob's pricing data back a few more vintages (my prices are per case, in bond):

• 2011 - £470,
• 2007 - £420,
• 2003 - £390,
• 2000 - £415,
• 1997 - £340,
• 1994 - £375,
• 1991 - £370,
• 1985 - £520,
• 1983 - £450,
• 1980 - £514,
• 1977 - £600,
• 1975 - £500,
• 1970 - £945,
• 1966 - £1,150,
• 1963 - £1,550,
• 1960 - £960

[Chris Doty]

The G94 remains one of the greatest values in vintage port. 11,000 cases produced is likely keeping a cap on prices, which is great for us. Had it a few times at the Lodge the other month -- still primary and a bit closed, but starting to shed some of the fat and is clearly going to be a long lived and delicious port.

Along with the Vesuvio, outrageous QPRs.

AHB -- want to PM me your source for the case of 1960? Seems like a tempting price!

[jdaw1]

Fact sheets for Quinta do Noval 2011 (‟best drunk 4 to 40 years after bottling”) and Quinta do Noval Nacional 2011 (‟best drunk 5 to 50 years after bottling”).

[TLW]

Taking Graham as an example, the 2011 is the most expensive vintage in the UK going back to 1985 and it is only once you get back into the 70s that prices really jump (best retail prices per case from reliable source in the UK (from winesearcher pro): 2011 - £470, 2007 - £420, 2003 - £390, 2000 - £415, 1997 - £340, 1994 - £375, 1991 - £370, 1985 - £520, 1983 - £450, 1980 - £514, 1977 - £600).

I've been really interested in the shapes of pricing curves for vintage port for some time, but never put into practice what I had observed when it came to buying port. So purely out of interest, I thought I would extend Rob's pricing data back a few more vintages (my prices are per case, in bond):

• 2011 - £470,
• 2007 - £420,
• 2003 - £390,
• 2000 - £415,
• 1997 - £340,
• 1994 - £375,
• 1991 - £370,
• 1985 - £520,
• 1983 - £450,
• 1980 - £514,
• 1977 - £600,
• 1975 - £500,
• 1970 - £945,
• 1966 - £1,150,
• 1963 - £1,550,
• 1960 - £960

It would be an interesting exercise to do this across all of the major houses, and I wonder whether Graham may be an anomaly amongst the 3-5 majors. Taylor, which is probably regarded by most as somewhat more desirable than Graham on average (matter of taste), has the following price curve:

2011 480
2009 390
2007 477
2003 690
2000 691
1997 450
1994 936
1992 1397
1985 520
1983 564
1982 529 ??
1980 593
1977 945
1975 484
1970 1133
1966 1124
1963 ca 2000
1960 1200
1955 2400

This is very rough - having a couple of assumptions, amd is mostly based off of the FRW website, and a couple of others (1963 is a guess, and is now almost unobtainable). On this basis, it would appear that the best value for money in Taylor - if one can be comfortable with the provenance - would be the 2009, the 1997, and possibly the 1985. I have not done it for Fonseca, but it is simple enough to do, and probably looks much like the Taylor.

This suggests that if one is an afficianado of Taylor or Fonseca, buying en primeur works out better than it does for one who prefers Graham. However, for us lifelong Graham lovers, this works out well, as there seems to be surfeit of highly cellarable - and drinkable wine at attractive prices. Having not had the 94 Taylor, I wonder whether this is more than twice as good as the 1994 Graham, which is a very pleasant drink.

This is one of the reasons that I so value the tasting notes on this site, and mostly ignore the Parkers of the world.

Finally, I would find it difficult to pay the same price for a 1960 Graham that I would for a 1970 Graham (provenance being equal).

[djewesbury]

Has anyone else seen notes on the Skeffington? Or perhaps those who were at Noel Young today had a chance to taste it? This is on the Nickolls & Perks website:

Starting with the Skeffington(91-93) which I learnt was a name given to celebrate the historic 19th century partnership between Charles Neville Skeffington and the Yeatman family. This was a good introduction to the serious quality this vintage is offering. With cool charm and great freshness in the fruit, leaving the finish long.

[g-man]

i believe they're pouring them on june 6th when i'll be going to the tasting

i'll keep track to post a note.

[RAYC]

It would be an interesting exercise to do this across all of the major houses, and I wonder whether Graham may be an anomaly amongst the 3-5 majors. Taylor, which is probably regarded by most as somewhat more desirable than Graham on average (matter of taste), has the following price curve:

Going back to 1980, there are only a few anomalies of which i am aware:

Dow 2007 - £670
Taylor 2003 - £630
Noval 1997 - £2000
Noval 1994 - £900
Taylor 1994 - £940
Fonseca 1994 - £840
Taylor 1992 - £1250
Fonseca 1992 - £580

The reasons for these are a combination of points, scarcity, and the "Taylor-effect".

But let's say that in 1996 you had invested £400 in an inflation-linked saving certificate instead of buying 1994 port en primeur. At the end of 2012 you would have had in the region of £650 and have saved on port storage fees for 15 years (currently £8-10 per case, if you are like me and have to store cases professionally due to lack of space). That's £750-800 of spending power that you would have now for 1994 port if your investments had done no better than match inflation...

That said, i do think that AHB's point is valid and that there is reason to believe that buying 20 to 30-yr old port will not be as cheap in future:

- production was significantly higher in the 1980s. Bruce Guimaraens made the point at BFT that 1985 was the last vintage which TFP had held back in a significant enough quantity to support large ex-cellars releases

- port buying habits have changed. Large institutions used to buy significant stocks of port to lay down. Over the last 10 years, a lot of these have made their way to market.

However, my gut feeling is that - absent a spike of interest from the East - it will be a long and very gradual process (and, of course, i suspect the price of en primeur will simply peg any rise in the price of back-vintages!)

I should also note that my own purchasing habits for vintages 2007 onwards display a flagrant disregard for this logic.

[djewesbury]

Croney & Barrow had their internal tasting of 2011s last Thursday, the 16th; but as yet, still no offer from them.

[Alex Bridgeman]

There will also be a Maynard's 2011 and a Quinta da Dona Matilde 2011 port from Barao de Vilar.