Port Vintages: The Book

[jdaw1]

The Book, The Book, has been going slowly. The really slow bit is the careful checking of the chapters.

Enough time has passed. Over the next few months drafts, only drafts but nonetheless in fair shape, of several chapters will published. Indeed, already one can find at PortVintages.com drafts of the Taylor and Sandeman chapters.

Enjoy.

JDAW & DRT.

[g-man]

are you looking for commentary on the text?

or things like gramatical errors?

[g-man]

what is fascinating:

1847 Sandeman:

"totalling 56 dozen and 10. Blended with some non-vintage ports"
with the following text 44 years later.
"At the following meeting it was reported that the offer of 1847 port 'had been declined', reasoning not being given."

Perhaps the wise fellow knew the 1847 was adulterated with non vintage ports!

[jdaw1]

are you looking for commentary on the text?

or things like gramatical errors?

Everything and anything. A pointer to old records of which we were unaware. A reference in a book, of which we were unaware. Possible improvements to the wording; grammatical and spelling errors; even sackcloth and ashes punctuation errors. We want to be told all of them, and more.

[mosesbotbol]

Took a quick look through the Sandeman chapter. Some cool stuff in there. Will spend some more time going through when I can. I've had most of the 20th century Sandeman vintages, so it'll be interesting how their notes line up with my foggy memory.

Well done guys!

[djewesbury]

Interesting. Where do the 'undeclared' de la Rosa / Sandemans fit in?

[jdaw1]

Interesting. Where do the 'undeclared' de la Rosa / Sandemans fit in?

Happily, these are draft chapters. Send me some evidence (How do you know it was Rosa? How do you know most of Rosa’s grapes were sold to Sandeman?), and the draft might grow a little.

[djewesbury]

Interesting. Where do the 'undeclared' de la Rosa / Sandemans fit in?

Happily, these are draft chapters. Send me some evidence (How do you know it was Rosa? How do you know most of Rosa’s grapes were sold to Sandeman?), and the draft might grow a little.

Based on conversation with Sophia and Tim Bergqvist, as we drank these with Axel P. I have the 72 cork and will send a picture. May I invite Sophia to comment?

[DRT]

We already have these in QdlR data provided by Sophia Berquvist.

They do not fit in the Sandeman chapter as they were not made into Sandeman vintages. They are private bottlings that happened to be made at the time when the juice was being sold to Sandeman.

Please do invite Sophia to comment in case my recollection is incorrect.

[jdaw1]

Factually good and order of presentation sound; but some paragraphs are much too long, making heavy reading. I'm not suggesting you should reduce the content of the paragraphs, but to break them into smaller ones, when they run long. A former English master of mine once prescribed that if a paragraph takes longer to read than it takes to eat a mouthful of toast; it is then too long and should be broken into smaller ones.

Bulleted data is easier to take in if there's a vacant line (or half depth line) between each bullet.

Any disagreements?

[PhilW]

Factually good and order of presentation sound; but some paragraphs are much too long, making heavy reading. I'm not suggesting you should reduce the content of the paragraphs, but to break them into smaller ones, when they run long. A former English master of mine once prescribed that if a paragraph takes longer to read than it takes to eat a mouthful of toast; it is then too long and should be broken into smaller ones.

Bulleted data is easier to take in if there's a vacant line (or half depth line) between each bullet.

Any disagreements?

Agree regarding breaking paragraphs in some cases (esp. Sandeman opening para with obvious half-way break), though not required in most IMO.
Agree on preference for half-line spaced bullets if full bullet para is not indented. Full line spacing would be OTT in this type of reference, IMO.

[jdaw1]

Bullets: personal preference is to stay indented, so the start of next
bullet can be clearly seen; especially with your use of light (unfilled)
bullets; use of filled bullets would diminish this issue imo.

This and other comments have persuaded me that a heavier bullet is needed. Possibilities include â–  â–£ â–¶ â–º â—ˆ

[jdaw1]

Following comments above, a new Sandeman has been uploaded. The spacing has been widened. There is a new heavier bullet, â–º. Also some other minor wording changes thank you PhilW.

Comments welcomed, of course.

[jdaw1]

A draft of the Warre chapter has been uploaded.

[Axel P]

After everything settled I try to find some mistakes now, too. Unlikely that I will forward advice for language though

Axel

[jdaw1]

A draft of the Niepoort chapter has been uploaded.

[RAYC]

From a draft of a chapter of a book (forthcoming, eventually):

â–º Christopher & Co., Christmas 1960: ‟Christopher’s (Shipped by Graham) 1954”, bottled in England, at 18/6 per bottle.

â–º In a memorandum for the Jesus College Cambridge Cellar Committee dated 10th May 1957, ‟Grahams did not declare a vintage but shipped their 1954 wine under the name of "Grahams Special Vintage"; I have reserved 10 dozen of this.” A later cellar list has the shipper as Dolamore and the price as 17/4.

â–º Brasenose College Oxford served ‟Graham 1954” at the Gaudies of 26 March and 1 October 1971.

â–º Noted in James Suckling (1990), though in the ‟Graham” list rather than in ‟Graham’s Malvedos”.

â–º Michael Broadbent (1980): ‟Graham’s Malvedos”, tasted in 1972 and 1979, who also reports that Graham’s ‟despite my misgivings was selected as Harvey’s ’54”.

â–º In the premises of The Wine Society is an empty bottle bearing an elegant unfussy label in black and a little red writing on white: ‟Crusted Port Wine”, ‟Malvedos”, ‟Vintage 1954”, ‟Bottled 1956”. The Wine Society Numbering Book records the purchase from Reid, Pye & Campbell of ‟Graham 1954 Malvedos”, even assigning it the reference MO. But the only 1954 port ever to appear in a Wine Society catalogue was ‟Quinta Boa Vista, the only wine shipped of this vintage”.

• Some of these refer to ‟Malvedos”, or a variant thereof. Some do not. The use of a Quinta name for junior vintage port was novel in the 1950s, and the authors suspect that some of the English bottlers might have labelled it plain ‟Graham”. If this suspicion is correct, then these were all Malvedos.

Indeed - if i remember correctly from price lists you have posted, "official" Oporto-bottled Malvedos ports of this era were sold as "crusted" and some years later (alongside VPs of subsequent vintages). But what you post seems to suggest that amounts of that blend (or some other blend Graham did) made their way to UK merchants to be bottled under their own labels. No doubt this was also the case for other vintages...?

In terms of your italicised note, is there a reason why they would think to call it Malvedos (after the Quinta) when - from everything i have read - it was not a single quinta wine at that point? Surely it would have just been regarded as a vintage port shipped by Graham (the company, rather than the brand). I can well believe it being marketed to UK merchants and large customers as a "Special Vintage" shipped by Graham along the lines suggested by the Cambridge cellar book, with no mention of Malvedos (particularly if the name Malvedos was then associated with releases of Crusted port).

[jdaw1]

Graham’s Malvedos was used a a junior name, not referring to the terroir. ‟Grahams did not declare a vintage ! 1954” suggests that this is a junior-name ‘declaration’. Hence the italicised mention of ‟Malvedos” rather than ‟Quinta dos Malvedos”.

But please do suggest a better wording.

[RAYC]

Graham’s Malvedos was used a a junior name, not referring to the terroir. ‟Grahams did not declare a vintage ! 1954” suggests that this is a junior-name ‘declaration’. Hence the italicised mention of ‟Malvedos” rather than ‟Quinta dos Malvedos”.

But please do suggest a better wording.

But back then, it is not clear to me that the name "Malvedos" was at the time associated as a junior name for "Vintage" port. Link to a nice example of an original Malvedos "crusted" label which probably illustrates my point better than i can explain. The re-branding of Malvedos as a junior name for vintage port seemed to come later (after acquisition by the Symingtons?)

[jdaw1]

Fair, so ‟please do suggest a better wording”.

[RAYC]

From a draft of a chapter of a book (forthcoming, eventually):

....

â–º In the premises of The Wine Society is an empty bottle bearing an elegant unfussy label in black and a little red writing on white: ‟Crusted Port Wine”, ‟Malvedos”, ‟Vintage 1954”, ‟Bottled 1956”. The Wine Society Numbering Book records the purchase from Reid, Pye & Campbell of ‟Graham 1954 Malvedos”, even assigning it the reference MO. But the only 1954 port ever to appear in a Wine Society catalogue was ‟Quinta Boa Vista, the only wine shipped of this vintage”. [emphasis added]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated Spring 1962:

No? Could Reid Pye & Campbell simply have been UK importer?

If the 54 Malvedos was sold as "Crusted" in 62, it would be interesting to see when (both in terms of vintage and in terms of year of sale) the Wine Society or other merchants stop listing it as 'Crusted" and started listing it as a junior VP. For example, we know from your post here that as late as 1965 it was still sold as "Crusted" (then the '57 vintage, bottled '59), but when did this stop / change...?

[RAYC]

1961 Malvedos Crusted, bottled 1963, presumably sold in the UK in 1969ish given the timing of other releases.

[jdaw1]

Ooops: I meant the only one to be sold as VP. Well seen. Thank you. Damn I typed into the database all the VPs, but not the non-VPs. Damn.

From the collected evidence, what do you think actually happened, and then, later question, how should that be phrased?
• Do you think that that Graham ’54 was a junior VP?
• Was there also a full-declaration ’54 VP?

Recall that Taylor had recently sold a 1947 Taylor Special Quinta, so buyers and intermediaries might have thought that this Graham thing was of like type. As indeed, do I.

[RAYC]

From the collected evidence, what do you think actually happened, and then, later question, how should that be phrased?
• Do you think that that Graham ’54 was a junior VP?
• Was there also a full-declaration ’54 VP?

Recall that Taylor had recently sold a 1947 Taylor Special Quinta, so buyers and intermediaries might have thought that this Graham thing was of like type. As indeed, do I.

Here's what i think (but pure speculation and i know far less about the workings of the port trade in this era than you do)

- harvest occurs in 54, and - in the usual way - there's a load of grapes from different plots and vineyards that could be destined for VP.

- fast forward 18 months - the 54 harvest is looking at best average in quality and the 55 harvest is looking like a better bet. That said, times are tough and they've got some nice lotes that they think they can blend and sell into the UK.

- It's touted as a "special vintage" offering to be bottled under own label by certain UK merchants (with acknowledgement of being shipped by Graham the port shipper, but in no way a proper "declared" Graham vintage port)

- choice pipes are sent off to the UK merchants to be sold as vintage port based on pre-orders, and a "best of the rest" blend is bottled - possibly at that stage intended as a junior VP, possibly just as a blend to be sold as "crusted" after a few years maturing in their cellars. From the Wine Society price lists, i'd tend to the latter interpretation with a subsequent re-branding exercise in the 70s - particularly when you consider the ownership history and the fact that a Malvedos bottling was regularly done through thick and thin in 50s/60s but then went into an 8 year hiatus between 1968 (which would have been bottled 1970...) and 1976.

[DRT]

I found some interesting information in Alex Liddell's Port Quintas of the Douro (1992) that is at odds with other information I have seen on the composition of the early "Malvedos" wines. You might need to click on the images below to see the entire image!

Liddell_Price_p117.jpg (264.68 KiB) Viewed 12827 times

Liddell_Price_p119.jpg (179.21 KiB) Viewed 12827 times

Liddell_Price_p120.jpg (45.77 KiB) Viewed 12827 times

If this information is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, some of the early Malvedos wines contain no wine from the quinta and are in fact from a completely different part of the Douro.

[Andy Velebil]

JDAW1,
Please help DRT in posted the pics/text so we can read them. The right 1/2 is being cut off.

[RAYC]

Good sleuthing DRT!

[RAYC]

JDAW1,
Please help DRT in posted the pics/text so we can read them. The right 1/2 is being cut off.

Have you tried simply re-sizing your browser? Displays fine on my computer.

[jdaw1]

Please help DRT in posted the pics/text so we can read them. The right 1/2 is being cut off.

This evening I’ll convert it to text and quote it,

[jdaw1]

In common with most of the shippers at the end of last century Graham used to send their agent to stay at one of the quintas usually the Quinta das Carvalhas during the vintage. But with the coming of the railway, which made access to the riverside quintas both quicker and more convenient, many of the shippers decided to buy a quinta of their own, not so much for the wine but to serve as a centre of operations. Thus it was that Graham, quickly following the example of John Smithes at nearby Tua, purchased Malvedos in 1890.

It was decided to replant the quinta with red grape varieties. largely Tinta Francisca. Unfortunately, according to Colin Graham (one of the directors before the company was bought out by the Symingtons), for a variety of reasons the quinta did not do well. The manager of the quinta appointed around the turn of the century, Jim Yates, tried to copy the experiments which were being carried out at neighbouring Tua by Cockburn. But most of Yates’s theories and experiments resulted in extremely poor production ‘8, 9 or 10 pipes, and as often as not terribly burnt’, according to Colin Graham. ‘We used to keep a few cases just for fun, and when we had visitors up we’d bring out a bottle just to show what a really burnt wine was.’ At that time the backbone of Graham’s vintage port came from the Quinta das Lages in the Rio Torto.

Consequently, the produce of Malvedos was insignificant and even the wine from off-vintages which was sold under the ‘Malvedos’ label was generally a blend from the Rio Torto: only very occasionally was it a straight quinta wine. The company decided to use the name ‘Malvedos’, which had already been registered for olive oil and citrus fruits, only because ‘Rio Torto’ had been registered as the brand of another company.

!

Be that as it may, under the new Symington régime these problems of low production and poor quality are a thing of the past. Everything is set fair for Malvedos to realize its owner’s exacting expectations well before the end of the century. These improvements mean that a single quinta Malvedos port is now in prospect. As Paul Symington explained to me in an interview in 1989, ‘as soon as we get production of decent enough wine from the quinta, which we actually have over the last couple of years, we'll be calling the wine ‟Quinta dos Malvedos”, because we don’t actually particularly agree with the old Graham policy ! It is slightly misleading to call a wine ‟Malvedos”, for people assume it comes from that quinta, but we inherited a situation which we couldn’t solve overnight. Indeed, the production of the vineyard had fallen to negligible levels, so that is why we still call the ’76 and ’78 ‟Malvedos". I don’t know which wine we’ll actually call ‟Quinta dos Malvedos” but it’s one we’re satisfied we can produce 100 per cent off the property and bottle it as such.’ Two years later, in 1991, as the book was going to press, Paul Symington reported that ‘in practice ‟Malvedos” vintage port has been produced in recent years only from the quinta, as we have acquired the adjoining vineyards from which company used to buy to make up the ‟Malvedos” blend. ‟Malvedos” can therefore [now] be considered a single quinta wine.’

[John Owlett]

Hi Julian,

Reading through the Taylor chapter this evening, I noticed a few places where the latest version of the taylor.pt website disagrees with The Book.

1922:

You quote Amanda Brunner as writing, "We have no record of this vintage." Yet
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... 1900-1960/
lists 1922 as a declared year, with the remark, "do not have tasting notes or harvest reports".

1931:

The Book includes this year only among the dates with conflicting reports, as "not listed by the Shipper ... perhaps this was a Colheita". Yet the web page above lists 1931 as a declared year for Classic Port, again with the remark, "do not have tasting notes or harvest reports".

2006:

http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... nha-velha/
does not list a 2006 QVVV but The Book does.

2008:

Both
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... le-quinta/
and
http://www.fortheloveofport.com/vintage ... ort-review
list a 2008 Vargellas which The Book omits.

Later,

John

[jdaw1]

Noval added to PortVintages.com.

Next task: use comments received to update Taylor.

Fonseca will be published soon.

[jdaw1]

2006:

http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... nha-velha/
does not list a 2006 QVVV but The Book does.

2008:

Both
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... le-quinta/
and
http://www.fortheloveofport.com/vintage ... ort-review
list a 2008 Vargellas which The Book omits.

2006 was only a cask sample, so can die. About 2008, it probably hadn’t been released when we gathered the data. just before publication we intend to re-gather data for ≥2005s.

Re 1922 and 1931: well spotted, thank you. It wasn’t on Taylor’s list of vintages sent to us in 2009. Sigh.

[John Owlett]

Hi Julian,

I surf too much.

A few days ago I was reading a recent entry to Richard Mayson's blog

http://www.richardmayson.com/Vintage_Port_Notes/

an entry from 16 September called

"Recent Vintages of Noval and Noval Nacional (plus 1963 Nacional)"

in which Mayson gives a tasting note for 2004 Nacional, a "‘secret Nacional’, bottled but undeclared".

Later,

John

[jdaw1]

in which Mayson gives a tasting note for 2004 Nacional, a "‘secret Nacional’, bottled but undeclared".

Also tasted recently by AHB of this forum which I forgot to add. Thank you.

[Axel P]

Jdaw,

please pm me with the list of pics I might possibly contribute to the book. I will bring them next week.

Axel

[jdaw1]

Fonseca added to PortVintages.com.

Note that our earliest Fonseca vintages are a generation older than those claimed by The Fladgate Partnership. {Smugness}

[DRT]

{Smugness}

+1

[Glenn E.]

{Smugness}

+1

Or Rudy?

[DRT]

{Smugness}

+1

Or Rudy?

Only if Rudy was able to time-travel back to the mid 1800s to write the evidence in the Whitehaven cellar books

[John Owlett]

Hi Julian,

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal 1999.

This is not in The Book, nor is it listed on the Fonseca website, but Richard Mayson reports tasting it on 25 May 2011 on the Vintage Port Notes section of his website:

http://www.richardmayson.com/Vintage_Po ... 996__2009/

Later,

John

[DRT]

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal 1999.

This is not in The Book, nor is it listed on the Fonseca website, but Richard Mayson reports tasting it on 25 May 2011 on the Vintage Port Notes section of his website:

http://www.richardmayson.com/Vintage_Po ... 996__2009/

This selection of wines from the Fladgate Partnership was presented by David Guimaraens and Natasha Bridge in the tasting room at the Fonseca lodge during a recent visit to Porto.

So perhaps an as yet unreleased Panascal?

[John Owlett]

So perhaps an as yet unreleased Panascal?

That's possible, of course ... but it's been more than 14 years since the vintage. Wouldn't that be rather a long time in which not to announce an SQVP?

[DRT]

So perhaps an as yet unreleased Panascal?

That's possible, of course ... but it's been more than 14 years since the vintage. Wouldn't that be rather a long time in which not to announce an SQVP?

There are many VPs and SQVPs produced that are never released. This might be one of them.

[RAYC]

Re 1922 and 1931: well spotted, thank you. It wasn’t on Taylor’s list of vintages sent to us in 2009. Sigh.

I don't think the website suggests they declared those - it's still not on Taylor's vintage charts (link) - though presumably for 31 the "1931 Taylor Pinhao" that CMAG brought to a tasting earlier this year gets a mention?

[jdaw1]

Noval updated to add NN45.

[jdaw1]

I am constructing the Croft chapter. Our general policy is to have six references, a baby case, for each wine. Sometimes we have no more data than that, so show it all. And sometimes we have more, so pruning must happen. For this Port, Thompson & Croft 1878, I’m asking the public about pruning.

Some facts.

â—Š Generally, I prune, then check facts for those that survive the pruning. This time you are seeing them all, so none have been compared to the photos. Also, comparing to the photos often entails much re-writing: as yet not done.

â—Š Preferences? generally we aim to keep the following:
The earliest, usually the earliest two.
Those mentioning the wax/seal colour.
Those mentioning royalty, or other people of historical significance.
Those with interesting information, including tasting notes, prices, etc.
Those from sources otherwise little used.
Those that take my fancy.
That list is in approximate order of priority.

In the light of that, what do you think should be kept of the following, and which should die? Your reasoning is more important than your vote.



â–º Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors, Wine Committee, meeting 4 November 1880, discussed ‟2 Pipe of Port (1878) Croft, Dowes, Clode & Baker, Sandeman, Martinez”, ‟Write G Claridge Harp Lane for Samples”; [••LMA291••] and on 4 January 1881 noted ‟Ordered 5/1/81 Mr George Claridge Harp Lane One Pipe Croft’s Vintage 1878 as per sample sent on 5/11/80 @ £85 per pipe duty paid and delivered into Cellars. ! terms Cash less 5% discount”. [••LMA293••] On 10 December 1897, the wine committee tasted two samples, both bottled 1880, one of ‟Croft’s Dry” from Meryon, Roger & Co at 86/- per dozen, the other of ‟Croft’s” from Lister & Beck at 80/-. Ordered were 25 dozen of the former, 15 dozen of the latter, [••LMA348••] the cellar book recording delivery on later that month. Inconsistently with the minutes, the cellar book describes Lister & Beck’s as ‟very dry”. [••LMA176••] On 11 December 1917 the Committee ordered that 13+24 dozen and 1+7 be sold, ‟leaving 53 doz 7”. [••LMA387••] The minutes of 23 May 1918 record that lots 1333-7, totalling 37 dozen, were sold, after the auctioneer’s commission of 8d/£1 (3⅓%), for £289.5.6, so an average price of about 161/9 per dozen. [••LMA388••]

â–º Worshipful Company of Cordwainers, entry into cellar book on 21 November 1881: ‟Bottled Pipe of Port Crofts 1878. Purchas’d from Deut & Co June 1881. Bin 12. 57 doz + 9 Bottles”. [••LMA043••]

â–º The Army & Navy Co-Operative Society, January 1882, ‟Bottled Vintage Port for Laying Down”, ‟Croft’s 1878, per dozen 32⁄0”. [••DRT’s 007••]

â–º Middle Temple wine book lists ‟Thompson + Croft black seal” vintage 1878 bottled 1881, at ‟50/” (presumably per dozen), adjacent to which is written ‟£145” (presumably being value of the whole parcel, therefore 58 dozen, a generous pipe) received from Robertson+Nicholson on ‟Mar.3.1886”. [••4283 4311: why twice?••]

â–º Corney & Barrow order book, 24 March 1891, records the purchase of one of each of ‟T+C” 1875, 1878 (at 4/6), 1885 and 1887, presumably for a small vertical. Then on 24 August 1893 the National Liberal Club ordered ‟10 Dz Croft’s 1878 Vintage Port dip red” at £31.10s, so at 5/3 per bottle. [••5896 5990••]

â–º ‟Croft’s 1878” served by The Worshipful Company of Gardeners at the ‟Master’s Installation Banquet”, held on 6 July 1897 at ‟The Vintner’s Hall”. [••9143••] Drapers, Stock of Port of August 1898 includes Croft 1878, bottled 1880, 540 bottles in bin 25, this remaining in stock until 1923. This is also mentioned, from 1905, in a corresponding Bin Book, sold by Lister & Beck and being bottled 1881, and that in another bin as bottled 1880. [••2881 2910 3018 3024••]

â–º BBR, February 1907, at 132/- per dozen [••DSC00005••]

â–º The Worshipful Company of Vintners, as of July 1913, owned 583 bottles of ‟Port Thompson & Croft Vin 1878”, bottled August 1881, ‟(J&G White)”. [••5372••]

â–º Red Cross Auction Sale on 19 June 1918 (see Kopke 1878), lots ‟1006@1009”, 10 Dozens, bottled ’81, presented by ‟The Merchant Taylors Company”, at 240/ to 300/ (though the meaning of the price is unclear). [••LMA287••]

â–º Present in the vintage lists of André L. Simon (1919), Ernest Cockburn (1949), H. Warner Allen (1963), Wyndham Fletcher (1978), and George Robertson (1978).

â–º Tables of Content (1933), André L. Simon, #63: ‟Luncheon at 27 Clement’s Lane. 30 July 1931 ! The ’78 Croft”, served with ‟Cheese Souffl锝, ‟was a remarkably good bottle: absolutely fresh and lively.” [••9860••]

â–º ALS Vintagewise

â–º Shipper (email of March 2009).



Which are to be deleted, and why? Which are to be kept, and why?

[PhilW]

â–º Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors, Wine Committee, meeting 4 November 1880, discussed ‟2 Pipe of Port (1878) Croft, Dowes, Clode & Baker, Sandeman, Martinez”, ‟Write G Claridge Harp Lane for Samples”; [••LMA291••] and on 4 January 1881 noted ‟Ordered 5/1/81 Mr George Claridge Harp Lane One Pipe Croft’s Vintage 1878 as per sample sent on 5/11/80 @ £85 per pipe duty paid and delivered into Cellars. ! terms Cash less 5% discount”. [••LMA293••] On 10 December 1897, the wine committee tasted two samples, both bottled 1880, one of ‟Croft’s Dry” from Meryon, Roger & Co at 86/- per dozen, the other of ‟Croft’s” from Lister & Beck at 80/-. Ordered were 25 dozen of the former, 15 dozen of the latter, [••LMA348••] the cellar book recording delivery on later that month. Inconsistently with the minutes, the cellar book describes Lister & Beck’s as ‟very dry”. [••LMA176••] On 11 December 1917 the Committee ordered that 13+24 dozen and 1+7 be sold, ‟leaving 53 doz 7”. [••LMA387••] The minutes of 23 May 1918 record that lots 1333-7, totalling 37 dozen, were sold, after the auctioneer’s commission of 8d/£1 (3⅓%), for £289.5.6, so an average price of about 161/9 per dozen. [••LMA388••]

â–º Worshipful Company of Cordwainers, entry into cellar book on 21 November 1881: ‟Bottled Pipe of Port Crofts 1878. Purchas’d from Deut & Co June 1881. Bin 12. 57 doz + 9 Bottles”. [••LMA043••]

â–º The Army & Navy Co-Operative Society, January 1882, ‟Bottled Vintage Port for Laying Down”, ‟Croft’s 1878, per dozen 32⁄0”. [••DRT’s 007••]

â–º Middle Temple wine book lists ‟Thompson + Croft black seal” vintage 1878 bottled 1881, at ‟50/” (presumably per dozen), adjacent to which is written ‟£145” (presumably being value of the whole parcel, therefore 58 dozen, a generous pipe) received from Robertson+Nicholson on ‟Mar.3.1886”. [••4283 4311: why twice?••]

â–º Corney & Barrow order book, 24 March 1891, records the purchase of one of each of ‟T+C” 1875, 1878 (at 4/6), 1885 and 1887, presumably for a small vertical. Then on 24 August 1893 the National Liberal Club ordered ‟10 Dz Croft’s 1878 Vintage Port dip red” at £31.10s, so at 5/3 per bottle. [••5896 5990••]

â–º ‟Croft’s 1878” served by The Worshipful Company of Gardeners at the ‟Master’s Installation Banquet”, held on 6 July 1897 at ‟The Vintner’s Hall”. [••9143••] Drapers, Stock of Port of August 1898 includes Croft 1878, bottled 1880, 540 bottles in bin 25, this remaining in stock until 1923. This is also mentioned, from 1905, in a corresponding Bin Book, sold by Lister & Beck and being bottled 1881, and that in another bin as bottled 1880. [••2881 2910 3018 3024••]

â–º BBR, February 1907, at 132/- per dozen [••DSC00005••]

â–º The Worshipful Company of Vintners, as of July 1913, owned 583 bottles of ‟Port Thompson & Croft Vin 1878”, bottled August 1881, ‟(J&G White)”. [••5372••]

â–º Red Cross Auction Sale on 19 June 1918 (see Kopke 1878), lots ‟1006@1009”, 10 Dozens, bottled ’81, presented by ‟The Merchant Taylors Company”, at 240/ to 300/ (though the meaning of the price is unclear). [••LMA287••]

â–º Present in the vintage lists of André L. Simon (1919), Ernest Cockburn (1949), H. Warner Allen (1963), Wyndham Fletcher (1978), and George Robertson (1978).

â–º Tables of Content (1933), André L. Simon, #63: ‟Luncheon at 27 Clement’s Lane. 30 July 1931 ! The ’78 Croft”, served with ‟Cheese Souffl锝, ‟was a remarkably good bottle: absolutely fresh and lively.” [••9860••]

â–º ALS Vintagewise

â–º Shipper (email of March 2009).



Which are to be deleted, and why? Which are to be kept, and why?

I would suggest to keep
- bullet 4 : due to mention of seal colour & description
- bullet 5 : due to interesting/different description re: small vertical
- bullet 6 : due to the bottling date difference
Given your rule of keeping earliest references, I would add bullets 1 and 2 to that list.
Of the rest, I would select the 1933 André Simon reference, purely as I think it is slightly more interesting that the others, but this last choice is essentially personal whim.
So overall my selection would be: 1,2,4,5,6,[1933]

[DRT]

I have just noticed that the bottles sold at the Red Cross Auction Sale in 1918 are probably some of those purchased in bullet point 1.

[jdaw1]

I would suggest to keep
- bullet 4 : due to mention of seal colour & description
- bullet 5 : due to interesting/different description re: small vertical
- bullet 6 : due to the bottling date difference
Given your rule of keeping earliest references, I would add bullets 1 and 2 to that list.
Of the rest, I would select the 1933 André Simon reference, purely as I think it is slightly more interesting that the others, but this last choice is essentially personal whim.
So overall my selection would be: 1,2,4,5,6,[1933]

Your reasoning rhymes with mine. (I haven’t made a selection from the list, but I’m reassured that our arguments seem aligned.)