1994 Tesco

[LGTrotter]

I am a little fuzzy on detail, no doubt some of the old hands can put us straight if needed, but I assumed that in 1996 all the 94 is bottled. Then it is submitted for IDVP approval, being sold as whatever brand the company wants to put it out as. I rather think that Quarles Harris is the 'everything else' port, ie not Graham, Warre, Dow etc. which would mean that the port which has become Tesco 94 was originally going to be sold as Quarles Harris. One blend, many bottles; Quarles Harris.

I may have been drinking.

[djewesbury]

I think the complaints about the IVDP are overstated. Whenever there hasn't been a regulatory body it's been very bad for the trade. Which is exactly why Salazar, taking his inspiration from the man who first regulated the area, set up the IVDP. It's not really as complex as you make out.

[djewesbury]

I am a little fuzzy on detail, no doubt some of the old hands can put us straight if needed, but I assumed that in 1996 all the 94 is bottled. Then it is submitted for IDVP approval, being sold as whatever brand the company wants to put it out as. I rather think that Quarles Harris is the 'everything else' port, ie not Graham, Warre, Dow etc. which would mean that the port which has become Tesco 94 was originally going to be sold as Quarles Harris. One blend, many bottles; Quarles Harris.

I may have been drinking.

No. SFE could submit as many blends as they like in 1996/97. Some of them will be known (Malvedos, eg) , others not. But when one is released, the IVDP are notified: Batch 7865 has become Tesco BOB 94. So why shouldn't there have been multiple blends sold as Tesco 94 over the years? I'm sure that's what's happened.

Why is this causing such protracted head scratching and confusion? I see it as quite straightforward.

[flash_uk]

But Tesco BOB was not sold as QH as far as I know. So the IVDP just had to approve it as a BOB blend.

But does that mean they approve a blend together with a "brand"/"shipper"?

No. They approve the blend and register the name.

But how could SFE have known in 1996 when bottling, that Tesco in 2005 would want some BOB?

[djewesbury]

Because they probably had a contract. Or else they knew that they'd sell it somewhere.

[djewesbury]

And as I said, the name presumably doesn't have to be registered immediately. But once it's on the IVDP's books it needs to be registered with a name before it's sold.

Have you been at the F85?

[flash_uk]

I am a little fuzzy on detail, no doubt some of the old hands can put us straight if needed, but I assumed that in 1996 all the 94 is bottled. Then it is submitted for IDVP approval, being sold as whatever brand the company wants to put it out as. I rather think that Quarles Harris is the 'everything else' port, ie not Graham, Warre, Dow etc. which would mean that the port which has become Tesco 94 was originally going to be sold as Quarles Harris. One blend, many bottles; Quarles Harris.

I may have been drinking.

No. SFE could submit as many blends as they like in 1996/97. Some of them will be known (Malvedos, eg) , others not. But when one is released, the IVDP are notified: Batch 7865 has become Tesco BOB 94. So why shouldn't there have been multiple blends sold as Tesco 94 over the years? I'm sure that's what's happened.

Why is this causing such protracted head scratching and confusion? I see it as quite straightforward.

Our posts crossed mid air. This now makes perfect sense to me, and confirms what I thought in the first place. SFE made lots of blends, bottled them, got them approved, when it came to release, they confirmed what it would be called. So Te94 could have been blend 124 in the first release in 2007 (say), blend 137 in the next release in 2009 (say). and so on. And it so happens that some of blend 124 (say) could have also been released as QH94.

[djewesbury]

You got it!

[flash_uk]

Have you been at the F85?

Actually, I discovered still in the fridge the final quarter of a Graham's Crusted '98 that I opened last weekend and polished it off. Tasted really alright considering it's been open for 6 days.

[flash_uk]

I am a little fuzzy on detail, no doubt some of the old hands can put us straight if needed, but I assumed that in 1996 all the 94 is bottled. Then it is submitted for IDVP approval, being sold as whatever brand the company wants to put it out as. I rather think that Quarles Harris is the 'everything else' port, ie not Graham, Warre, Dow etc. which would mean that the port which has become Tesco 94 was originally going to be sold as Quarles Harris. One blend, many bottles; Quarles Harris.

I may have been drinking.

No. SFE could submit as many blends as they like in 1996/97. Some of them will be known (Malvedos, eg) , others not. But when one is released, the IVDP are notified: Batch 7865 has become Tesco BOB 94. So why shouldn't there have been multiple blends sold as Tesco 94 over the years? I'm sure that's what's happened.

Why is this causing such protracted head scratching and confusion? I see it as quite straightforward.

Our posts crossed mid air. This now makes perfect sense to me, and confirms what I thought in the first place. SFE made lots of blends, bottled them, got them approved, when it came to release, they confirmed what it would be called. So Te94 could have been blend 124 in the first release in 2007 (say), blend 137 in the next release in 2009 (say). and so on. And it so happens that some of blend 124 (say) could have also been released as QH94.

You got it!

Glenn, does this break or confirm your understanding of port?

[LGTrotter]

My head scratching is caused by my assumption that SFE would have made a pretty limited number of blends. ie the number (more or less) of brands they have to sell. I am simply assuming that they would have made their main brands (Graham, Dow, Smith Wodehouse, Warre) and everything else would have gone into one big pot, all of which would be bottled up as Quarles Harris, tranches of which are released from time to time as Tesco, or QH or even Paxton and Whitfield 94. But not different blends.

[djewesbury]

But they supply countless BOBs (all over the world) and they have many other 'bought in' labels - Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell, etc etc. Why would everything be labelled QH?

[Glenn E.]

It all sort of makes sense, I think. It would be lovely to actually know how it works.

[djewesbury]

I've just noticed that Owen lists Smith Woody as a 'main brand' and I listed it as a bought-in. SFE still list Quinta da Madalena and Quinta Val Coelho as 'belonging' to SW so I'm wrong on that one, I suppose. However the old SW website is no more. GC and QH don't even get listed on their SFE website any more.

[LGTrotter]

Did I overhear someone saying that the Symingtons are no longer going to make a Gould Campbell? Or was it Quarles Harris? Perhaps both.

[djewesbury]

It was Martinez wasn't it? But I wouldn't be surprised if the other names were quietly shelved.

[LGTrotter]

On finishing the most recent bottle of this I notice that the bottle rattles. There is a cork in the bottom. It has the most recent label and I am hoping that there may be brand on it to clear up once and for all what it was once upon a time. Too late to be breaking bottles tonight. I shall put it in a bag and bash it tomorrow.

[LGTrotter]

Blimey. Having shone a torch down the neck and shaken it a bit the name on the cork is very clear; Warre, vintage 1994.

[DaveRL]

Blimey. Having shone a torch down the neck and shaken it a bit the name on the cork is very clear; Warre, vintage 1994.

That is both very surprising and excellent news. Good find, well done. Tesco 94 can't really be W94 though, can it? I wonder what the Tesco 97 is.

[flash_uk]

Blimey. Having shone a torch down the neck and shaken it a bit the name on the cork is very clear; Warre, vintage 1994.

That is both very surprising and excellent news. Good find, well done. Tesco 94 can't really be W94 though, can it? I wonder what the Tesco 97 is.

I don’t think a W94 cork in the bottom of a bottle means it is W94 in the bottle. What is more puzzling to me is how a bottle ended up with a cork inside it, and then got filled and corked.

[DaveRL]

What does the cork look like? Is it possible to tell whether it has been in the bottle for 20 years or only a few. It is odd to find a spare cork. I suppose it is possible that when recorking for Tesco the cork was accidentally pushed in.

[LGTrotter]

Blimey. Having shone a torch down the neck and shaken it a bit the name on the cork is very clear; Warre, vintage 1994.

That is both very surprising and excellent news. Good find, well done. Tesco 94 can't really be W94 though, can it? I wonder what the Tesco 97 is.

Thank-you, and the thought about the Tesco 97 was the next thing that went through my mind.

I don’t think a W94 cork in the bottom of a bottle means it is W94 in the bottle. What is more puzzling to me is how a bottle ended up with a cork inside it, and then got filled and corked.

True, finding a cork with 'Warre vintage 1994' embossed on it in a bottle of 1994 port doesn't mean it contains Warre 94, but equally it is rather suggestive.

And to me the most likely explanation is the one which I assumed and Dave suggests, i.e. it was the cork in the bottle and got pushed in when the bottle was recorked for Tesco. The cork looks darker at one end which is a bit of evidence in support of it being used on active service. I suppose it is possible that the bottle did not contain Warre 94 but some other port, but then how did the cork get in there? So I think that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it usually is a duck. Occam's razor and all that.

[LGTrotter]

image.jpg (175.52 KiB) Viewed 17649 times

image.jpg (89.98 KiB) Viewed 17649 times

image.jpg (174.59 KiB) Viewed 17649 times

I have some better photos of the cork in the bottle but it says the file is too large.

[LGTrotter]

image.jpg (90.92 KiB) Viewed 17641 times

image.jpg (68.57 KiB) Viewed 17641 times

Due to the rubbishness of the camera on this iPad and the operator these are less than ideal. The the first picture shows '1994 vintage' the second shows the '1670' logo. I may try again, but I am reluctant to break the bottle to get the cork out. I might keep it as a trophy.

[LGTrotter]

My apologies for the photos being the wrong way round and upside down. In my defence they look the right way round on the iPad and all wrong on the laptop. I have no idea how to fix them.

[DaveRL]

Thanks for the photos. A mystery. The cork being more red at one end does seem to indicate that it was used as a stopper, so Warre 94 seems quite likely. I wonder if a few Warre 94 were used to make up the quantities that Tesco needed, and you got lucky. It seems unlikely all Tesco 94 would be Warre. Does it taste like Warre or Quarles or perhaps Gould? Is it different to other Tesco 94?

[LGTrotter]

Thanks for the photos. A mystery. The cork being more red at one end does seem to indicate that it was used as a stopper, so Warre 94 seems quite likely. I wonder if a few Warre 94 were used to make up the quantities that Tesco needed, and you got lucky. It seems unlikely all Tesco 94 would be Warre. Does it taste like Warre or Quarles or perhaps Gould? Is it different to other Tesco 94?

I'm not really much of a judge as I have been quietly sure that it was all one lot of port with some of them tasting a bit more jammy because they got a bit too hot somewhere in the supply chain and that idea seems out of the window. I also thought it most likely that it was all Quarles Harris. I have tried Warre 94 a few times but I there is no way I could spot it in a line up. This port did not seem particularly like or unlike Warre 94. I suppose that it was not dissimilar to the one I tried at Berrys port walk a few years back. The other difficulty is that I just had it as a bit of a slurp of an evening rather than paying much attention to it.
There have been a few variations on the Tesco 94 labels and capsules which may indicate different lots. This one looks similar to a picture in a previous note but it is slightly different. I still have a few of the original bottles with white labels, which in the early days did mention Quarles Harris.
God knows, or more prosaically the Symingtons, but they will not tell. It did strike me as unlikely that they would ship a lot of Warre to be sold in Tesco. But then again they were shipping one of their marques for this purpose so why not Warre? I don't know the answer but it was most interesting and I cannot think of any other obvious explanation as to how a Warre 94 cork got in that bottle.

[Alex Bridgeman]

A very interesting update to the thread. Thanks Owen.

There did seem to be two parcels of Tesco 1994 Finest hit the shelves; interesting that parcel 2 was Warre. With hindsight that was more of a bargain than we realised at the time when we thought it was Quarles Harris. Shame I have so few left, but I think all of mine were parcel 1 (bought from October 2010 to December 2011).

I still have one of the 1995 vintage left too — with the white label and clearly saying it was shipped by QH.

[idj123]

I recall an early bottle of the 94 definitely mentioning QH but the later bottles didn't. It was a bit stewy last time I tried a bottle (of the non-QH labelled version). Will now be tempted into trying another bottle (of the five I have left).