ThePortForum.com

g-man wrote:walker blue

What is Walker Blue?

Another clue - it is made from grapes

Cognac? (I was going to guess G&T, until your most recent clue.)

Wine?

jdaw1 wrote:Cognac? (I was going to guess G&T, until your most recent clue.)

Not cognac - it is not a distilled product

KillerB wrote:Wine?

Not a table wine, it is a fortified wine.

I can't believe this is so difficult! I've even posted a tasting note on it (and rather tasty it is too).

Bual 1869?

jdaw1 wrote:Bual 1869?

Spot on. You're up.

I’m working through my photographs of vintage port pages from Wine Society catalogues. The first instance of the most expensive vintage port so far, at 192/- per dozen, in the November 1921 catalogue, was Martinez 1896 (bottled 1898). Which vintage port is (will be) the first to cost at least 200/- per dozen?

Draw resolution:
• If, in the first catalogue to have any ≥ 200/-, there are several, the answer is the most expensive.
• If that isn’t unique, the answer is to first of those, in later catalogues, to cost more than whichever of the others are still being sold.
Also, prices per two dozen half bottles are always higher, and don’t count for the purposes of this question.

I don’t yet know the answer better hurry my data entry.

Note for Americans: 1/- is one shilling, one twentieth of a pound, that being twelve old pence which equals five new pence. Therefore 200/- is £10. Which was once a lot of money to spend on a case of port.

(Aside question for JacobH: ‟200/-”? ‟200/”“”? ‟200/ ”?)

Cockburn 1912

Cockburn 1904

Clue: I’ve done up to the June 1929 catalogue, and I still don’t know the answer. (Not obviously a very useful clue, but that’s life.)

Taylor 1920

1931 Noval

I am now at the March 1933 catalogue, still without knowing the answer. This catalogue has the first offers of 1927. Costs? 58/- for a dozen of any of Croft, Rebello Valente, Graham, Fonseca, Dow, Da Silva Noval; fully 60/- (=£3!) for a dozen Taylor 1927; but a massive 68/- (=£3.40!!) for a dozen of Cockburn 1927.

These prices are still good for members of ” .

”  Conditions apply. You must also be a member of the Wine Society, and have a working time machine.

1908 taylors

1931 Noval Nacional

(just in case)

1908 Cockburn

1948 Taylor

Actually, I'll be very surprised if it goes that late, but figured I'd grab that one just in case.

Taylor 1963

As long as I keep alternating with another kind soul, I should be able to cover 50% of all the ports that could possibly be the right answer.

Well if we're going to go to 1963, then I'll take the '63 Noval Nacional. Those have to be wasted guesses though... don't they?

jdaw1 wrote:I am now at the March 1933 catalogue, still without knowing the answer. This catalogue has the first offers of 1927. Costs? 58/- for a dozen of any of Croft, Rebello Valente, Graham, Fonseca, Dow, Da Silva Noval; fully 60/- (=£3!) for a dozen Taylor 1927; but a massive 68/- (=£3.40!!) for a dozen of Cockburn 1927.

Now on the March 1937 catalogue, still without an answer. In which The Wine Society started selling the 1934s: Warre, Da Silva Noval, Fonseca, Gould Campbell, Dow, and Tuke Holdsworth, each sold for 52/- per dozen. I wonder whether today’s big port companies would like the historical precedent that, during a major economic downturn, new port cost 13⅓% less than it did in the previous general declaration?

Are these factual non-clues welcome?

And in December 1937 the 1935s (Tuke Holdsworth, Graham, Croft, Cockburn, Taylor) were for sale at the same price of 52/- per dozen (being £2.60 per dozen, or £0.21⅔ per bottle, then about $1.05).

Take teh 45 taylor

jdaw1 wrote:Are these factual non-clues welcome?

Yes.

I'll add the 1955 Taylor to my list.

jdaw1 wrote:Are these factual non-clues welcome?

Despite being almost completely worthless; yes, they most certainly are welcome.
Croft 1945

I’m looking ahead.

The question asked about Vintage port, so this isn’t the answer.

The Wine Society, Winter 1943, under the sub-title ‟Port” wrote:Finest Douro 14/6
Calem’s specially selected Ruby 25/0

Prices are per bottle! And only these two ports available in the depths of wartime winter.

The first vintage ports to be listed since the war appeared as late as September 1950. There are nine, six of which are equal most expensive at 25/0 per bottle, and ignoring draw resolution rules above I’ll accept any of those six as the answer.

Not one of the most expensive is Quinta do Noval 1941 at 22/- a bottle.

Sandeman 1934

AHB wrote:Cockburn 1912

DRT wrote:Cockburn 1904

g-man wrote:1908 taylors

AHB wrote:1908 Cockburn

Too old.

Glenn E. wrote:1931 Noval

Glenn E. wrote:1931 Noval Nacional

Glenn E. wrote:1948 Taylor

AHB wrote:Taylor 1963

Glenn E. wrote:Well if we're going to go to 1963, then I'll take the '63 Noval Nacional.

g-man wrote:Take teh 45 taylor

Glenn E. wrote:I'll add the 1955 Taylor to my list.

AHB wrote:Croft 1945

AHB wrote:Sandeman 1934

Too young (or too cheap).

AHB wrote:Taylor 1920

There is a port from that year that would be an acceptable answer (and from two different years that are older, and from two different years that are younger), but not that one.

(To help me find it: picture 792.)

Argh. And I can't make another guess until someone else has done so!!

1920 Fonseca?

Glenn E. wrote:1920 Fonseca?

There is a port from that year that would be an acceptable answer (and from two different years that are older, and from two different years that are younger), but neither Fonseca nor Taylor.

Croft 1927

AHB wrote:Croft 1927

Too young.

Croft 1912?

Taylor 1917

DRT wrote:Croft 1912?

Too old.

AHB wrote:Taylor 1917

Year good; wrong house. Indeed, the 1917 and 1920 vintages for sale are from the same shipper.

1924 Croft?

jdaw1 wrote:(Aside question for JacobH: ‟200/-”? ‟200/”“”? ‟200/ ”?)

I’m not quite sure which dash was conventional probably an en dash but, more importantly, it should be a solidus (⁄) rather than a slash (/), so: 200⁄”“.

JacobH wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:(Aside question for JacobH: ‟200/-”? ‟200/”“”? ‟200/ ”?)

I’m not quite sure which dash was conventional probably an en dash but, more importantly, it should be a solidus (⁄) rather than a slash (/), so: 200⁄”“.

[Aside continues: excellent, thank you my not distinguishing the ‟/” from the ‟⁄” was very sloppy. However, the solidus renders on Mac Firefox as a zero-width character. Bug report 518430 filed.]

Glenn E. wrote:1924 Croft?

No Croft. Year good though.

Taylor 1924

1924 Cockburn?

AHB wrote:Taylor 1924

Glenn E. wrote:1924 Cockburn?

No. Though one of the houses works with a different year, the other doesn’t.

Sandeman 1917

AHB wrote:Sandeman 1917

Not Sandeman.

1920 Cockburn?

Noval 1924

1917 Tuke Holdsworth?

Warre 1920