ThePortForum.com

RAYC wrote: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

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

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

jdaw1 wrote:In the video Adrian Bridge describes a Pipe as ‟60 dozen”. Interesting.

djewesbury wrote: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?

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=53671#p53671]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote: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.

djewesbury wrote:

jdaw1 wrote: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?

Glenn E. wrote:a wine gallon

Glenn E. wrote:In the US, 750 ml wasn't technically standardized until 1979.

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote: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...

Glenn E. wrote: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?

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote: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?

djewesbury wrote: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).

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=53671#p53671]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote: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.

Glenn E. wrote: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 wrote: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.

djewesbury wrote:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=53671#p53671]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote: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.

Glenn E. wrote: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.

Glenn E. wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=53671#p53671]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote: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.

Glenn E. wrote: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.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6990]here[/url], Andy Velebil wrote: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!!

g-man wrote: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?

Glenn E. wrote: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.

RAYC wrote: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).

AHB wrote:Noval and Noval Nacional are now officially declared.

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

Quinta do Noval press release wrote: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....’

AHB wrote:

RAYC wrote: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.

[url=https://twitter.com/PRWineprincess/status/334286700517941248]here[/url], attributing to Adrian Bridge, Sue Glasgow wrote: Vintage Port is the icing on the cake...our main business is LBV and other styles

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

RAYC wrote: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.

RAYC wrote: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).

• 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

AHB wrote:

RAYC wrote: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

[url=http://www.nickollsandperks.co.uk//browse.asp?category=415]Here[/url], Nickolls & Perks wrote: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.

TLW wrote: 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: