ThePortForum.com

I think we could ponder this entomological question for quite some time but the absolutely plain fact is that in the Douro region, and most if not all of modern day Portugal, a "Quinta" is a farm. In the Douro most of them farm grapes and make Port or wine. SQVP comes from one property (with whatever extremely small tolerance the IDVP regulations allow). Trying to extrapolate English translations onto the Portuguese meaning is at best pointless.

I wasn't doubting the meaning of it, just thought the etymology was unusually obscure! (I'd contrast it with herdade which comes from hereditas meaning an inherirence or maybe an estate. It also gives us hereditament in English which just about hangs on in there as a term used in tax law).

DRT wrote:

MigSU wrote: ↑14:54 Wed 24 Nov 2021 I think you're misreading it. "Or wine estate" seems to me to be explaining what a "Quinta" is. I read it as "not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, i.e., a wine estate".

Exactly right. That sentence is setting out the two conditions that must be met in order to use the term "single quinta vintage port".

+1

"Quinta" meaning "thursday" is short for "quinta-feira" which means literally "fifth market (day)" and is not the correct translation for this usage.

The correct translation means farm or estate, and the law quote is a clarification. That law dictates that what we refer to as an SQVP must come from a single estate and a single year.

While it is always with trepidation that I venture into what I think are other people's mutual non-comprehensions, I do think that everyone in this discussion has a point. Portuguese laws on this stuff are a legal code. The code exists and is immutable (until changed). But, there is a certain latitude in practice which is unwritten and unspoken and which arises from the rich chaos of human existence. There is an illuminating exchange in relation to the attitude to the pirate code in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 between KK and GR which illustrates my point. In this context, GE is KK and TA is GR.

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that this is how things are actually done, just that this is how the law says they're to be done.

I've had similar discussions with Andy in the past regarding "topping off" or "refreshing" of old Colheitas. He says he's been told that there are exceptions to the year date law for refreshing old Colheitas, because otherwise they'd all be molasses. Except that there are no exceptions that I can find... if it has a year on the label, all wine in the bottle must come from that year. Legally. I think it fairly obvious that this can't actually be the case, because as Andy has argued any Port stored in cask since 1863 would be molasses at best. So they've been refreshed or diluted in some way over the years. But doing so and they labeling them as an "1863" Port isn't legal. But, neither is speeding, yet we all do it.

I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong in either case, but to date no one has been able to do that. So until disproven, I assert that the use of a year date on the label means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been harvested that year, and that the use of Quinta on the label* means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been grown at that Quinta. wink, wink.

*other than in the fine print as the name of the company.

Otherwise, why is it just "Noval Black"? Clearly the producers also believe this.

winesecretary wrote: ↑21:07 Sat 27 Nov 2021 While it is always with trepidation that I venture into what I think are other people's mutual non-comprehensions, I do think that everyone in this discussion has a point. Portuguese laws on this stuff are a legal code. The code exists and is immutable (until changed). But, there is a certain latitude in practice which is unwritten and unspoken and which arises from the rich chaos of human existence. There is an illuminating exchange in relation to the attitude to the pirate code in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 between KK and GR which illustrates my point. In this context, GE is KK and TA is GR.

The Pirate Code, as stated by Barbosa, is more like guidelines than actual rules. The IDVP issue regulations (not guidance), backed by Portuguese and EU law.

In that context, this is utter nonsense...

The IVDP, in its guidance, states that single quinta vintage ports are:

"not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate"

This would appear to acknowledge the option of using wine from other quintas owned by the producer, when blending an SQ port.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑21:22 Sat 27 Nov 2021 Absolutely. I'm not arguing that this is how things are actually done, just that this is how the law says they're to be done.

I've had similar discussions with Andy in the past regarding "topping off" or "refreshing" of old Colheitas. He says he's been told that there are exceptions to the year date law for refreshing old Colheitas, because otherwise they'd all be molasses. Except that there are no exceptions that I can find... if it has a year on the label, all wine in the bottle must come from that year. Legally. I think it fairly obvious that this can't actually be the case, because as Andy has argued any Port stored in cask since 1863 would be molasses at best. So they've been refreshed or diluted in some way over the years. But doing so and they labeling them as an "1863" Port isn't legal. But, neither is speeding, yet we all do it.

I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong in either case, but to date no one has been able to do that. So until disproven, I assert that the use of a year date on the label means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been harvested that year, and that the use of Quinta on the label* means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been grown at that Quinta. wink, wink.

*other than in the fine print as the name of the company.

Otherwise, why is it just "Noval Black"? Clearly the producers also believe this.

I agree with all of this, including the wink, wink parts.

The regulations are the regulations, and the IDVP is perhaps the most anally-retentive regulator I have ever encountered. Broad-brush "do what you like" style guidance just isn't in its DNA. Yet there are, I believe, certain minuscule tolerances that allow wines to be "corrected" with the use of extremely small amounts of something other than what might appear on the label. What producers absolutely are not allowed to do is assemble wines from various properties, blend them together and call them an SQVP. That is just not allowed and I don't believe it happens.

I think this was clearly evidenced by Graham between the 1950's and 1998. I recall Paul Symington making a press announcement (and also discussing it with myself and others in the Douro and at trade tastings) that the first vintage of "Quinta dos Malvedos" that could use that designation was 1998. This was despite the fact that for two or three decades prior to that what was then simply "Malvedos" was produced from exactly the same vineyards but some of them were not owned by the Symington family. Those vineyards were contiguous to Quinta dos Malvedos but until 1998 were not part of the quinta. If the notion of simply bringing wine into a quinta from other places and calling it SQVP was permissible why would Graham or the Symingtons have waited nearly half a century to use the SQVP designation?

Derek is making my point for me. For the Governor's daughter, the Pirate Code is a code, because she is taking the ... rule-bound-law-abiding-English-Governor's-daughter approach. Captain Barbosa, who actually lives the pirate life, interprets the code differently. And, of course, it only applies to pirates...

winesecretary wrote: ↑22:15 Sat 27 Nov 2021 Derek is making my point for me. For the Governor's daughter, the Pirate Code is a code, because she is taking the ... rule-bound-law-abiding-English-Governor's-daughter approach. Captain Barbosa, who actually lives the pirate life, interprets the code differently. And, of course, it only applies to pirates...

Do these things happen? Yes. Do the big boys (i.e. the vast majority of the trade) under intense scrutiny from a regulator get away with it? I very much doubt it. Your experience might be different to mine

Timbers shivered, parrot fed, might I venture two pieces of eight?

- Where exactly are the rules on blending ports?

On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:36 Sun 28 Nov 2021There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

uncle tom wrote: On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

This is roughly what Andy has said, too, but no one seems to be able to find this mysterious document that directly contradicts an easily found law.

I'm not saying that it definitely doesn't exist, but... it seems pretty suspect given how often it is mentioned without proof of existence, and how often people have looked for it.

Also, if true, then why wasn't Whitwham's Millennium Port marketed and sold as a Colheita?

Glenn E. wrote: ↑17:14 Sun 28 Nov 2021

uncle tom wrote: On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

This is roughly what Andy has said, too, but no one seems to be able to find this mysterious document that directly contradicts an easily found law.

I'm not saying that it definitely doesn't exist, but... it seems pretty suspect given how often it is mentioned without proof of existence, and how often people have looked for it.

Also, if true, then why wasn't Whitwham's Millennium Port marketed and sold as a Colheita?

Or Scion.

DRT wrote: ↑17:37 Sun 28 Nov 2021

Glenn E. wrote: ↑17:14 Sun 28 Nov 2021

uncle tom wrote: On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

This is roughly what Andy has said, too, but no one seems to be able to find this mysterious document that directly contradicts an easily found law.

I'm not saying that it definitely doesn't exist, but... it seems pretty suspect given how often it is mentioned without proof of existence, and how often people have looked for it.

Also, if true, then why wasn't Whitwham's Millennium Port marketed and sold as a Colheita?

Or Scion.

My understanding for Scion is that they were pretty sure what it was, but not entirely positive, and that they basically had very little proof (if any at all).

But for the Millennium Port, my understanding is that Cristiano knew exactly what it was (an 1880, as I recall), and had sufficient proof, but didn't think it was quite worthy so added some Niepoort (1945?) to freshen it up. Somethink like 7%, as I recall. So if this "10% rule" is in fact true, the Millennium Port could have been marketed and sold as a Colheita.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑19:14 Sun 28 Nov 2021My understanding for Scion is that they were pretty sure what it was, but not entirely positive, and that they basically had very little proof (if any at all).

But for the Millennium Port, my understanding is that Cristiano knew exactly what it was (an 1880, as I recall), and had sufficient proof, but didn't think it was quite worthy so added some Niepoort (1945?) to freshen it up. Somethink like 7%, as I recall. So if this "10% rule" is in fact true, the Millennium Port could have been marketed and sold as a Colheita.

That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is a 10% rule unless it is a one-off allowable thing immediately prior to bottling. If it is being suggested that a Cloheita can be refreshed with 10% new juice per annum that would mean it was possible to grow stocks of old wine despite the angel having her share.

DRT wrote: ↑21:18 Sun 28 Nov 2021 What doesn't make sense is a 10% rule unless it is a one-off allowable thing immediately prior to bottling. If it is being suggested that a Cloheita can be refreshed with 10% new juice per annum that would mean it was possible to grow stocks of old wine despite the angel having her share.

Exactly. That's called a Solera.

For a long time I've had an uneasy feeling that sooner or later, someone is going to radio carbon date one of these very old dated wines, and that the resultant mean age is going to fall embarrassingly short of that claimed.

Some of the source stocks for these old wines were probably family soleras rather than original unrefreshed casks, else they would have reduced to treacle, as previously mentioned - and as such may have a mean age of only a few decades.

To be factually correct about SQVP. A small Percentage of grapes can come from a different Quinta. IIRC, somewhere around 10-15% (but I forget the exact percentage so don’t quote me).

This type of allowed variance is quite normal in the wine world. Example, Cabernet Sauvignon from The USA can be up to 25% something else and still legal be labeled as 100% Cab Sauv.

The wine production trade around the globe is full of allowable exceptions to rules. The Douro is no different.

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Just because it is normal in other wine regions does not mean it is allowed for Port.

I.e. pics or it didn't happen.

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑03:36 Tue 30 Nov 2021Example, Cabernet Sauvignon from The USA can be up to 25% something else and still legal be labeled as 100% Cab Sauv.

That just seems ridiculous to me; I can appreciate there needs to be a margin/tolerance, but I'd have expected at most 1-2% not 25!

If we were discussing English law, I wouldn’t be surprised if any exceptions were contained within a general labelling regulation for all wine (or, indeed, all food) rather than a Port-specific one which might explain why it is commonly believed that it exists but no-one can find it. As an example, I think a few producers are making Port below the minimum ABV percentage because modern methods of measuring the ABV are sufficiently accurate that you can consistently make Port at the bottom end of the tolerance (e.g. if it is a 1 percentage point tolerance, make it at 18% but label at 19%). I think the IVDP regulations just give the ABV rather than the tolerances which must be elsewhere. But I haven’t looked at this in any detail!

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed?

A Quinta name is a brand name, if it does not explicitly say on the bottle that the wine comes exclusively from that Quinta it does not appear to breach EU product law if part or all of the content is sourced elsewhere. There is also a marketed Quinta port, the amusingly titled Quinta da Revolta, that neither appears to be located within the demarcated area nor (from a Google earth search) have any vines - unless there is a second property with the same name.

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:48 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed?

The IVDP website...

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

Thousands of IVDP regulations, announcements, etc can be accessed here by someone with sufficient knowledge of Portuguese to be able to find them.

Thousands of IVDP regulations, announcements, etc can be accessed here by someone with sufficient knowledge of Portuguese to be able to find them.

It's hard enough trawling through the UK's legislative jungle without the language barrier of Portuguese. Glenn however feels certain, so perhaps he can tell us where to look.

When I have time I can try to wade through it. It's a bit of a pain, though, the site's not build with accessibility in mind.

DRT wrote: ↑09:56 Tue 30 Nov 2021 Thousands of IVDP regulations, announcements, etc can be accessed here by someone with sufficient knowledge of Portuguese to be able to find them.

This. There are thousands of other regulations that come out in the form of announcements, etc. So while the "official" list may cover broad topics, it's these other ones that cover the small details and changes that have happened over the decades.

Example; where's the regulation that says you can add white grapes to red, co-ferment them, make a port out of the blend and sell it as a red port. I've never seen a regulation that says you can, but producers still do it. Or how about topping up or refreshing (whatever you want to call it) of tawny's. The IVDP says a Colheita must be from the same vintage, but we all know they are topped up with other younger ports at some point in their barrel life.

Again to be clear, this is not just a Portugal or IVDP thing. This is every wine region, and every type of commerce, that exists in the world.

In the absence of finding legislation and regulations setting out the detailed rules I think this statement on the Regulator's website gives us a clear indication of what SQVP is intended to be...

DRT wrote: ↑09:43 Tue 30 Nov 2021

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:48 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed?

The IVDP website...

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

We're going round in circles here - that is neither a regulation nor unambiguous.

- Where is the law that Glenn is so sure about?

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:48 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed?

What Derek said. I have found and linked the pertinent regulation before, in threads in which you were a participant, so I don't feel the need to look it up for you again. It's in Portuguese anyway.

A Quinta name is a brand name, if it does not explicitly say on the bottle that the wine comes exclusively from that Quinta it does not appear to breach EU product law if part or all of the content is sourced elsewhere. There is also a marketed Quinta port, the amusingly titled Quinta da Revolta, that neither appears to be located within the demarcated area nor (from a Google earth search) have any vines - unless there is a second property with the same name.

That is just your opinion. That is not legal precedent. According to the IVDP rules and regulations, a bottle of Port may not use "quinta" on the label unless all of the Port in the bottle comes from that estate.

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑14:47 Tue 30 Nov 2021 Example; where's the regulation that says you can add white grapes to red, co-ferment them, make a port out of the blend and sell it as a red port. I've never seen a regulation that says you can, but producers still do it. Or how about topping up or refreshing (whatever you want to call it) of tawny's. The IVDP says a Colheita must be from the same vintage, but we all know they are topped up with other younger ports at some point in their barrel life.

Again to be clear, this is not just a Portugal or IVDP thing. This is every wine region, and every type of commerce, that exists in the world.

Wrong question. Where is the law that says you can't?

It's not being sold as red Port it's being sold as Vinho do Porto which makes no reference to color.

The law says you cannot use Quinta on your label unless all of the grapes come from that estate.

uncle tom wrote: ↑16:15 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

We're going round in circles here - that is neither a regulation nor unambiguous.

- Where is the law that Glenn is so sure about?

We are going round in circles because you seem to prefer fake news rather than believing a clear statement directed at consumers on the website of the body responsible for regulating the product being discussed. The sentence is only ambiguous if you want it to be.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑16:25 Tue 30 Nov 2021I have found and linked the pertinent regulation before, in threads in which you were a participant, so I don't feel the need to look it up for you again. It's in Portuguese anyway.

Is this the post you are referring to, Glenn?

uncle tom wrote: ↑16:15 Tue 30 Nov 2021Where is the law that Glenn is so sure about?

Perhaps you might believe that there is enough smoke coming from this gun to allow you to change your opinion...

Eric Menchen wrote: I agree that as far as the IVDP is concerned, SQVP is VP. I also stand by my original assertion that the IVDP doesn't define or regulate the term "quinta" as far as I could tell. The above regulation still didn't mention "quinta" per se. If you go to the International Organisation of Wine and Vine, you can find the International Standard for Labelling Wines, which states:

3.1.3. Name of the viticultural holding
The name of the viticultural holding (château, quinta, finca, tenuta, Weingut, manor, estate etc):
- the wine must come solely from the said holding: grapes harvested and vinified in the holding as such designated;
- the description of the viticultural holding must correspond to the customs of the country and must not create confusion in the mind of the consumer;
- the wine must be entitled to a recognised geographic indication or recognised appellation of origin, and be mentioned as such.

I think there are other similar multi-national standards.

https://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopf ... 044#p85044

Should I ring up the IVDP (or better yet, go there in person) and ask?

MigSU wrote: ↑17:24 Tue 30 Nov 2021 Should I ring up the IVDP (or better yet, go there in person) and ask?

That would be interesting, but good luck getting a straight answer!

Yeah, good point. I still might, though, just for fun. Maybe next time I'm in Peso da Régua with time to waste I'll stop by.

MigSU wrote: ↑17:30 Tue 30 Nov 2021 Yeah, good point. I still might, though, just for fun. Maybe next time I'm in Peso da Régua with time to waste I'll stop by.

There is a nice little coffee shop just outside where you can wait for a few hours until they come out to tell that they can't give you the answer because it is commercially sensitive information and they would need all of the producers to agree before they could tell you.

Here is a link to the current version of the International Standard for Labelling Wines.

The Foreword says this...

The present standard is a recommendation from the OIV to the Member States. Its aim is to ease international exchange and to ensure fair information to consumers.
It is inspired by the standard established by the Codex Alimentarius for the labelling of prepackaged foods.1
The provisions concern the compulsory information which appears on the labelling of pre-packed wines in view of their sale to the consumer, as well as optional information left to the discretion of manufacturers or Member States. They have gradually been adopted through the progress of the group Wine Regulation and Quality Control and the Commission III, at the 63rd, 64th, 65th, 68th, 72nd, 73rd and 83rd General Assemblies of the International Office of Vine and Wine in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1993 and 2003 and the 3rd , 4th, 8th , 9th, 18 and 19th General Assemblies of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2020 and 2021.
This 2022 edition therefore represents a consolidated version of the OIV International Standard for the Labeling of Wines.

Just saying...

DRT wrote: ↑16:35 Tue 30 Nov 2021

uncle tom wrote: ↑16:15 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

We're going round in circles here - that is neither a regulation nor unambiguous.

- Where is the law that Glenn is so sure about?

We are going round in circles because you seem to prefer fake news rather than believing a clear statement directed at consumers on the website of the body responsible for regulating the product being discussed. The sentence is only ambiguous if you want it to be.

Derek,
Hate to burst your bubble but the IVDP also says this on their website about Cohleita's...

Colheita Port
These single vintage Tawnies are aged in cask for a minimum seven years and present a wide range of colours from golden red to tawny, depending on their age. Their bouquet and flavour also develop over time to create different style Tawnies.

Too bad we know they are not always entirely single vintage. So that clearly settles their own website isn't 100% factually correct.

I have reached out to the IVDP through backchannels, so hopefully I'll get a useful answer.

MigSU wrote: ↑20:28 Tue 30 Nov 2021 I have reached out to the IVDP through backchannels, so hopefully I'll get a useful answer.

Cool...let's hope!

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑19:48 Tue 30 Nov 2021

DRT wrote: ↑16:35 Tue 30 Nov 2021

uncle tom wrote: ↑16:15 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

We're going round in circles here - that is neither a regulation nor unambiguous.

- Where is the law that Glenn is so sure about?

We are going round in circles because you seem to prefer fake news rather than believing a clear statement directed at consumers on the website of the body responsible for regulating the product being discussed. The sentence is only ambiguous if you want it to be.

Derek,
Hate to burst your bubble but the IVDP also says this on their website about Cohleita's...

Colheita Port
These single vintage Tawnies are aged in cask for a minimum seven years and present a wide range of colours from golden red to tawny, depending on their age. Their bouquet and flavour also develop over time to create different style Tawnies.

Too bad we know they are not always entirely single vintage. So that clearly settles their own website isn't 100% factually correct.

Don’t worry, my bubble remains intact. These descriptions might not reference small exceptions, but they absolutely do not say “these are just brands, it doesn’t matter what wines go in the bottle.” The intent is clear. The exceptions are small. That is the point.

And the international labelling standard has absolutely nothing to do with the IVDP other than them being obliged to ensure compliance.

DRT wrote: ↑16:49 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Glenn E. wrote: ↑16:25 Tue 30 Nov 2021I have found and linked the pertinent regulation before, in threads in which you were a participant, so I don't feel the need to look it up for you again. It's in Portuguese anyway.

Is this the post you are referring to, Glenn?

That's the most recent discussion that I can remember, but I feel like there have been many.

Andy Velebil wrote:Too bad we know they are not always entirely single vintage. So that clearly settles their own website isn't 100% factually correct.

Except we do not, at least not officially. Sure, we hear stories of how this or that or the other has been topped off or refreshed, but that is never formally admitted. Because it isn't allowed.

The speed limit on most California highways is 65 mph, but if you're going 80 in the left lane on the interstate people are going to get pissed at you for driving too slow. Doesn't change the fact that the speed limit is usually 65 (or on the interstate, usually 70).

Also just so that it's said out loud, part of my reluctance to look this up every time this topic rises from the dead is that the IVDP website seems to change in-between every zombie outbreak. Which means it's basically an all-new endeavor to find the information every time, and it has never been an easy task during any of the iterations.

For me, the matter is settled until the other side provides proof. Even once. Because that documentation has never been found.

In my own field, it is remarkably commonly the case (by which I mean I encounter it on a daily basis) that what the tax authority says on its website is the law, is not in fact the law. Sometimes the tax authority even argues that its statement of the law on its own website is not the law. Accordingly, the only authoritative statement of the law is the law. So: we need MigSu to parse the actual legislation.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:02 Tue 30 Nov 2021 the IVDP website seems to change in-between every zombie outbreak.

I think they know of your feuds, and are now just messing with you lot.

MigSU wrote: ↑22:04 Tue 30 Nov 2021

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:02 Tue 30 Nov 2021 the IVDP website seems to change in-between every zombie outbreak.

I think they know of your feuds, and are now just messing with you lot.

"You lot"? Oh dear. You do not realise you have been assimilated to the collective. Welcome to our world 123374.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:02 Tue 30 Nov 2021the matter is settled until the other side provides proof. Even once. Because that documentation has never been found.

This.

Whilst it is difficult or impossible to find definitive laws covering all aspects of this debate, and acknowledging that there are exceptions and unusual circumstances to consider, the bottom line is that if the owners of a known and defined quinta that has been allocated a beneficio and subsequently registered a declared production quantity to its regulator, it's owners can't then punt out a wine sourced from somewhere else and name it after the quinta.

I look forward to reading the 5%, 10%, 15% per annum top-up and "it can come from anywhere" regulations. I am sure they will be a fascinating read.