ThePortForum.com

I'd be curious to know your equivalent percentages for 21yr+ ('drinking ready');

59.2% of my VP is over 21yrs old

The average age of my VP is currently 30 years, 7 months, 14 days, 20 hours and 17 minutes

The collective age of all my VP is currently 137,746 years and 255 days, gaining an additional day every 19.2 seconds!

PhilW wrote:

AHB wrote:The top 5 shippers in my cellar are Vesuvio (15%), Fonseca (8%), Warre (8%), Graham (8%) and Smith Woodhouse (6%). The top 5 vintages are 1963 (10%), 1994 (7%), 1977 (6%), 1985 (6%), 1997 (6%). There are 409 different combinations of shipper and vintage in my cellar.

I'd be curious to know your equivalent percentages for 21yr+ ('drinking ready'); I was surprised not to find Dow in the above (my percentages would start with Warre>Fonseca>Vesuvio>rest, but I expected Dow higher in yours).

If I look at what is ready for drinking (ie. 1992 vintage or older), I find the following:
Fonseca 10%, Graham 10%, Warre 9%, Dow 8%, Taylor 7%
1963 (16%), 1977 (10%), 1985 (10%), 1970 (5%) and 1983 (5%)

Thanks Alex, Tom for the replies.
Alex - I am not so surprised by your %s for "ready for drinking" port, your earlier stats imply that you must have much less young Dow. On checking my own collection for interest/comparison, I was very surprised to find that I in fact own Dow at all; While I'm reticent about Dow77 due to the number of corked bottles out there, and Dow80 for never being ready to drink, I wasn't expecting a zero... will have to remedy that.

It's nearly that time of year when this rich seam is mined anew.

I love a spreadsheet.

LGTrotter wrote:It's nearly that time of year when this rich seam is mined anew.

I love a spreadsheet.

Be careful what you wish for! The slightest encouragement and I'm off...

AHB wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:It's nearly that time of year when this rich seam is mined anew.

I love a spreadsheet.

Be careful what you wish for! The slightest encouragement and I'm off...

Oh go on, you know you want to!

[alert]Calling all statisticians with initials AHB... the year has ended... [/alert]

I have a bit of work to do, a cup of tea to make and then will turn to some pointless statistics.

I've been breathless with anticipation for this you tease, with a bit of luck Tom might weigh in too. Then the festive season will be complete.

So here we go. Tasting note statistics first:

In 2013 I wrote 496 tasting notes on 495 different bottles of port (the most I have ever managed in a single year)! 108 of these were in May, which is the most tasting notes I have managed in a month since I started keeping records in 2004 (the previous most being 104).

93 of these tasting notes were on the 2011 vintage, 56 on 1963, 34 on 1970, 27 on 1983, 26 on NV ports, 23 on 2007, 21 on 1977, 19 on 1966, 17 on 1985, 12 on 1960, 12 on 2000. No other vintage had more than 10 notes taken on it. 26 of the 495 bottles were 75 years old or more, but only 5 were vintage dated and over 100 years old. The most unusual bottles I tasted were probably from 1993 - the Crasto LBV - and 1973 - the Martinez Crusted.

The shippers I drank most often were Taylor (50), Noval (43 - including 12 Nacionals!), Graham (37), Warre (34), Dow (32), Niepoort (27), Fonseca (24), Sandeman (23), Cockburn (21), Croft (12), Ramos Pinto (12), Dalva (10) and Vesuvio (10).

The best port I drank in 2013 was the Quinta do Noval 1931 - the second best was the Quinta do Noval 1927, from magnum. The most prestigious was Noval Nacional 1931 (which I rated as 90/100).
My scores across all 495 bottles were:
100 - 1
99 - 1
98 - 6
97 - 11
96 - 9
95 - 23
94 - 37
93 - 35
92 - 46
91 - 33
90 - 44
89 - 39
88 - 43
87 - 33
86 - 28
85 - 32
84 - 26
83 - 12
82 - 9
81 - 1
80 - 3
79 - 0
78 - 0
77 - 1
76 - 1
Less than 76 - 3

I took 92 bottles of port out of my cellar during 2013, which had an average age of 43 years and 157 days.

Your curve of scores used to peak around 89; vintage port seems to be getting better!

djewesbury wrote:Your curve of scores used to peak around 89; vintage port seems to be getting better!

This looks like a fairly normal distribution for Alex, at least to me. Though yes, without plotting a graph this curve does seem to center at 90 instead of 89.

djewesbury wrote:Your curve of scores used to peak around 89; vintage port seems to be getting better!

Or I am becoming more fussy in my drinking - I have had some pretty good bottles this year.

Any chance of a breakdown of your cellar? That is an exquisite pleasure.

LGTrotter wrote:Any chance of a breakdown of your cellar? That is an exquisite pleasure.

In due course, much will be updated.

Interesting statistics as always, thank you. I'm particularly impressed with:

AHB wrote:In 2013 I wrote 496 tasting notes on 495 different bottles of port

not only by the huge variety of ports within a year, but that you also seem to have almost avoided any duplication of tasting notes whatsoever! Also your "only" 5 being over 100 years old made me smile

And 26 were more than 75 years old!

PhilW wrote:Interesting statistics as always, thank you. I'm particularly impressed with:

AHB wrote:In 2013 I wrote 496 tasting notes on 495 different bottles of port

not only by the huge variety of ports within a year, but that you also seem to have almost avoided any duplication of tasting notes whatsoever! Also your "only" 5 being over 100 years old made me smile

I might have lacked clarity in what I wrote - I was trying to say that there were 495 different bottles (/half bottle / magnum / tappit hen / double magnum) opened and tasted. One of these was tasted twice - actually just after opening and a few hours later.

I wasn't trying to say that I had only tasted Graham 1970 once during 2013. In fact, my most frequently tasted port last year was the Taylor 1970 last year - 6 different bottles. It's a hard life!

I guess that's not quite strictly true. For each of the 2011 ports I gave an extended tasting I would have written 4 notes and then condensed these into a single overall impression and made a single note that has been included in the 496 total quoted above. I gave extended tastings to 43 different 2011 ports so there would have been another 172 tastings notes in addition to the 496, but the total number of bottles would have remained at 495.

Now for some cellar statistics:

92% of my cellar is Port, 3% Bordeaux, 2% Champagne, 1% Australian and the rest bits and pieces with no single source accounting for more than 0.5% of my bottles.

88% of my Port corks are in 75 or 70cl bottles, 9% in half bottles, 3% in large formats.

69% of my Port is Vintage Port, 24% is single quinta VP, 5% is LBV, 1% is Crusted and the remainder is NV, odds and sods and brown sticky stuff.

I have 446 different ports. 9% is from the 2011 vintage, 8% is from 1963 and 6% from 1994. 56% of my Port stocks are ready for drinking (ie. 21 or more years old).

15% of my Port is Vesuvio, 8% is Graham and 8% is Warre.

The nice thing about percentages is that I don't feel too intimidated to add my own vital statistics. Even if the maths wonks among us can work it out I feel less naked.

Thanks Alex, I can now declare Christmas over, although perhaps Tom may give a late present yet.

Oh yes, I assume Alex that 15% Vesuvio represents the highest proportion of one shipper/Quinta?

Yep. I can confirm that Vesuvio represents the shipper with the largest percentage of my cellar.

I like that you drank 495 ports and your cellar took a hit of only 92 bottles. That's good going!
How much of your port is at home and how much in storage, just in percentage terms?

djewesbury wrote:I like that you drank 495 ports and your cellar took a hit of only 92 bottles. That's good going!
How much of your port is at home and how much in storage, just in percentage terms?

To be fair, 45 of the 92 were drunk by people who brought nothing to share

!and AHB's stats represent an average of fewer than five attendees per tasting, which isn't bad going.

djewesbury wrote:I like that you drank 495 ports and your cellar took a hit of only 92 bottles. That's good going!

The biggest tastings I attended were:
(1) The BFT (59) and pre / post tastings (79 including the latter)
(2) The 1963 Quinquagenary (47)
(3) My extended tasting of the 2011 vintage ports (43)
(4) The Berry Brothers Port Walk and the offline after (22)
(5) The Taylor Vertical (20)
There were no other tastings I attended at which I took more than 20 tasting notes.

djewesbury wrote:How much of your port is at home and how much in storage, just in percentage terms?

I keep about 18-24 months of wine / port at home which I find is enough to keep me going with my planned drinking but also offers some flexibility for spontaneity. Around the end of the summer I start to plan what I want to drink the following year. I decide the number of my bottles of port I want to consume and what these will be. The profile of the consumption is the same each year since my stocks have been designed to yield this age profile for a couple of decades at least. The profile being:
4% under 11 years since vintage
3% 11-16 years
5% 17-21 years
15% 22-29 years
26% 30-39 years
15% 40-49 years
5% 50-59 years
4% 60-69 years
1% 70-79 years
3% 80-99 years
3% 100+ years
9% from my birth year (1963)
8% other - non-vintage, unknown or something extra added to the list above

There are certain bottles which I have enough of to open every year (Croft 2004 LBV, for example) and certain vintages I can include every year (eg. 1955) but the whole exercise is quite good fun and takes a couple of weeks. I won't plan to duplicate a particular port in a year's drinking, but this usually does end up happening through offlines or me just grabbing what comes to hand. When planning, I first look at what I have on hand and use those as the core of the planned drinking list. Next I look at what I have in off-site storage which fills the gaps and when I will have space at home to accommodate a new case. This then gets planned into the drinking list for later in the year and a diary note made to arrange to take a case out of storage at a particular time. Sometimes I take a case out and then re-deposit 6 bottles for future years. It sounds complicated, but I rather enjoy the whole exercise and it helps build up the sense of anticipation for the future. Some of our fellow forum members tease me about my methodical approach to planning my drinking, but I don't care - it works for me.

And as an example, last year's withdrawals from my cellar were:
Cockburn (½) 1955
Taylor LBV 2003
Smith Woodhouse LBV 1986
Noval 1927
Noval 1931
Warre 1922
Cockburn 1908
Taylor 1970
Warre Traditional LBV 1994
Croft LBV (½) 2004
Fonseca Crusted 2001
Warre (Tappit Hen) 1977
Dow (Tappit Hen) 1977
Grahams (Tappit Hen) 1977
Malvedos (Grahams) 1986
Taylor 1920
Taylors Special Quinta 1950
Taylor 1977
Vargellas 1976
Port Society Finest Reserve NV
Smith Woodhouse (½) 1983
Warre 1991
Mellor LBV (Bucheiro) 1989
Noval Crusted 1965
Warre (½) 1985
Sandeman LBV 2008
Fonseca 1970
Grahams 1966
Taylor 1983
Warre Traditional LBV 1982
James & McCabe fine crusted 1984
Fonseca - Guimaraens 1984
Unknown shipper (was Graham) u/k
Dow 1983
Martinez 1970
Adam's 1963
Andresen 1963
Avery Special Reserve 1963
Borges 1963
Burmester 1963
Cachao (Messias) 1963
Calem 1963
Cockburn 1963
Constantino (OWC) 1963
Croft 1963
Dalva 1963
Delaforce 1963
Dow 1963
Ferreira (OWC) 1963
Feuerheerd 1963
Fonseca 1963
Foz, Quinta do 1963
Gonzalez Byass 1963
Gould Campbell 1963
Grahams 1963
Krohn 1963
Mackenzie 1963
Martinez 1963
Morgan 1963
Niepoort 1963
Noval 1963
Noval Nacional 1963
Offley Boa Vista 1963
Pocas Junior 1963
Quarles Harris 1963
Real Companhia Velha 1963
Rebello Valente 1963
Royal Oporto 1963
Real Vinicola 1963
Sandeman 1963
Pinto dos Santos 1963
Sibio 1963
Souza, Viera de 1963
Taylor 1963
De la Rosa 1963
Warre 1963
Berry Brothers (Taylor) 1963
Warre (Tappit Hen) 1977
Dow 1960
Churchill 1985
Delaforce (owc) 1977
Croft LBV (½) 2004
Martinez (believed) 1922
Warre Traditional LBV 1984
Morgan 1991
Warre 1970
Gould Campbell 1977
Unknown shipper (Hatch Mansfield) 1858
Malvedos (Grahams) 1976
Cockburn 1947

A small mid-year snippet of pointlessness. Over the 10 year life of my accumulated tasting-notebooks, I have tasted 15 pre-phylloxera Ports of which only the Loureiro 1871 has been tasted twice.

1815 - 2
1830 - 1
1851 - 1
1853 - 1
1855 - 1
1858 - 1
1863 - 4
1871 - 2
1873 - 2

15 tasting notes accounts for just under 0.5% of the 3,095 tasting notes that I have written to date.

According to your own statistics you have tasted the 1863 four times and the 1815 twice. Check the facts please Alex...

I would also argue that the 1871 scarcely counts as a pre phylloxera wine. Or did it arrive later in the duoro?

LGTrotter wrote:According to your own statistics you have tasted the 1863 four times and the 1815 twice. Check the facts please Alex...

Presumably different shippers within each vintage.

LGTrotter wrote:According to your own statistics you have tasted the 1863 four times and the 1815 twice. Check the facts please Alex...

I don't understand the point you're making. I've drunk from 2 different bottles which contained port from the 1815 vintage and 4 different bottles which contained port from the 1863 vintage.

I would also argue that the 1871 scarcely counts as a pre phylloxera wine. Or did it arrive later in the duoro?

This I completely accept. I was being loose with my wording. Phylloxera arrived in the Douro in the late 1850s but replanting on grafted rootstock did not begin until the mid 1870s. Thus strictly speaking the 1871 is not a pre phylloxera wine, but it is a wine from ungrafted vines which were probably struggling to survive louse attacks on their roots.

AHB wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:According to your own statistics you have tasted the 1863 four times and the 1815 twice. Check the facts please Alex...

I don't understand the point you're making. I've drunk from 2 different bottles which contained port from the 1815 vintage and 4 different bottles which contained port from the 1863 vintage.

Looking back I don't understand the point I was making. I think I saw 1815, assumed you were talking about the Ferreira and thought this is one wine tasted twice. But no, you have manged to find four different shippers of the 1863. Good work.

I do love the pointless statistics, please keep them coming.

In late 2013/early 2014 AHB wrote:Now for some cellar statistics:

92% of my cellar is Port, 3% Bordeaux, 2% Champagne, 1% Australian and the rest bits and pieces with no single source accounting for more than 0.5% of my bottles.

88% of my Port corks are in 75 or 70cl bottles, 9% in half bottles, 3% in large formats.

69% of my Port is Vintage Port, 24% is single quinta VP, 5% is LBV, 1% is Crusted and the remainder is NV, odds and sods and brown sticky stuff.

I have 446 different ports. 9% is from the 2011 vintage, 8% is from 1963 and 6% from 1994. 56% of my Port stocks are ready for drinking (ie. 21 or more years old).

15% of my Port is Vesuvio, 8% is Graham and 8% is Warre.

My cellar statistics are ready to be updated for the end of the 2014 calendar year (I still have quite a few tasting notes to type up so it will be a while before I can post tasting statistics).
My aim was to end 2014 with fewer bottles than I started. I failed; I have 7 more bottles now than I did at this time last year. However, that is the smallest increase I have managed in the last 15 years so all is not lost. Next year should see the number go down. This year my purchases were 3% Bordeaux, 5% Champagne, 10% English White Wine, 1% English Sparkling Wine, 1% other French, 1% Italian, 51% Port, 4% Portuguese, 8% South African, 16% Spanish.
4% of the corks I bought were in half bottles, 8% were in larger format, 88% were in 75cl bottles.
Of the Port purchased, 4% was LBV, 4% was crusted, 2% was colheita and the rest was vintage port.

91% (2013: 92%) of my cellar is Port, 3% (3%) Bordeaux, 2% (2%) Champagne, 1% (1%) Australia, 1% (<0.5%) South Africa, 1% (<0.5%) Spain and the rest bits and pieces with no other single source accounting for more than 0.5% of my bottles.

88% (88%) of my Port corks are in 75cl bottles, 8% (9%) in half bottles, 4% (3%) in large formats.

69% (69%) of my Port is Vintage Port, 25% (24%) is single quinta VP, 5% (5%) is LBV, 1% (1%) is Crusted and there is a handful of NV, odds and sods and brown sticky stuff.

I have 457 (446) different ports. 9% (9%) is from the 2011 vintage, 8% (8%) is from 1963 and 7% (6%) from 1994. 61% (56%) of my Port stocks are ready for drinking (ie. 21 or more years old).

15% (15%) of my Port is Vesuvio, 8% (8%) is Graham, 8% (7%) is Fonseca and 8% (8%) is Warre.

AHB wrote:My aim was to end 2014 with fewer bottles than I started. I failed; I have 7 more bottles now than I did at this time last year.

The fat lady has not sung. Bring eight bottles to the tasting on Tuesday 30^th December and you will have achieved your mission.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:My aim was to end 2014 with fewer bottles than I started. I failed; I have 7 more bottles now than I did at this time last year.

The fat lady has not sung. Bring eight bottles to the tasting on Tuesday 30^th December and you will have achieved your mission.

Not going to happen. I'm already committed to other things tomorrow night.

AHB wrote:Not going to happen. I'm already committed to other things tomorrow night.

Hmm: could I get to Wokingham in time to save AHB’s year?

Yes.

Time to make some more tappit hens then....3 should do it if you drink a further bottle while you work!

Thank you for the pointless statistics Alex, Christmas is no longer complete without them. I hope Tom will do a yearly round up too.

But just to question a few; I take it you include Vesuvio under single Quinta rather than vintage? And then there is a mention of 457 different ports with 446 in brackets; what does the 446 refer to?

I am rather surprised at the overwhelming preponderance of port in your cellar, I expected more claret. Good to see champagne gets a healthy slice of what's left. But no mention of burgundy.

I think figures in brackets are for last year. Page 2 of this thread contains discussion of how AHB classifies sqvp

RAYC wrote:I think figures in brackets are for last year. Page 2 of this thread contains discussion of how AHB classifies sqvp

I see I need to do my homework.

Done on the back of an envelope my statistics go; Champagne 5%, claret 29%, burgundy 12%, Madeira 2%, all port 43% (breaks down into 26% vintage port and 17% cellar defenders*/brown stickies) and everything else 10%. These are wines that will hang around rather than the daily ebb and flow from the cupboard under the stairs.

*To confuse matters I have included Tesco 94 among cellar defenders rather than vintage port. Cellar defenders include all crusted and SQVP.

LGTrotter wrote:And then there is a mention of 457 different ports with 446 in brackets; what does the 446 refer to?

RAYC wrote:I think figures in brackets are for last year.

Rob is correct - figures in brackets are the ones I reported last year.

LGTrotter wrote:I am rather surprised at the overwhelming preponderance of port in your cellar, I expected more claret. Good to see champagne gets a healthy slice of what's left. But no mention of burgundy.

What can I say? I am a port drinker; I drink port. When I can't drink vintage port I drink other port. When I can't drink other port I drink some kind of port. Only when I can't drink some kind of port will I drink something else - I drink perhaps a case a year of non-port wine from my cellar (and Mrs B drinks several times that, but rarely of claret). To keep up with my drinking preference I need a lot of port and not a lot of non-port.

Burgundy **shudder**. No. There is no Burgundy in my cellar. When a bottle occasionally turns up through gift or mixed lot purchase, it is used in cooking. If it is a great Burgundy it might be opened and consumed in the hope that it will reveal to me why people whose palates I trust rave about Burgundy. But no epiphany so far. Good Burgundy is wasted on me. There are others who will enjoy good Burgundy far more than I do and it would be churlish of me to be a barrier to the Burgundy-lovers of the world. I like my wines big, bold and brash - shiraz, claret, port, (rioja, sangiovese).

LGTrotter wrote:Done on the back of an envelope my statistics go; Champagne 5%, claret 29%, burgundy 12%, Madeira 2%, all port 43% (breaks down into 26% vintage port and 17% cellar defenders*/brown stickies) and everything else 10%. These are wines that will hang around rather than the daily ebb and flow from the cupboard under the stairs.

*To confuse matters I have included Tesco 94 among cellar defenders rather than vintage port. Cellar defenders include all crusted and SQVP.

I put Tesco '94 into my statistics as a vintage port. I think it's too good to be relegated to the status of cellar defender! Shame on you for dissing a top quality port simply because it's cheap(ish) and readily available. Who knows when stocks might run out and then you'll be sorry you called it a cellar defender - a 21 year-old vintage port being a cellar defender! Honestly! What are we going to do about the youth of today?

AHB wrote:I put Tesco '94 into my statistics as a vintage port. I think it's too good to be relegated to the status of cellar defender! Shame on you for dissing a top quality port simply because it's cheap(ish) and readily available. Who knows when stocks might run out and then you'll be sorry you called it a cellar defender - a 21 year-old vintage port being a cellar defender! Honestly! What are we going to do about the youth of today?

To readjust my statistics according to Alex's suggestion about Tesco 94 I now have 10% cellar defenders and 33% vintage port.

And did everybody get that? I'm youth! Or do you think the Alex's last statement was a more general comment unrelated to my status as Narcissus of ?

AHB wrote:Burgundy **shudder**. No. There is no Burgundy in my cellar. When a bottle occasionally turns up through gift or mixed lot purchase, it is used in cooking.

Cooking? Arrrggghhhhh.....

Never mind about the youth of today; what can we do about this kind of reckless behaviour in one so stricken in years?

Settle down. Here are my pointless statistics. What a waste of time. And there's an error: I realised halfway through the calculation that one of those lots wasn't a 6-bottle case any more as we'd drunk one last week. The perils of record keeping at Christmas. Needless to say I preferred to keep the error rather than change all the totals after it by one. This list includes anything in storage anywhere but not en primeurs that are undelivered. Also, I have counted some things as VP such as Vieira da Souza, Poças or Quevedo, as I have no proof that they are all 'single quinta' wines in the strict sense. Perversely, I also counted Bioma as a full VP. I know.

My cellar is 75% port of all kinds, 14% claret, 4% Sauternes, 1% Madeira and the rest is odds and sods.

38% of the cellar (51% of all port) is VP.
18% of the cellar (24% " " ") is SQVP.
10.5% " " " (14% " " ") is LBV of all kinds.
The rest of the port is TWAIOA/Colheita/White Colheita (combined makes 3% of the total cellar) or Reserve (3.5% of total).

Large formats (Mags and above) are 5.5% of my port. Halves are 8% of my port but 10% of my total cellar (because I have Sauternes in halves as well).

Where did that get us?

LGTrotter wrote:

AHB wrote:Burgundy **shudder**. No. There is no Burgundy in my cellar. When a bottle occasionally turns up through gift or mixed lot purchase, it is used in cooking.

Cooking? Arrrggghhhhh.....

Never mind about the youth of today; what can we do about this kind of reckless behaviour in one so stricken in years?

But what else would you suggest could be used to make a boeuf bourguignon?

djewesbury wrote:Where did that get us?

Nowhere, other than to confirm that you are in the right place when visiting the PORT forum and that you do not need to go elsewhere to seek solace and therapy. We can continue to act as your support group for at least another year.

AHB wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Where did that get us?

Nowhere, other than to confirm that you are in the right place when visiting the PORT forum and that you do not need to go elsewhere to seek solace and therapy. We can continue to act as your support group for at least another year.

We need a "willing patient" emoticon. And perhaps the Admins should be promoted to "Doctor" or even "Consultant".

djewesbury wrote:And perhaps the Admins should be promoted to "Doctor" or even "Consultant".

In the context of this thread, surely ‘Epidemiologist’.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:And perhaps the Admins should be promoted to "Doctor" or even "Consultant".

In the context of this thread, surely ‘Epidemiologist’.

I defer to your seniority, O Whatever-you-are.

I counted to 47 different ports from memory before I nodded off. I have more than this, but not very much more including one white port. So that makes it 48. At least.

Only one magnum of port.

LGTrotter wrote: burgundy 12%,

And what's the proportion of white and red burgundy in these 12 % ?

AW77 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote: burgundy 12%,

And what's the proportion of white and red burgundy in these 12 % ?

All red. I used to keep a dozen of mixed Chablis, but alas no more.

AHB wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

AHB wrote:Burgundy **shudder**. No. There is no Burgundy in my cellar. When a bottle occasionally turns up through gift or mixed lot purchase, it is used in cooking.

Cooking? Arrrggghhhhh.....

Never mind about the youth of today; what can we do about this kind of reckless behaviour in one so stricken in years?

But what else would you suggest could be used to make a boeuf bourguignon?

Was it Dow(?) 1963 or was that just for Spaghetti Bolognese?

PhilW wrote:Was it Dow(?) 1963 or was that just for Spaghetti Bolognese?

It was Fonseca.