ThePortForum.com

But do keep in mind that late bottled Vintage Port and "LBV" as we know it today can and is very different. Many VP's were "late bottled" in the older days. In talking with some producers it was quite common for VP shipped in casks to be bottled many years after it was produced and shipped as there was no set standard when to bottle. The actual strict bottling between second and third year is something relatively new in the scheme of Port production (post WW2 only) and is now more closely relegated since casks are no longer sent abroad for bottling. So older stuff could, and was, often bottled much later than 3 years after harvest. That doesn't make it an LBV as we know it today.

Paul Symington explains this quite clearly HERE in a thread on LBV's.

Fortnum & Mason, catalogue of 1961 1962, item 234: ‟Grahams old crusted, bottled 1951” at 25/- per bottle. In summer 1965 costing 26/6 per bottle.

Currently missing from list: please add.

In Autumn 1987 Fortnum & Masons sold, under the heading ‟Crusted Port”, both ‟Churchill (UK Bottled 1984)” at £7.65 and ‟Martinez (UK Bottled 1985)” at £7.50. Both are already in the list.

I’m puzzled by the ‟UK” bottledness.

Fortnum & Mason, catalogue 1991/2:
• Fortnum & Mason Crusted Port bottled 1986, £12.95;
• Graham’s, bottled 1985, £12.

Both missing from list.

jdaw1 wrote:I’m puzzled by the ‟UK” bottledness.

From memory, I believe that vintage port ceased to be shipped in bulk at an earlier date than other types of port. I believe that until relatively recently, it was possible to buy port in bulk and bottle it locally, just not vintage port.

Following a second visit to the Wine Society from the Wine Society catalogue dated May 1966:

Please add the Guimaraens 1958.

From the Wine Society catalogue dated Spring 1969:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated 1970/71:

Taylor LBV 1965 - I have one of those

Curiously, I have now seen references to Taylor '65 having been bottled in 1969, 1970 & 1971..

(Database now updated)

Tom

As it was a "new" concept in terms of being a commercial product, perhaps they just bottled it on demand?

From the Wine Society catalogue dated 1972/3:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated Jan/March 1973:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 1973 to March 1974:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 1974-March 1975:

So anyone know, or can estimate, what those prices would be the equivalent of nowdays?

Andy V wrote:So anyone know, or can estimate, what those prices would be the equivalent of nowdays?

£2.50 in 1975 is equivalent to around £10 today. A bottle of Crusted port costs around £13-15 today which suggests that it is now more expensive than it was 34 years ago, but that may be explained by the relatively low quantities in which it is now produced compared to back then.

From the Wine Society catalogue dated April to September ’75:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 77/March 78:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 78/April 79:

(Too long? Read only the second ¶, then add Fonseca Crusted of Feb 1970 to the list.)

From the Wine Society catalogue dated May/September 1979:

DRT wrote:

Andy V wrote:So anyone know, or can estimate, what those prices would be the equivalent of nowdays?

£2.50 in 1975 is equivalent to around £10 today. A bottle of Crusted port costs around £13-15 today which suggests that it is now more expensive than it was 34 years ago, but that may be explained by the relatively low quantities in which it is now produced compared to back then.

Thanks. Not a bad deal back then

From the Wine Society Revised List dated July 1979:

A bottle of Crusted port costs around £13-15 today which suggests that it is now more expensive than it was 34 years ago, but that may be explained by the relatively low quantities in which it is now produced compared to back then

I recall that soon after I first started pub-going in 1978, the price of a pint went from 33p to 34p - shock!, horror! - why?? - you couldn't get three pints for a pound anymore..

Today, in the same pub, a pint costs £2.90 - nearly nine times as much..

Inflation is a hugely manipulated statistic; and changes in duty rates make no account for the change in alcohol prices.

Anything that is actually made in the UK or europe has rocketed in cost, while cheap product from China et. al., combined with some very inventive number crunching, (notably by including cutting edge expensive gadgets in the inflation 'basket', and then dropping them when they become commonplace, and the price has fallen..); contrive to make the 'official' inflation rate much lower than it really is..

Tom

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 81/March 82:


(List missing Dow bottled 1974; list already has Cockburn bottled 1974.)

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 88/March 89:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated January ”“ March 1992:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated May ”“ September 1995:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated January ”“ April 1998:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated June ”“ September 2000:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 2002 ”“ February 2003:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated August ”“ October 2004:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated July ”“ October 2006:

Does ‟2006” minus ‟four” = equal 2002? But the same phrasing occurred in several catalogues: perhaps this is the 2001 and non-updated wording. As the 2001 bottling occurs in later catalogues, we should be cautious and not be confident that this is the 2002 bottling.

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 2007 ”“ January 2008:

From the Wine Society catalogue dated April ”“ July 2009:

•â—Š• Here ends the list of crusted ports in my Wine Society data. •â—Š•

From various Berry Brothers price lists - the dates being in the file names:
For some reason some photos are scaled down to fit and others are not. Don't know why as the source photos are all the same size

List updated.

Vintage character wines judged to be a different beast and not included. Implication of the existence of a Fonseca '02 probably erroneous, so also not included.

Also added: Churchill 2004 - now released. Churchill appear to have skipped 2003.

Note existence of Fonseca '70 Crusted - caution needed when buying F70 VP if bottled by the WS..

Tom

uncle tom wrote:Vintage character wines judged to be a different beast and not included.

I have been reading H. Warrner Allan's "The Wines of Portugal" (1963) today and found the following introduction to his definition of Crusted Port:

H. Warner Allan wrote:CRUSTED PORT, otherwise Port of vintage character, if a step lower in rank, belongs to the aristocracy, since it owes its maturity to the bottle.

When did the modern "Vintage Character" (i.e. the filtered premium ruby port that is now known as "Reserve") come into being? I suspect that the vintage character wines listed by BBR are in fact Crusted rather than being the now defunct VC that never quite seemed a plausible name for the style of wine we know it was.

Worshipful Company of Drapers, Livery Dinner, 25 March 1970:

Yes, the menu was hideously coloured.

Justerini & Brooks, 1963/64 wholesale catalogue:

(This is already in the list.)

Justerini & Brooks, 1964 wholesale catalogue:

(This is already in the list.)

Justerini & Brooks, Autumn 1973, my picture being rather out-of-focus:

• Taylor’s Crusted (Bottled 1969);
• 1952 Ferreira Crusted (Oporto Bottled) £2·45;
• 1947 Offley Crusted (Oporto Bottled) £3·50.

Justerini & Brooks, Autumn 1976:

(This is already in the list.)

Morgan Furze, 1977:

As a good proportion of the work in this thread has been done by yours truly, would there be much unhappiness if it were to become a chapter in the book currently (not being) written by DRT and I?

jdaw1 wrote:As a good proportion of the work in this thread has been done by yours truly, would there be much unhappiness if it were to become a chapter in the book currently (not being) written by DRT and I?

I'm more bothered by the grammar. If it were written just by you would you have said "written by I?" Obviously not, this does not go out of the window just because you've added a third person into the sentence. It is always incorrect to use 'I' as the object as it is a pronoun whilst 'me' is the first person object. In this case you are the object so it is "written by DRT and me?"

"It is I" is considered correct only in very formal and distinctly pretentious circumstances whilst "It's me" is more informal and friendly. This is no excuse for the above.

Please do not make this faux pas again.

KillerB wrote:Please do not make this faux pas again.

Noted. Agreed.

Justerini & Brooks, Autumn 1980.