A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
No, that's exactly correct. 90-95 is traditionally outstanding, while 95-100 is exceptional. 80-85 is above average and 85-90 is very good.DRT wrote:The range 92-95 also seems to be inconsistent with the description "outstanding"
But the ‘worst’ of them, Ervamoira and Santa BÃ rbara, scored 84-87. Maybe arithmetic has changed since the scale was first introduced.Glenn E. wrote:80-85 is above average
Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average. There's nothing in the scale that says the average is just for VP - a low-quality basic ruby might be just the wine to score in the 50s or 60s. Frankly I wouldn't expect any VP to score below 80... it is almost by definition an above average Port.jdaw1 wrote:But the ‘worst’ of them, Ervamoira and Santa BÃ rbara, scored 84-87. Maybe arithmetic has changed since the scale was first introduced.Glenn E. wrote:80-85 is above average
The word 'average' is a little dangerous when engaging in transatlantic conversations. The British normally regard average to be the mean or median, with as many better as there are worse, while the Americans tend to use the word to indicate something that is of serviceable quality, but below expectation.Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average.
I don't think those are speculative prices since they are extremely consistent with Adrian Bridge's guide that he gave on Wednesday and I know that Metzendorff sent out their offer to retailers late last week.ajfeather wrote:I laughed, Fine & Rare in the UK have put up GBP prices for some of the fladgate 2007's, assuming IB:
Skeffington 240
Croft 331
Fonseca 399
Taylor 414
No mixed case...yet...
Not sure if these are "speculative" prices.
(I removed the TNs which appear earlier in this thread.)Southwick Court Fine Wines Ltd wrote:Ports are offered per case of 12 bottles packed in wooden cases of 6 bottles. IB London. Formats available Halves,bottles,Magnums,There will be a small surcharge for Halves & Magnums.
TAYLOR FLADGATE Vintage Port Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 2007 Score: 97-100
£1080:00 per case 12/1 IB
GRAHAM Vintage Port 2007 Score: 96-99
£399:00 per case 12/1 IB
WARRE Vintage Port 2007 Score: 95-98
£350:00 per case 12/1 IB
DOW Vintage Port 2007 Score: 94-97
£375:00 per case 12/1 IB
TAYLOR FLADGATE Vintage Port 2007 Score: 94-97
£400:00 per case 12/1 IB
FONSECA Vintage Port 2007 Score: 92-95
£385:00 per case 12/1 IB
GOULD CAMPBELL Vintage Port 2007 Score: 92-95
£250:00 per case 12/1 IB
QUARLES HARRIS Vintage Port 2007 Score: 91-94
£250:00 per case 12/1 IB
CROFT Vintage Port 2007 Score: 89-92
£330:00 per case 12/1 IB
Yes, we Americans do have two definitions of the word, but as my degree is in Mathematics I generally use the correct mathematical definition (otherwise also known as the mean).uncle tom wrote:The word 'average' is a little dangerous when engaging in transatlantic conversations. The British normally regard average to be the mean or median, with as many better as there are worse, while the Americans tend to use the word to indicate something that is of serviceable quality, but below expectation.Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average.
Glenn E. wrote:Yes, we Americans do have two definitions of the word, but as my degree is in Mathematics I generally use the correct mathematical definition (otherwise also known as the mean).uncle tom wrote:The word 'average' is a little dangerous when engaging in transatlantic conversations. The British normally regard average to be the mean or median, with as many better as there are worse, while the Americans tend to use the word to indicate something that is of serviceable quality, but below expectation.Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average.
In the case of Port (pun intended) even the mean is difficult, though. Do you base it on volume or number of labels?
Regardless, considering Port as a whole and not just Vintage Port, I think it is quite safe to assume that Suckling was correct to rate all of the Ports he tasted "above average" or better. He tasted only Vintage Port, and presumably only the ones that were self selected by the producers for his tasting. Self selected samples like that are generally skewed toward the high end of any scale. After all, if you know that you have a sub-standard product, why bother submitting it for a professional comparison?
The winemakers would certainly have us believe that, and in fairness, the technology now available to them should make this a reality.Is it an indication that the overall wine quality in the world has gone up in which case the "average" wine would need to be reshifted.
If you're comparing a wine against all other 2007s then yes I would agree with you. But if you were a spectator trying to base your judgment on the merits of the 2007 vintage compared to earlier vintages, then it would be fair to have wines that are above average compared to let's say 1975 vintage.uncle tom wrote:The winemakers would certainly have us believe that, and in fairness, the technology now available to them should make this a reality.Is it an indication that the overall wine quality in the world has gone up in which case the "average" wine would need to be reshifted.
In practice we have in recent years seen a huge improvement in the quality of wine at the cheapest end of the spectrum, especially red table wines coming from the southern hemisphere, while other types of wine have also, I think, mostly improved.
However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway.
It is therefore meaningless and nonsensical to argue that all the wines are 'above average'
Tom
So by your line of reasoning, if you only taste two wines at a tasting and one of them is a 1931 Noval Nacional, the other one must be rated a 0.uncle tom wrote:However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway.
It is therefore meaningless and nonsensical to argue that all the wines are 'above average'
I'm sure I got lost in that last one somewhere, but Tom's right here. You can only compare apples to apples and in this case the apples are 2007 VP Cask Samples. You can only factor in the ones actually tasted. You cannot factor in other 2007's that you have not yet tasted.uncle tom wrote:
However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway
Tom
no, but you can factor in that james compares the 07 to previous vintages that have been tasted on release. He's comparing it to release ports of previous vintages back to the early 80sAndy V wrote:I'm sure I got lost in that last one somewhere, but Tom's right here. You can only compare apples to apples and in this case the apples are 2007 VP Cask Samples. You can only factor in the ones actually tasted. You cannot factor in other 2007's that you have not yet tasted.uncle tom wrote:
However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway
Tom
You can compare them to other vintages as a whole, but when you do that you have to use the average of all the 2007's actually tasted. The drawback is other VP vintages have anywhere from 4-100+ years of further development in them and the '07s have a whole 18 months worth of age on them. To be fair at this stage you would really have to compare them to what other vintages were like at this stage...and not many people have the prior experience with VP cask samples to do that.
Exactly. And if you're going to report your scores using the 100-point scale, which is commonly used to rate other Ports, then those scores must make sense when compared to other scores on the same scale.g-man wrote:no, but you can factor in that james compares the 07 to previous vintages that have been tasted on release. He's comparing it to release ports of previous vintages back to the early 80s
But we are talking CASK SAMPLES here, most of these have not been bottled yet. There is a lot that goes on between bottling and when they are available for purchase some 6ish+ months later. It's much easier to compare them to other vintages once they settle down after bottling. Also why very few wineries in the world immediately ship wine after it's been bottled. Most will wait a period so wines have a chance to recover from "bottling shock." But yes it is fun to compare them, but until they have time to settle and age at least a little, it's really speculation at this point....but it is fun to speculateGlenn E. wrote:Yes I agree, there will always be those on the higher end and some on the lower end, but in general it's safe to say that generally speaking a major declared year is better overall and generally produces far more above average wines as a result.g-man wrote: Suckling has the experience to rate cask samples, and he's even giving a range instead of a discreet score to give a little bit of wiggle room. But to say that something is wrong simply because he rated all of the Ports "above average" is ludicrous. Above average is the very nature of what Vintage Port is within the Port spectrum.
And frankly, Andy, if you're going to make that argument then it has to apply across the board. If you can't compare a 2007 cask sample to a 2003 VP, then you can't compare a 2003 VP to a 1985 VP etc. (A 2003 is 4 times as old as a 2007 cask sample. A 1985 is 4 times as old as a 2003.) Cask samples are only special in that they are EXTREMELY young. They're still Port and they still go through the same maturation process as any other Port.
rated 85/100!)But most of the wines produced in the world, and possibly most of the ports, are not even considered worthy of a score. Go to a large supermarket and note down the names of 10 random wines the cost around $10. You will probably find nothing anything like a rating of any of them on the internet. All of these functional gluggers represent the below average contingent. In port terms, that would be all of the standard rubies and tawnies from almost every house. Who except us would ever dream of rating Armilar Ruby or Cruz Tawny - no one.jdaw1 wrote: so few wines of any description score <80 that the idea that ‟80-85 is above average” is plainly nonsensical.
I read this as being a little disappointing for Fonseca standards, a judgement that I can follow, as Fonseca is usually expected to end up in the top of the pack. In the same league, I found the score for Croft slightly disappointing after their epic 2003. Still, in itself, it's not a bad score.Andy V wrote:How do you get "A little disappointing" and "Clearly outstanding" all in one sentance??? Quite interesting I must say.FONSECA Vintage Port 2007 Score: 92-95
Cooked raspberry, with hints of lemon peel and leaf. Full-bodied and medium sweet, with a beautiful density and a sweet fruity and tannic aftertaste. Balanced yet muscular. A little disappointing, but clearly outstanding. J.S.
Ehm, Suckling has been doing just this since the 1980 vintage. Is that enough experience for you?Andy V wrote:To be fair at this stage you would really have to compare them to what other vintages were like at this stage...and not many people have the prior experience with VP cask samples to do that.
I think sea water would be rated on its own scale, not the one used to rate wine. I am pleased that you didn't challenge my view with anything resembling logic.jdaw1 wrote:Why restrict yourself to that? There’s a lot of seawater in the world too: surely the ‘above average’ should include all that salty Nor-any-drop-to-drink. Cruz Ruby looking good?
I couldn't agree more - I have tasted quite a few now, all blind, and almost all of them are scrumptious. Quite a few seem to be big robust wines that will take a very long time to mature.AHB wrote:Perhaps when Suckling wrote that in his opinion 2007 ports were all was "above average", he was using a euphamism for "effing delicious".
Exactly. Very few (if any) wines are ever rated <=60 because no one bothers. It's not because the wines don't exist, but because most people are only interested in finding a good wine to buy and so don't care about basic plonk.DRT wrote:But most of the wines produced in the world, and possibly most of the ports, are not even considered worthy of a score.jdaw1 wrote: so few wines of any description score <80 that the idea that ‟80-85 is above average” is plainly nonsensical.
Yes it is, it's actively encouraged. As this is a completely open site we are happy to post links and references and encourage it as it shows the original source without posting the whole article. We have no business interests and no sponsorship so no restrictions.Alex M wrote:Some more 2007 vintage prices at:
http://www.nywines.co.uk/newreleases/of ... ntage+Port
N.B. Is it ok to post website links?
Quoth the mysterious "admin"admin wrote: As this is a completely open site.
Alex M wrote:Some more 2007 vintage prices at:
http://www.nywines.co.uk/newreleases/of ... ntage+Port
Code: Select all
Dow's Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £182.00
Graham's Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £201.50
Gould Campbell Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £125.00
Quarles Harris Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £120.00
Smith Woodhouse Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £138.00
Vesuvio Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £180.00
Warre's Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £168.00
Croft Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £165.00
Case Qty: 12 Under Bond Case Price: £324.00
Croft Vintage Port 2007 HALVES
Case Qty: 24 Under Bond Case Price: £331.00
Croft Vintage Port 2007 MAGNUMS
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £324.00
Fonseca Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £199.00
Case Qty: 12 Under Bond Case Price: £391.00
Fonseca Vintage Port 2007 HALVES
Case Qty: 24 Under Bond Case Price: £415.00
Fonseca Vintage Port 2007 MAGNUMS
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £408.00
Skeffington Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £120.00
Case Qty: 12 Under Bond Case Price: £235.00
Skeffington Vintage Port 2007 HALVES
Case Qty: 24 Under Bond Case Price: £243.00
Skeffington Vintage Port 2007 MAGNUMS
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £232.00
Taylor's Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £205.00
Case Qty: 12 Under Bond Case Price: £406.00
Taylor's Vintage Port 2007 HALVES
Case Qty: 24 Under Bond Case Price: £413.00
Taylor's Vintage Port 2007 MAGNUMS
Case Qty: 6 Under Bond Case Price: £406.00
Taylor's Vinha Velha Vintage Port 2007
Case Qty: 3 Under Bond Case Price: £265.00I also asked them if they would ask about the mysterious TPF mixed case.JacobH wrote:When I went in last week they said they hadn’t yet heard release prices from TFP.
I've been surprised at the number of places where it has sold out, although I suppose release quantities must be tiny.jdaw1 wrote:Noel Young Wines also selling ’07s.
Interesting that TVVV is already sold out.
No, so I asked the question and received this answer:JacobH wrote:Has anyone seen the Cockburn (or Quinta dos Canais) for sale?
I suspect that since Maxxium are newly appointed that they have not yet had time to prepare the offers for the trade. I suggest that if you have a favourite retailer that you ask them to approach Maxxium and see what the pre-release prices would be for the Cockburn wines.Miguel Corte-Real wrote:Dear Alex ,
Thank you for your message.
I’m forwarding your email to Jane Wilson , from Maxxium UK , our new agents since April 1st. Jane is Cockburn’s Brand Manager , and I’m sure she will be more than pleased to answer you. Cockburn’s and Canais 07 were bottled just last week and they will be ready to start going to market at the end of this month. I’m also attaching our press release with tasting notes . The Touriga Nacional and Franca cask samples I took with me for the big vertical tasting were in fact an important part of the final blends.
All the best ,
Miguel
Lea and Sandeman wrote:TERMS:
All prices quoted are per case of six bottles (.75cl) In Bond (subject to duty and vat).
The minimum order at the OFFER prices is 12 bottles. Orders for 6 bottles will be subject to a £15.00 ex vat surcharge.
Please make it clear at the time of ordering whether you wish to be invoiced In Bond (for delivery to an IB account), or duty paid.
Wines will be deliverable Autumn/Winter 2009 - but we can issue certificates of ownership for God-children and so on.
2007 SMITH WOODHOUSE (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £135.00 ib
2007 WARRE (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £165.00 ib
2007 QUINTA DO VESUVIO (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £175.00 ib
2007 DOW (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £185.00 ib
2007 FONSECA (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £200.00 ib
2007 GRAHAM (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £205.00 ib
2007 QUINTA DO NOVAL (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £225.00 ib
2007 SILVAL Quinta do Noval (75cl bottles, wood case of6) £110.00 ib
2007 TAYLOR (75cl bottles, wood case of 6) £210.00 ib
2007 TAYLOR Vinha Velha (75cl bottles, wood case of 3) £335.00 ib
James Maitland of [url=http://www.seckfordwines.co.uk/]Seckford Wines[/url] wrote:2007 Taylor’s ~ £195 per 6 bottles
2007 Fonseca ~ £190 per 6 bottles
(£380 per 12 bottles, 24 halves, 6 magnums)
2007 Croft ~ £160 per 6 bottles
(£320 per 12 bottles, 24 halves, 6 magnums)
2007 Skeffington ~ £115 per 6 bottles
(£230 per 12 bottles, 24 halves, 6 magnums)
2007 Graham’s ~ £190 per 6 bottles
(£190 per 12 halves; £380 per 12 bottles or 6 magnums)
2007 Dow’s ~ £175 per 6 bottles
(£175 per 12 halves; £350 per 12 bottles or 6 magnums)
2007 Quinta do Vesuvio ~ £175 per 6 bottles (presentation case)
(£175 per 12 halves or 3 magnums)
2007 Warre’s ~ £160 per 6 bottles
(£160 per 12 halves; £320 per 12 bottles or 6 magnums)
2007 Smith Woodhouse ~ £135 per 6 bottles
(£135 per 12 halves; £270 per 12 bottles or 6 magnums)
2007 Quinta do Noval ~ £200 per 6 bottles (very limited availability)
2007 Silval ~ £99 per 6 bottles