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/
That is about half the size of one of the very large Tonels you would see in a big producer's lodge in VNG. In other words, yes, it's a lot.RAYC wrote:So you're saying that roughly, for the 1050 litres available in bottle today, there would have to have been 53,000 litres in 1855 assuming a mid(ish)-point angel share of 2.5% p.a..
Is that a lot?
I know. But all producers of all old colheitas make the same claim in relation to whatever vintage is printed on the label. Why is this one different?jdaw1 wrote:Derek: the point about the compounding is to show that ‘refreshing’ must have happened, that’s all. The questioning is of the purity of any claim that it is 155 years old.
Actually, Taylor makes no claim about Scion being a Colheita. That's why the advertising is, to me, a bit misleading. They talk about it as if it is an 1855 Colheita, but they avoid using that term because it obviously isn't. I imagine that they're treading as closely as possible to some thin red line in that regard, because obviously an 1855 Colheita is more valuable than an 1855 Solera.DRT wrote:I know. But all producers of all old colheitas make the same claim in relation to whatever vintage is printed on the label. Why is this one different?jdaw1 wrote:Derek: the point about the compounding is to show that ‘refreshing’ must have happened, that’s all. The questioning is of the purity of any claim that it is 155 years old.
The largest containers that I saw on the Harvest Tour were around 27,000 liters, so they'd have needed to start with two of them not half of one. Most of the seemingly big Tonels in the lodges in V.N.d.Gaia were in the 17,000 to 20,000 liter range, though I think some were as small as 10,000 liters. Balseiros seemed to be smaller on average, though I don't have a good impression of their actual size. Probably 8,000 to 10,000 liters for the big ones.DRT wrote:That is about half the size of one of the very large Tonels you would see in a big producer's lodge in VNG. In other words, yes, it's a lot.
You've obviously never been to the Cockburn lodgeGlenn E. wrote:The largest containers that I saw on the Harvest Tour were around 27,000 liters, so they'd have needed to start with two of them not half of one.DRT wrote:That is about half the size of one of the very large Tonels you would see in a big producer's lodge in VNG. In other words, yes, it's a lot.
From the regulatory perspective, it wouldn’t surprise me if the IVDP has this just registered as a basic ruby, which is why Taylor hasn’t claimed its age on the packaging.Glenn E. wrote:Actually, Taylor makes no claim about Scion being a Colheita. That's why the advertising is, to me, a bit misleading. They talk about it as if it is an 1855 Colheita, but they avoid using that term because it obviously isn't. I imagine that they're treading as closely as possible to some thin red line in that regard, because obviously an 1855 Colheita is more valuable than an 1855 Solera.DRT wrote:I know. But all producers of all old colheitas make the same claim in relation to whatever vintage is printed on the label. Why is this one different?jdaw1 wrote:Derek: the point about the compounding is to show that ‘refreshing’ must have happened, that’s all. The questioning is of the purity of any claim that it is 155 years old.
They get darker, but they never gain red. That's lost slowly over time and it never comes back.DRT wrote:On the subject of colour, it is perfectly normal for very old cask aged wines to gain colour. Anyone who has had a newly bottled 1937 colheita will know what I'm talking about as they are invariably darker than their younger siblings from the same producer.
Again, why is this different to any other similar claim by any other shipper in relation to a very old wood-aged port?JacobH wrote:What does bother me about this is how it is possible to know that this was from the 1855 harvest? For instance, if the barrels have 1855 carved on them, who is to say that they didn’t once contain 1855 colheita but were refilled in 1900 or 1945 &c.?
Glenn E. wrote:They get darker, but they never gain red. That's lost slowly over time and it never comes back.DRT wrote:On the subject of colour, it is perfectly normal for very old cask aged wines to gain colour. Anyone who has had a newly bottled 1937 colheita will know what I'm talking about as they are invariably darker than their younger siblings from the same producer.
I still think the color in this picture is simply an artifact of the special product shot image editing that has been done. As I mentioned before, the 1963 Dalva Golden White Colheita is nowhere near as dark in person as it is in the literature.
Richard Mayson wrote:Deep mahogany in colour with an olive-green rim
Just a combination of factors: i) other very old wood-mature Ports have been about half the age of this; ii) they have been sold as colheitas which means at least the IVDP is happy that they are from that harvest; iii) they have come from lodge stocks where better records might be expected, rather than from family supplies in the Douro.DRT wrote:Again, why is this different to any other similar claim by any other shipper in relation to a very old wood-aged port?JacobH wrote:What does bother me about this is how it is possible to know that this was from the 1855 harvest? For instance, if the barrels have 1855 carved on them, who is to say that they didn’t once contain 1855 colheita but were refilled in 1900 or 1945 &c.?
I think you do.JacobH wrote:I don’t mean to give the impression that I doubt the age of this Port
The Burmester 1900 Colheita, which I have tasted and is mentioned earlier in this thread, is more than two thirds the age of this. Graham's recently claimed to have Colheita's as far back as the mid to late 1800s. Many other shippers have casks with extremely old years written on them in chalk. Why are we not questioning all of those?JacobH wrote:other very old wood-mature Ports have been about half the age of this
How could they possibly know? A 1900 "Colheita" was in cask for 50 years before they existed!JacobH wrote:they have been sold as colheitas which means at least the IVDP is happy that they are from that harvest;
Please confirm that you really mean that the regulatory body was founded post-WW2.DRT wrote:How could they possibly know? A 1900 "Colheita" was in cask for 50 years before they existed!JacobH wrote:they have been sold as colheitas which means at least the IVDP is happy that they are from that harvest;
This bit I find difficult to believe. How can a wine live in the Douro for 155 years, refreshed or not, and not be at least slightly "baked". That's 155 summers at 40ish degrees C. Anyone who has been in a Douro "cellar" (a very loose term as I haven't actually seen one yet that is more than 3/4 underground) will know that they are anything but cool.Richard Mayson wrote:exceptionally clean and fresh, not maderised or baked
Sorry for not checking exact dates. The IVDP, who regulate now, have existed since 2003. The IVP, one of three former regulatory bodies that existed prior to the creation of the IVDP, were created in 1933. I'm not sure this significantly changes the point I was trying to make.jdaw1 wrote:Please confirm that you really mean that the regulatory body was founded post-WW2.DRT wrote:How could they possibly know? A 1900 "Colheita" was in cask for 50 years before they existed!JacobH wrote:they have been sold as colheitas which means at least the IVDP is happy that they are from that harvest;
I don't understand the point of your quote.DRT wrote:Glenn E. wrote:They get darker, but they never gain red. That's lost slowly over time and it never comes back.DRT wrote:On the subject of colour, it is perfectly normal for very old cask aged wines to gain colour. Anyone who has had a newly bottled 1937 colheita will know what I'm talking about as they are invariably darker than their younger siblings from the same producer.
I still think the color in this picture is simply an artifact of the special product shot image editing that has been done. As I mentioned before, the 1963 Dalva Golden White Colheita is nowhere near as dark in person as it is in the literature.Richard Mayson wrote:Deep mahogany in colour with an olive-green rim
For me, at least, it is in part because of the price and hype. If you claim your Port is from 1855 and charge 2500 Euros for it, it is going to get more scrutiny than if you claim it is from 1900 and charge 800 Euros for it. If you claim your amazingly old Port is in near perfect condition and position it for high-end collectors it is going to get more scrutiny than if you simply put it on the market.DRT wrote:Again, why is this different to any other similar claim by any other shipper in relation to a very old wood-aged port?JacobH wrote:What does bother me about this is how it is possible to know that this was from the 1855 harvest? For instance, if the barrels have 1855 carved on them, who is to say that they didn’t once contain 1855 colheita but were refilled in 1900 or 1945 &c.?
I wasn't really making a point. I was just linking your comment on the colour of the picture to mayson's observations of the colour of the wine in the glassGlenn E. wrote: I don't understand the point of your quote.
Mahogany is not black, which is the color that Scion appears to be in the product literature, and which is the basis for my comment. I doubt very much that the Port is as dark in person as it is in that product shot. Further evidence? The cork in the product shot is very nearly white. I've never seen a cork that white.
What I'm saying is that the color in the picture should not be used as evidence of refreshing because the picture's color is likely not accurate.
I agree. But perhaps the discussion here will open eyes and minds as to what they are buying from other producers at a lesser, but still enormous, price.Glenn E. wrote:For me, at least, it is in part because of the price and hype. If you claim your Port is from 1855 and charge 2500 Euros for it, it is going to get more scrutiny than if you claim it is from 1900 and charge 800 Euros for it. If you claim your amazingly old Port is in near perfect condition and position it for high-end collectors it is going to get more scrutiny than if you simply put it on the market.DRT wrote: why is this different to any other similar claim by any other shipper in relation to a very old wood-aged port?
In short, this entire launch invites extra scrutiny.
Is Richard's note still there? I've looked, but can't find it.RAYC wrote:Richard Mayson has his TN on this up - pity I did not realise before as could have asked for further impressions at the Noval/Nacional tasting.
http://www.richardmayson.com/Port_Notes/
Andy: Elvas plums are not fresh fruit. The fresh fuit that goes into this are Rainha Cláudia plums. They are boiled and preserved in a sugar syrup. The taste mentioned in the TN I would imagine is of preserved fruit.Andy Velebil wrote:Ray,
Thanks...here is some background from Maysons site.part of his tasting note...a one-off bottling of a pre-phylloxera Port dating back to the mid”“nineteenth century, probably 1855. It comes from a quinta belonging to the late Irene Viana Pinto in the village of Prezegueda in the Corgo valley near Régua.Of the very old colheita's and tawny's I've had, I can't say I've ever run across a plum aftertaste in any of them.leaving an aftertaste of Elvas plums.
If it works on wine from 1860, it should cope with 1855.The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7755014.stm]Wine makers crack open hi-tech tricks[/url] and dated 28 November 2008, wrote:a second test on the wine itself was devised by Philippe Hubert at the Centre for Nuclear Studies.
It uses a gamma ray detector to study the levels of radioactive particles in the wine, in this case caesium-137, that have been present in the atmosphere since the era of atomic weapons testing began after World War II.
"The main advantage of this technique is we don't need to open the bottle to do these kinds of measurements," Professor Hubert relates.
"We just have to put the bottle close to or on top of the detector."
Using bottles donated from the chateaux, Philippe Hubert has built up a record of caesium-137 levels in wine across the second half of the 20th Century.
"In the wine," he says, "is the story of the atomic age."
The measurements show that caesium levels rise dramatically from 1951, reaching a peak at around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and then dropping dramatically, reflecting the atmospheric test ban treaty agreed by Presidents Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1963.
The next spike in the data comes in 1986, caused by fall-out from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
"If you have an old wine, say from 1860, for example; if you see some caesium in such a bottle, then immediately you can tell that this bottle is a fake one."
Most quoted dates give a window that is +/- 5% of a central date; so for an 1855 harvest, the accuracy should be good enough to confirm whether or not it is a pre-phylloxera wine.how accurate is that technique these days?
I've seen various accuracies, including Tom's +/- 5%. Also +/- 40 years, +/- 14 years, and "within 100 years during the best ages and up to 300 years during the weaker ages." Most discussions that I have seen say that carbon dating is only accurate back 3000-5000 years from present, but they don't say if there's a minimum age for accuracy to be established.uncle tom wrote:Most quoted dates give a window that is +/- 5% of a central date; so for an 1855 harvest, the accuracy should be good enough to confirm whether or not it is a pre-phylloxera wine.how accurate is that technique these days?
My worry would be that the test appears to have been conducted only on dry wine, which remains sealed in bottle for its entire life.jdaw1 wrote:If it works on wine from 1860, it should cope with 1855.
No, not at all. My view is this: this is an unusual wine, which is being sold at vast cost on the basis of its great age. Taylor’s would not be so foolish to be marketing this if they were not highly confidence of its provenance. If they got it wrong, and were found out, it would be disastrous for the brand and kill of any ability for it to sell other products in the ultra-premium market (which I’m sure they would dearly love to populate). I am therefore just curious on what basis they have decided this is from 1855.jdaw1 wrote:I think you do.JacobH wrote:I don’t mean to give the impression that I doubt the age of this Port
I think the difference here is that this is stated to have been found in a private cellar in the Douro valley. I think there is a world of difference between a cask of 1900 which was matured in a VNG cellar along with colheitas from 1905, 1910, 1920 &c. (especially as many of the shippers kept extremely detailed records of the cellars) and a long lost cask that was found in someone’s private garrafeira.DRT wrote:The Burmester 1900 Colheita, which I have tasted and is mentioned earlier in this thread, is more than two thirds the age of this. Graham's recently claimed to have Colheita's as far back as the mid to late 1800s. Many other shippers have casks with extremely old years written on them in chalk. Why are we not questioning all of those?JacobH wrote:other very old wood-mature Ports have been about half the age of this
Indeed, and looking at Alex's analysis of the hype, It's fair to say that the TFP have nailed their colours to the mast here.If they got it wrong, and were found out, it would be disastrous for the brand
DRT wrote:Breaking News: Scion is under-priced by a factor of 10 !!
Lafite Sets Wine Record $230,000 a Bottle in Sotheby's Hong Kong Auction
uncle tom wrote:There are some strange goings-on at these Hong Kong auctions..
- Sales that are billed simply as 'wine' but contain only French product...
- Sales where every lot sells above estimate..
- Sales where the cataloguing looks far too tidy..
- Sales that realise mega-bucks prices, often double or more those in London, despite the Chinese being the most cost-conscious buyers on the planet..
- and when non-French product does get offered, the prices seem quite modest..
Add to that the French willingness to indulge dirty tricks at government level, and I get very suspicious.
The possibility that the French are playing games to support their wine makers seems hard to dismiss...
..could the buyer and vendor of these bottles be one and the same, with a stooge as underbidder?
- I wouldn't be surprised..
Tom
When I'm not running around with gunpowder under my fingernails, I might take the time to do a little more analysis..Is there any possibility of a more formal set of evidence?
I've done a little research on this, and have opened some interesting bottles in the heart of China (in elevated company, where they were politely received - no more..)There's also this nonsense about how govt officials only drink lafite and if you wanted any business done, you'd have to get a lafite, but i think that's more rumor then truth.
That doesn't sound unlikely, but do you really think the same would be true if you limited the scope to the super-rich of Hong Kong and those from surrounding territorries who might shop there?uncle tom wrote: would be fairly confident in stating that over 95% of the Chinese who can afford it; have never heard of Lafite..
or how bout those like me who can't afford it but have heard of it =)DRT wrote:That doesn't sound unlikely, but do you really think the same would be true if you limited the scope to the super-rich of Hong Kong and those from surrounding territorries who might shop there?uncle tom wrote: would be fairly confident in stating that over 95% of the Chinese who can afford it; have never heard of Lafite..
made me think of this topic:heh, I thought lafite only put out like 5-10 of these imperials for the 61 vintage ever.jdaw1 wrote:Echoing comments above on the growing Chinese market, an email just arrived from Wilkinson with the subject ‟Lafite 1961 IMPERIALE for Chinese New Year !”. (Costing a mere ‟£30,000/imp”, tatty label and all.)