ThePortForum.com

At full resolution the whole photo looked photo-shopped. Perhaps the bottles were photographed separately, then brought together edge selection seemed hard rather than soft.

Note new design of Cockburn label. Slightly in the shadows in this pic, but an improvement on the old design, which always looks a bit clumsy..

The Capela da Quinta do Vesuvio is missing. I presume that since the Stone Thingummy picture was sent separately, that these are just the main brands and not the top-end labels.

djewesbury wrote:The Capela da Quinta do Vesuvio is

! the rightmost bottle.

Noval Nacional confirmed.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:The Capela da Quinta do Vesuvio is

! the rightmost bottle.

..is the Quinta do Vesuvio. Or is the rightmost rightmost bottle perhaps cropped from the image..?

djewesbury wrote:Or is the rightmost rightmost bottle perhaps cropped from the image..?

Not on my screen. Right-click and open image in new tab.

An updated picture from Cynthia J.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Or is the rightmost rightmost bottle perhaps cropped from the image..?

Not on my screen. Right-click and open image in new tab.

On a laptop with 11 inch screen it appears cropped. On a desk-top it is fine.

Just to clarify - updated photo of Stone Terraces label corrects the bottle count to final bottling - 250 cases / 3000 bottles - original photo was a draft label before we knew final numbers.

jdaw1 wrote:At full resolution the whole photo looked photo-shopped. Perhaps the bottles were photographed separately, then brought together edge selection seemed hard rather than soft.

I've only seen the lower resolution version, but I don't think this is a composite, assuming they are actually real bottles (vs graphic designer generated) due to the bottle reflections. There is clearly a strong light source from the right, behind the bottles onto the background, and at least a softer light from the front left side; The silhouettes of the other bottles within the reflection on the top left reflections on the Cockburn's and Vesuvio bottles appear proportionate and appropriate for positioning, so this would most likely be a real setup, unless a very high quality ray-traced image. From the inconsistency in aliasing pattern on the thin lines at the edge of the Warre label, I would suggest you may be right that the label is a tiny fraction rotated, which would also suggest the image is real and not ray-traced.

The main photo-shopped effect is probably a consequence of the high contrast, plus perhaps auto-sharpening within the camera (many cameras have this set a little high by default in my opinion to cope ideally with high-contrast images with narrow light/dark bands especially when vertical/horizontal).

I defer to PhilW’s greater expertise.

jdaw1 wrote:I defer to PhilW’s greater expertise.

You've got a few dummy bottles, a photo studio, two or three lamps and a photographer. Why would you spend thousands recreating a scene that takes an hour to set up and photograph in real life..?

I like the bottle serial number on the Stone Terraces label, together with the total amount bottled, but I do hope they don't pack it in silly presentation boxes..

Co-stacking the various case shapes - Vesuvio/Senhora da Ribeira/VVV - with the various regular wooden cases is an absolute nightmare.

I would so love to see the producers sit down and agree a standard size six pack design for all vintage port - if the various warring factions in Bordeaux can agree on packaging, why can't the Port producers?

Having seen the full resolution image, definitely a real pic; Lots of minor ephemera indicating real, not generated, including:
-- minor tear on Capela capsule
-- minor fold on Cockburn capsule
-- tiny corner of back bottom label on Vesuvio peeking out

Some interesting further details looking at the full image:
- Warre label probably not skew after all, just a consequence of lighting angles, (significant) aliasing only in smaller version
- Cockburn bottle has marking 12-29 on the bottom right; bottle manufacture date, or labelling following fill, I wonder?
- Sequential selos
- Quinta de Roriz is the only one not to have a ‟bottled by” statement on the front label

Original image sent to me, for those who care. But big: 2,034,769 bytes, 3543”†×”†2094 pixels. And the meta-tags have camera information.

PhilW wrote:Sequential selos

Suggesting dummy bottles.

(Yes, this is pointless. But as we haven’t tasted the juice we’ll discuss the photographs of the bottles. It is what we have.)

The publicity releases for the Symington brands quote alcohol, ‟Total acidity ”“ 4.20 (g/l)”, and Baumé. Sorted dry to sweet, they are:

Alc  Acid  Baumé  House
20%  4.3   3.4   Cockburn
20%  4.55  3.40  Dow
20%  4.10  3.50  Quinta de Roriz
20%  4.60  3.50  Capela da Quinta do Vesuvio
20%  4.35  3.60  Graham’s The Stone Terraces
20%  4.10  3.65  Warre
20%  4.10  3.80  Smith Woodhouse
20%  4.20  3.8   Graham
20%  4.45  3.90  Quinta do Vesuvio

jdaw1 wrote:The publicity releases for the Symington brands quote alcohol, ‟Total acidity ”“ 4.20 (g/l)”, and Baumé. Sorted dry to sweet, they are:

Scary. I'd just been looking at the difference between G11 and G11-Stone-Terraces (GST11 ?), and created a similar list of Graham over time, to try and see what this might suggest:

Alc Acid Baumé Year
20% 4.05 3.9 1970
20% 4.05 2.9 1977
20% 4.13 3.6 1985
20% 4.13 3.8 1991
20% 4.80 3.4 1994
20% 4.20 3.8 2011
20% 4.35 3.6 2011-Stone-Terraces

I admit this didn't give me any great insight, though. Will be very interesting to compare them directly.
Also noted that the Niepoort 11 and N11-Bioma (NiB11 ?) are much higher acidity (5.06 and 5.36) by comparison.

Baumé on x axis, total acidity on y, for those 2011 Vintage Ports for which data available, and some others.


Please let me know of other data that can be added.

PhilW wrote:- Warre label probably not skew after all, just a consequence of lighting angles, (significant) aliasing only in smaller version

I thought it was the Dow? Now that I'm looking at the original full-res image on my large desktop screen that one does indeed appear to be skew..

PhilW wrote:- Sequential selos

What is the missing 906534 supposed to represent? Do we have a numerologist handy? The digits add up to 9. which is 3x3.. is that inauspicious on the burgeoning Chinese market?

PhilW wrote:- Quinta de Roriz is the only one not to have a ‟bottled by” statement on the front label

but makes up for it by having a silly bit of card tied to it with some string. Surely the worst job in the bottling plant?

djewesbury wrote:What is the missing 906534 supposed to represent?

Presumably the strangely absent Stone Terraces.

PhilW wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:At full resolution the whole photo looked photo-shopped. Perhaps the bottles were photographed separately, then brought together edge selection seemed hard rather than soft.

I've only seen the lower resolution version, but I don't think this is a composite, assuming they are actually real bottles (vs graphic designer generated) due to the bottle reflections. There is clearly a strong light source from the right, behind the bottles onto the background, and at least a softer light from the front left side; The silhouettes of the other bottles within the reflection on the top left reflections on the Cockburn's and Vesuvio bottles appear proportionate and appropriate for positioning, so this would most likely be a real setup, unless a very high quality ray-traced image. From the inconsistency in aliasing pattern on the thin lines at the edge of the Warre label, I would suggest you may be right that the label is a tiny fraction rotated, which would also suggest the image is real and not ray-traced.

The main photo-shopped effect is probably a consequence of the high contrast, plus perhaps auto-sharpening within the camera (many cameras have this set a little high by default in my opinion to cope ideally with high-contrast images with narrow light/dark bands especially when vertical/horizontal).

i'd hazard to guess these bottles were taking on top of graham's light tasting table but I could be wrong

uncle tom wrote:
I would so love to see the producers sit down and agree a standard size six pack design for all vintage port - if the various warring factions in Bordeaux can agree on packaging, why can't the Port producers?

^^ This, my cellar looks like a random mess stacking boxes

PhilW wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The publicity releases for the Symington brands quote alcohol, ‟Total acidity ”“ 4.20 (g/l)”, and Baumé. Sorted dry to sweet, they are:

Scary. I'd just been looking at the difference between G11 and G11-Stone-Terraces (GST11 ?), and created a similar list of Graham over time, to try and see what this might suggest:

Alc Acid Baumé Year
20% 4.05 3.9 1970
20% 4.05 2.9 1977
20% 4.13 3.6 1985
20% 4.13 3.8 1991
20% 4.80 3.4 1994
20% 4.20 3.8 2011
20% 4.35 3.6 2011-Stone-Terraces

I admit this didn't give me any great insight, though. Will be very interesting to compare them directly.
Also noted that the Niepoort 11 and N11-Bioma (NiB11 ?) are much higher acidity (5.06 and 5.36) by comparison.

it's acutally a failed analogy to consider a higher baumé a "sweeter" brew.

It's simply a measure of density that loosely translates to residual sugar. What that simply tells me is that the 1977 G is one of the most "Watery" ports grahams has produced and if you taste the vintages you listed side by side, I would almost guarantee that most of us could pick out the 77 from the lot.

Is pH level irrelevant as a measure in terms of the acidity of a wine?

RAYC wrote:Is pH level irrelevant as a measure in terms of the acidity of a wine?

Do you mean in terms of whether there is a perceptible difference between 4.05 and 4.35, for instance?

djewesbury wrote:

RAYC wrote:Is pH level irrelevant as a measure in terms of the acidity of a wine?

Do you mean in terms of whether there is a perceptible difference between 4.05 and 4.35, for instance?

Are these measurements (4.05 and 4.35) of pH level, or of grams per litre? If the latter, does pH level correlate? GCSE chemistry was a long time ago, so i am lost.

And does it make a difference what type of acid (tartaric / malic / citric)?

RAYC wrote:Is pH level irrelevant as a measure in terms of the acidity of a wine?

http://www.grapes.msu.edu/pdf/Aromatic% ... tcolor.pdf

slide 19 is pretty interesting.

the perceived level of acidity can be changed with the addition of sugar.

also very interesting

http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistr ... lu_en.html

glutamic acid (the acid component accociated with MSG) has a ph 3.22
doesn't really percieve as sour, rather it does lower the ph of a solution.

Uncorked have published their pricing on the Symington 2011.

Roriz pricing looks ambitious!!

RAYC wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

RAYC wrote:Is pH level irrelevant as a measure in terms of the acidity of a wine?

Do you mean in terms of whether there is a perceptible difference between 4.05 and 4.35, for instance?

Are these measurements (4.05 and 4.35) of pH level, or of grams per litre? If the latter, does pH level correlate? GCSE chemistry was a long time ago, so i am lost.

And does it make a difference what type of acid (tartaric / malic / citric)?

btw to your question, ph level is entirely relevant to measure the acidity of a wine.

the types of acid simply makes up the mixture that would potentially lower or raise pH.

Tartaric acid is the lowest of the bunch and is usually used in wine making to stabilize a wine to keep out microbial bugs.

Will have to read up!

So what kind of picture of acidity does the quote of "grams per litre" (as published for Symington 2011s) give us in the absence of also giving pH levels?

RAYC wrote:GCSE chemistry was a long time ago

... at least you did it...

Uncorked have published their pricing on the Symington 2011

If those prices are mainstream, then they look a little ambitious (Roriz is clearly a typo)

They are, roughly, last price plus RPI; but since then, the wine investment market has caught a severe cold...

RAYC wrote:Will have to read up!

So what kind of picture of acidity does the quote of "grams per litre" (as published for Symington 2011s) give us in the absence of also giving pH levels?

I believe it gives you only the Total Acidity measured in grams per litre.

I think it means in a 750ml bottle

there are say 4.3 g/l of total acids

I believe it gives you only the Total Acidity measured in grams per litre.

I think it means in a 750ml bottle

there are say 4.3 g/l of total acids

I've never quite got my head round this one - all acids are not the same, so it must be referenced to a specific acid, or the figure won't mean much.

Whatever, I'm not really interested in acidity or sugar content, it's what it tastes like that matters...

uncle tom wrote: it's what it tastes like that matters...

i was beginning to think i was the only one.. you can put the label on upside down as far as i'm concerned...

djewesbury wrote:you can put the label on upside down as far as i'm concerned...

EU rules, dear fellow. Or the IVDP’s.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:you can put the label on upside down as far as i'm concerned...

EU rules, dear fellow. Or the IVDP’s.

us customs too.

can't ship it in without the certificate of label approval =)

g-man wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:you can put the label on upside down as far as i'm concerned...

EU rules, dear fellow. Or the IVDP’s.

us customs too.

can't ship it in without the certificate of label approval =)

i give up. i'm off to the cellar to deface everything down there....

Do any or all of these values change over time as a VP ages in bottle?

DRT wrote:Do any or all of these values change over time as a VP ages in bottle?

that sounds like a great question for the SFE!

I'd be very curious to see this too,

my assumption is yes because of Adrian's response re: the Taylor Scion that due to various evaporations they were able to determine the age by just measuring the ppb of Lead.

But what about in bottle where if the bottle were properly stored there's no ullage, if the port will truly get "denser"

It's the 23rd...

Taylor
VVV
Fonseca
Croft

All declaring

No word on Skeffington at this point..

Updated.

Good website work by the Syms and TFP, and by almost nobody else. Sigh.

No Quarles Harris. No Gould Campbell. No Martinez. No Skeffington. Is this the end of the no-terroir ports?

Any news on Noval Nacional?

No Quarles Harris. No Gould Campbell. No Martinez. No Skeffington. Is this the end of the no-terroir ports?

Or will they appear later? What will Tesco own brand VP be in fifteen years time..?

Either way, enough houses declaring to call this a general declaration, which it makes it the first '1' year to be generally declared in the two centuries since the system began..

Either way, enough houses declaring to call this a general declaration, which it makes it the first '1' year to be generally declared in the two centuries since the system began..

I guess 1931 had too few declaring to count as 'general' and 1991 was split 1991/2.

It is interesting looking at the number of times (or % of times) in which years ending with each digit are declared, to see if there might be any decision bias; The following is a rough count of general declarations for the last century (1901-2000, or 1900-1999, whichever you prefer) for years ending with each digit, with split declarations counted as a half - there might be argument about a few of the years as to whether they were 'general' or not, but the idea holds:

xxx0 5
xxx1 0.5
xxx2 1
xxx3 1
xxx4 2
xxx5 4
xxx6 1
xxx7 3.5
xxx8 1.5
xxx9 0

Overall therefore, it seems far more likely to declare in years ending in 5 and 0.. possible decision bias, though I'm sure the case could be argued for this being a coincidence, especially with 7 also have a decent count. Ok, so lets have a look at the 19th century instead:

xxx0 5
xxx1 2
xxx2 1
xxx3 3
xxx4 3
xxx5 2
xxx6 1
xxx7 3
xxx8 3
xxx9 0

These totals use TPF's list of declared years, as I do not know whether any of them were/were not general declarations. Again, years ending in zero are substantially ahead, though 5's do not feature so prominently. Interestingly again no years ending in 9 declared in this century either.

Should the first post be updated to nest Delaforce and Royal Oporto under RCV?

The maths of probability was never my strong suit.

Anyone able to work out the probability of this distribution occurring randomly?

Should the first post be updated to nest Delaforce and Royal Oporto under RCV?

Probably..

(main list omits NN - btw..)

uncle tom wrote:(main list omits NN - btw..)

Has NN declared? The QuintaDoNoval.com website is useless. Expensive glitz, not updated with relevant content.

Has NN declared?

Yes - Rute confirmed to me.

No immediate plans to market it though, and she hinted that the regular Noval may be late on parade.