ThePortForum.com

At the Berry Bros. Port Walk, I enquired of Charles Symington whether the Gould Campbell brand had been discontinued (I felt a little bad as at the same occasion last year I put the same question to him regarding Martinez). Charles was honest and open about the situation for Symington Family Estates and said that they need to concentrate their brands, and that yes, regretfully, it appeared that GC would be put to sleep.

I told him that I thought that GC was a very popular brand with those who appreciate port, not least because it links us directly to the origins of port as a wine that was grown by independent Portuguese farmers and sold to British shippers to be vinified, aged and sold. He said that he enjoyed making it but that there was an economic reality staring SFE in the face.

I would be sorry if I thought that the Syms had intentionally bought up brands in order to discontinue them and divert their grapes into the production of supermarket BOBs, concentrating their market share. But I'm sure this isn't the case.

I will be starting a thread proposing a Gould Campbell vertical, to which I propose we invite Paul and Johnny Symington. Meanwhile, perhaps members might post their thoughts about the situation here.

A harsh economic reality, much the same as the dozens of now unused brands owned by the other conglomerates.

As much as we would like to believe that the Port trade can survive on sentiment and tradition the fact remains that it, like all other industries, needs to spend its marketing budgets and infrastructure on what is most profitable and sustainable. If supermarket BOBs are now a bigger part of that picture than secondary brands with funny names from families who left the trade a century or more ago then it is what it is.

What would you rather have? Gould Campbell 2015 in tiny quantities at £35 per bottle or copious amounts of the same juice as Sainsbury's Taste the Difference 2015 at £20 per bottle at Christmas?

I think the latter works better for both producer and consumer in today's market.

As usual, Derek is first in with the realpolitik. Ever onwards.

djewesbury wrote:I will be starting a thread proposing a Gould Campbell vertical, to which I propose we invite Paul and Johnny Symington.

Good idea.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I will be starting a thread proposing a Gould Campbell vertical, to which I propose we invite Paul and Johnny Symington.

Good idea.

Thank you, glad you think so

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10419&p=96642#p96642]Here[/url] DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Derek, perhaps you can tell Simon why tradition is unimportant and the only significant thing is the market?
And while you're at it, maybe you can tell us about Father Christmas.

Are we in the correct thread for that?

The answer being "no" I have moved the discussion to this thread.

I did not say tradition is unimportant. But tradition in itself does not pay the wages of the owners, farmers, tour guides, pickers, treaders, winemakers, lorry drivers, cleaners, cellar men, bottlers, distributors, agents, wine merchants and delivery men. Tradition lives on in the style of wine, not the number of old brands. The diversity of brands is a good point. We need lots. And we happen to have two or three times as many now as at any other time in the the history of port because of the change in regulation to allow Port to be shipped direct from the Qunita rather than only by established shippers in Porto. Vive la difference!

Father Christmas was invented by Coca-cola. I assume you won't want to continue down that line of argument?

I think we can mourn the passing of Gould Campbell without giving in to sentiment. I refuse to believe that even Derek, puppy-drowner-in-chief is not in part attracted to the old, the useless and the arcane which is so much of the port tradition.

It also begs the question of which next? Gould Campbell may not have enough champions to save it, but would Croft? Why have Dow, Warre, Graham and Smith Woodhouse sheltering under one umbrella? Surely the market response would be to to ditch three of the above, make one port and one super cuvée?

The answer is related to the side issue of capitalism. It seems to me that groupthink often leads the yammering parrots of 'the market force' to follow the current ideology, which at present seems to be consolidation and a reduction in the number of brands. This will be followed blindly until 'diversification' or whatever the next mantra happens to be comes along. Unfortunately there are casualties, Martinez, Gould Campbell and probably Smith Woodhouse next.

It also occurs to me that I have a clear idea of what most shippers stand for (Dow; drier and fuller, Graham; sweeter and richer etc) but I have no idea what Gould Campbell is about. Does anybody else know what it stands for? Other than as a canny buy in a few vintages, eg 1977.

LGTrotter wrote:I think we can mourn the passing of Gould Campbell without giving in to sentiment.

I would prefer to toast them for their contribution to the development of the product and trade we now love and enjoy, which is exactly what we should do at Daniel's tasting.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:diversification

I refer you to my earlier response. There are two or three times as many Port brands today than at any time in history. Darwin had a point.

And that is hopefully all to the good. But as a conservative in the matter of port I suppose I am prone to shroud waving at the demise of old shippers. The tide feels like it is going out on one of my great pleasures in life. I doubt that in forty years time the port market will be recognisable from what it looks like to my generation. But hopefully there will still be Graham and Taylor.

LGTrotter wrote:It also occurs to me that I have a clear idea of what most shippers stand for (Dow; drier and fuller, Graham; sweeter and richer etc) but I have no idea what Gould Campbell is about. Does anybody else know what it stands for?

Middle-to-slightly-dry sweetness; good body; some mocha bitterness mid-palate.

jdaw1 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:It also occurs to me that I have a clear idea of what most shippers stand for (Dow; drier and fuller, Graham; sweeter and richer etc) but I have no idea what Gould Campbell is about. Does anybody else know what it stands for?

Middle-to-slightly-dry sweetness; good body; some mocha bitterness mid-palate.

Mocha or indeed chocolate.

Will these shippers, Gould Campbell and Martinez, still be registered to the Symingtons? I mean will the name not be used but could theoretically be resurrected? Or does it cease to be a registered name and not easily brought back to life? I express myself poorly but I hope you see what I mean.

The brand name tends to be reserved by the conglomerate until such time as they no longer see a threat in market confusion if someone else was to begin using it. I think the owner of most historic brands is Ferreira, which seems to own dozens. Occasionally they will sell on the rights to another producer to use the brand, most likely with some conditions to ensure they do not degrade the seller's market position.

I might be wrong, but I think The Fladgate Partnership did this recently with the Delaforce brand, which was formerly a secondary brand of Croft. No doubt Daniel will correct me if I am wrong.

DRT wrote:No doubt Daniel will correct me if I am wrong.

Why only if you're wrong?

Feuerheerd is a name which recently came back to life. I think - but I'm not sure - this was one of the ones owned by Sogrape and is now owned by the people who make Barao de Vilar and Maynard's (another old name recently resurrected). I am sanguine about the demise of a brand name. These seem to have a habit of coming back with enough time - I recently saw a newly released Double Diamond port from Maynard's, that name being a blast from the past.

Perhaps Gould Campbell and Martinez (and others) will be retired, but 30 years ago we didn't have Vesuvio or Roriz or de la Rosa or Churchill or...

Perhaps to illustrate my point I can highlight the fact that 150 years ago we did have Vesuvio, Roriz,...

Rational self-interest and competition between port producers will have an overall positive impact on the industry. There are very few, if any, port consumers who will stop buying and drinking port because they can no longer buy Martinez or Gould Campbell.

And here's some completely unfounded speculation: there was no Gould Campbell or Martinez 2011 made. Quarles Harris 2011 was sold exclusively to Trader Joe. The Wine Society and Berry Brothers had blends from the Symingtons which were not the same as any of the wines declared under the SFE labels. Coincidence? 2 brands not declared, 2 unique and exclusive own label wines. Perhaps that is just coincidence, but I think it's also a very good way to keep some key customers and the consumers who buy from them happy. All the Symingtons need to do now is to make it clear to us collector-obsessive-drinkers that these are unique wines, not supplied to anyone else and we'll be crazy enough to go out and buy them to put into verticals, horizontals, comparatives etc. But I do need to be clear that is purely my speculation and I don't have any inside information.

To clarify,

Quarles Harris Port is a large seller here in the states, mainly their mid tier and lower stuff. AFAIK, Trader Joe's is the largest buyer and seller of the brand. Which as best I can tell is where most is sold. I'm sure we all can surmise that someone as large as Trader Joe's, with their massive wine buying division, probably can get what they want. Costco here is no different, except they also take the BOB route with Port (from Fonseca). Which TJ's hasn't with Port yet, though they do BOB with dry wines.

Andy Velebil wrote:Quarles Harris Port is a large seller here in the states, mainly their mid tier and lower stuff. AFAIK, Trader Joe's is the largest buyer and seller of the brand. Which as best I can tell is where most is sold. I'm sure we all can surmise that someone as large as Trader Joe's, with their massive wine buying division, probably can get what they want. Costco here is no different, except they also take the BOB route with Port (from Fonseca). Which TJ's hasn't with Port yet, though they do BOB with dry wines.

I was told that QH Vintage Port is only sold to Trader Joe's as-of the 2011 Vintage, so it is effectively a BOB at this point. I can't recall who told me that, but I think it was while on the Port Harvest Tour in 2014 so it might have been Dominic Symington. I also don't know whether or not that applies to their lower tier Ports.

Other enterprising retailers, notably K&L, have been known to purchase cases from TJ's and then resell them a significantly higher prices. Retail on QH11 from TJ's was $40... K&L bought some and marked it up to $80 (in line with other VPs from the vintage).

This is what I wrote regarding a similar thread on FTLOP (link below).

To add what Roy wrote. I've basically heard the same, with the addition that they may release them in lesser years since there is no direct Quinta associated with it. The combination of things I've heard leads me to speculate they didn't really know what the future holds for it, at least back when I heard it. I don't know if there is now a firm stance one way or the other.

That said, I too hope they continue it as it does put out some fine VP's which age nicely. But I also understand the business side of having too many labels, marketing budgets/issues, importers, distributors, costs, yada, yada, yada, that comes with each individual brand within an owners portfolio. I would hope if they decide to no longer use it they would sell off the brand so someone else could carry it on, hopefully to the same standard or more.

http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopfo ... =1&t=39082

Roy makes the point on that it is the connection between shippers and an individual Quinta which is significant for the Symingtons. This makes sense in the move towards site specific wines. It does seem a move away from the traditional model, with the focus on declared years and shippers, or as Alex pointed out earlier that it is a move back towards the traditions of Roriz and Vesuvio.

But I would agree with Roy that the quality of Gould Campbell does not seem to have suffered from the lack of a Quinta.

LGTrotter wrote:...

But I would agree with Roy that the quality of Gould Campbell does not seem to have suffered from the lack of a Quinta.

Actually, you could say it benefited from not having a Quinta. As one could pick the best lots from a variety of sources to get the best possible VP. Not being tied to one place does have it's advantages at times.

Only a year late -- so when will they dump GC 1980 on the market? I'd be happy to help them offload it