ThePortForum.com

During my research on the declarations database I came across the following quote on page 232 of Suckling's Vintage Port:
"Hunt Roope had shipped all of its vintage Ports as the brand of Tuke Holdsworth. The company and its vintages were sold to Ferreira in 1956."

The data I have collected so far contains:

Tuke Holdsworth 1863, 1867, 1868, 1874, 1878, 1896, 1912, 1922, 1947, 1950, 1955, 1958, 1960 & 1995

And...

Hunt, Roope 1963

Does anyone know of any reason why these two brands should not be merged into one (Tuke Holdsworth) in the database?

Derek

Whence comes the list of vintages?

(For clarity I have edited the thread title to replace ‟&” with ‟and”.)

By all means merge these two together, but do ensure they are cross referenced so that anyone who comes across a label of Hunt, Roope not 1963 is able to identify what they have.

Also, I can only ask this question as all my reference books are now packed away in preparation for our coming building work - but when did Tuke Holdsworth and Hunt, Roope merge? For the names to be different, the two firms must have combined at some time in history and therefore they should be kept separate for at least that period of time.

Alex

I have evidence (from Suckling) that Hunt, Roope was a company but Tuke Holdsworth is always refered to as a brand. If fact, I slightly misquoted Suckling above. It should have read:

"Hunt Roope had shipped all of its vintage Ports as the brand of Tuke Holdsworth. The company and its vintage brand were sold to Ferreira in 1956."

JDAW wrote:Whence comes the list of vintages?

Various TNs and references by Broadbent and ALS.

There is a Tuke Holdsworth VP of the year 1983. I saw a pic on german ebay. Has anyone ever tasted a Tuke Holdsworth?

Axel