ThePortForum.com

I'm having some TPF business cards printed shortly for myself and JDAW; If anyone else wants more cards at the same time, please email me by the end of the weeked - I plan to place the order on Monday, and would intend to bring the cards to the tasting on 23rd April for those who will be there.

Phil.

Draft of my updated card, at half the resolution required by the printer.

Apologies if these questions have obvious answers, but:

i) why Churchilll 1970 and Vesuvio 1985?

ii) what are these business cards to be used for?

RAYC wrote:i) why Churchilll 1970 and Vesuvio 1985?

For the same reason as Noval Nacional 1927 and Fonseca 1935, of course. And indeed, for the same reason as all the others.

RAYC wrote:ii) what are these business cards to be used for?

For whenever you need a non-‘work’ port-related business card.

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:i) why Churchilll 1970 and Vesuvio 1985?

For the same reason as Noval Nacional 1927 and Fonseca 1935, of course. And indeed, for the same reason as all the others.

Hmm...initially i thought "ports that don't exist" but Ramos Pinto 1966, Niepoort 1912, Constantino 1900 and Cockburn 1977 don't fit that trend.

RAYC wrote:Hmm...initially i thought "ports that don't exist" but Ramos Pinto 1966, Niepoort 1912, Constantino 1900 and Cockburn 1977 don't fit that trend.

Well, ‟not a fully declared Vintage Port” rather than ‟don't exist”. Remind me when you had any of the other VPs.

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:Hmm...initially i thought "ports that don't exist" but Ramos Pinto 1966, Niepoort 1912, Constantino 1900 and Cockburn 1977 don't fit that trend.

Well, ‟not a fully declared Vintage Port” rather than ‟don't exist”. Remind me when you had any of the other VPs.

Ah - ok. There are Constantino 1900 and Niepoort 1912 colheitas.

As for the others, do i need to have had a VP for it to exist? Cockburn 1977 clearly exists, though the labels i have seen on google state "not officially declared". There is a record of Ramos Pinto 1966 being drunk at this tasting.

Cockburn made a VP-grade ‘crusted’ (that is what it says on the cork) for the partners, but did not declare a VP. Likewise 1980.

RP66: good googling. We have seen no contemporary evidence for an RP66, nor more modern evidence. This sighting is interesting, and when doing that chapter of the book I’ll investigate. So, pro tem, I don’t believe it. Perhaps a Colheita, of which RP make many.

When these cards were first made each circle came from a different company. Since when Ck has been acquired by the owners of V: should it be changed? Obvious candidate replacements might include Cá45 and Mz66.

PhilW wrote:I'm having some TPF business cards printed shortly for myself and JDAW; If anyone else wants more cards at the same time, please email me by the end of the weeked - I plan to place the order on Monday, and would intend to bring the cards to the tasting on 23rd April for those who will be there.

It feels presumptuous of me to say yes please.

order placed.

jdaw1 wrote:When these cards were first made each circle came from a different company. Since when Ck has been acquired by the owners of V: should it be changed? Obvious candidate replacements might include Cá45 and Mz66.

I quite like Cockburn 1977 on the card since there are few major declarations missed by a shipper (unlike Vesuvio 1985 which doesn’t exist because there wasn’t any Vesuvio-branded Vintage Port in that period.)

Does The Book contain a Table of Ommissions? I think it should: the reference purposes of it are clearly demonstrated by this thread

jdaw1 wrote:Cockburn made a VP-grade ‘crusted’ (that is what it says on the cork) for the partners, but did not declare a VP.

To label the 1977 as they did, it is my understanding that the Cockburn 1977 was ultimately approved as a "Vintage Port" by IVP/IVDP, even if it was originally bottled with corks labelled "crusted". However, i'd be interested to know if this is correct or whether i mis-understood the snippet of conversation referring to this that i have in mind.

RAYC wrote:To label the 1977 as they did, it is my understanding that the Cockburn 1977 was ultimately approved as a "Vintage Port" by IVP/IVDP, even if it was originally bottled with corks labelled "crusted". However, i'd be interested to know if this is correct or whether i mis-understood the snippet of conversation referring to this that i have in mind.

Considering that none of the Cockburn 1977 has ever been sold in conventional retail, I wonder why they went to the trouble of getting it re-graded as VP?

My understanding is that this excellent VP-grade port, made for the then partners of the firm, is officially a crusted, and if sold, would have to be sold as that. Approval was only as a crusted.

JacobH wrote:Does The Book contain a Table of Ommissions?

The original purpose of the book was a request, by me of Derek, for a Table of Omissions.

JacobH wrote:(unlike Vesuvio 1985 which doesn’t exist because there wasn’t any Vesuvio-branded Vintage Port in that period.)

Of the eight, three were too early (NN, Ch, V) and the other five were ‘Omissions’.

JacobH wrote:Considering that none of the Cockburn 1977 has ever been sold in conventional retail, I wonder why they went to the trouble of getting it re-graded as VP?

That assumes that it was officially submitted for "grading" or approval in the first place. Again, unless i have mis-remembered, i distinctly remember someone speaking with what seemed to me at the time as good authority that the bottling was never submitted for official "crusted" status....even if there was such a thing at that time (and certainly it would not seem to meet the modern criteria for "crusted", though i don't know when that was introduced).

Unfortunately i can't remember who it was that was telling me this...but it was at one of our big tastings. jdaw1 clearly disagrees though!

jdaw1 wrote:My understanding is that

RAYC wrote:jdaw1 clearly disagrees though!

Yes, but with imperfect certainty.

jdaw1 wrote:When these cards were first made each circle came from a different company. Since when Ck has been acquired by the owners of V: should it be changed? Obvious candidate replacements might include Cá45 and Mz66.

Since Mz is owned by the same people who own V and Ck that wouldn't help you much.

RonnieRoots wrote:Since Mz is owned by the same people who own V and Ck that wouldn't help you much.

Fair, but too late. Cards made.