ThePortForum.com

Auction, by Messrs. Christie Manson & Woods, on 11 June 1902, “A Portion of the Cellars of the Wines of Sir Cuthbert Peek, Bart., deceased, late of Rousdon, Devon, and 22 Belgrave Square, S. W.”, lots 96 to 105 totalling 30¼ “Dozens of Port, Thompson and Croft’s 1858 vintage, bottled 1861”, and sold at 42/- and 40/- per dozen; lots 106 and 107 totalling 6½ “Dozen Half-Bottles of Ditto” at 27/- and 24/- per dozen halves; and lots 108 to 117 totalling 21 “Dozen Magnums of Ditto” at 54/- to 50/- per dozen. (My pictures 20598/602/5-6.)

I like magnums, but the pricing in this auction says that most then didn’t.

Auction, by Messrs. Christie Manson & Woods, on 13 June 1902, “The Cellar of Wines of Frank Behrens, Esq. Deceased; late of 19 Park Street, W.”, lot 419 being “One Jeroboam of Port, 1820”, sold at £1.9.0 to “Blackborne”. (My pictures 20616-20.)

Auction, by Messrs. Christie Manson & Woods, on 25 November 1904, lots 115 to 121 totalling about 24 “Dozens of Port, Vesuvio Quinta, vintage 1897, bottled 1899, shipped by A. A. Ferreira”, and sold at 25/- to 20/- per dozen. (My pictures 20932/40-1.)

Auction, by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, on 7 June 1905, “Of Upwards of 600 Dozens of Choice Champagnes The Property of the Great Northern Railway Co.”. (My picture 20989.)

Auction, by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, on 4 April 1906, “The Property of R. T. Crawshay, Esq., late of Cyfarthfa, South Wales”, “Port. (All of which had been lying in the Cellar at Cyfarthfa Castle for at least 20 years before being removed to London in 1889).” “In the following 13 Lots (43 to 55), 24 dozen were recorked May 1905, but it is impossible to say which Lots were so treated. All 13 Lots were redipped May 1905.” Those 13 lots totalled 51 “Dozens of Port, 1858, Sandeman, early bottled”, and sold at 68/- to 64/- per dozen. (My pictures 21036-9.)

Post re-dipping, how could one have best identified which had been recorked?

jdaw1 wrote:Post re-dipping, how could one have best identified which had been recorked?

If the same wax had been used, I'm not sure you would be able to tell the difference.

Auction, by Christie, Manson & Woods, on 3 May 1911, “The Property of the late Rev. C. G. Archer, Alderton Rectory, Suffolk”. Some remnants of T68, O61 and O60.

Like father, like greatⁿ-grandson.

Actually?

djewesbury wrote:Actually?

We know an Archer resident near Suffolk, and know that his family live nearby. He has been asked — but probably won’t reply until after the fireworks season.

Christie, Manson & Woods, Monday 4 June 1923:

Sold at 75/-, 70/-, and 65/- per dozen, James Agg-Gardner buying lot 87.

(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s.)

Wood wine blended with 1/5th vintage? Peculiar stuff.

djewesbury wrote:Wood wine blended with 1/5th vintage? Peculiar stuff.

Precisely. Who would ever have thought that a big old barrel of wood aged Port would be freshened up with a young vintage?

What name would you give that if you were selling it today?

djewesbury wrote:What name would you give that if you were selling it today?

You are in the wrong thread.

And you couldn't possibly comment.

djewesbury wrote:What name would you give that if you were selling it today?

Single Harvest Tawny

Now then. Come on, it's not like there is any financial interest for the company in it being unadulterated.

That lovely line from Blackadder came floating into my mind again;
Percy; "But leaches come to us on the highest authority; the great Dr Hoff of Stuttgart"
Blackadder; "Ah yes, the great Dr Hoff, owner of the largest leach farm in Europe".

I once opened and drank a port which was described on the label as "Refreshed tawny of the 1896 vintage". What's wrong with making a product which you think tastes good and which your customers will enjoy.

As to what it would be called today, how about 10 year old tawny, or tawny reserve?

AHB wrote:I once opened and drank a port which was described on the label as "Refreshed tawny of the 1896 vintage". What's wrong with making a product which you think tastes good and which your customers will enjoy.

Nothing, as clearly the label reflected what was in the bottle. As I wrote my post I was thinking that I have found I enjoy, as a drink, old solera madeira better than very old straight vintage. I think Broadbent might have put me onto this in one of his books. It's a pity that solera wines are seen as somehow false and are no longer being produced.

AHB wrote:I once opened and drank a port which was described on the label as "Refreshed tawny of the 1896 vintage". What's wrong with making a product which you think tastes good and which your customers will enjoy.

1896 Elviro Garcia ‘Refreshed’ tawny.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:I once opened and drank a port which was described on the label as "Refreshed tawny of the 1896 vintage". What's wrong with making a product which you think tastes good and which your customers will enjoy.

1896 Elviro Garcia ‘Refreshed’ tawny.

My first tasting. Fond memories.

Auction, by Messrs. Christie Manson & Woods, on 31 March 1930, lot 34, “Burma Port”, being sold at 28/- per dozen. (My picture 21867.)


(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s.)

More or less? Can't they count to 30?

djewesbury wrote:More or less? Can't they count to 30?

Standard term used over the previous 1½ centuries meaning that the quantity was known only approximately. E.g., if doing a sale in a house, the contents of a bin might not be known precisely.

djewesbury wrote:More or less? Can't they count to 30?

They ran out of fingers and toes?