ThePortForum.com

Auction, by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, starting 20 November 1888, “Of The Cellar Of Fine Old Wines, The Property Of Charles B. Elmsall Wright, Esq., Of Bolton Hall, Clitheroe, Comprising Upwards of 2000 Dozens Of Choice Sherry, Madeira, Port, Claret, Hock, Sauterne, Champagne, Moselle, and Liqueurs, in Bottles, Half Bottles, Magnums, and Triple Bottles. The Wines (with the exception of about 170 Dozens, as shown in the Catalogue) were all supplied by Mr. William Fennell, of Wakefield, and are now lying in the capital Cellars at Bolton Hall, where they were laid down by him, with few exceptions, in 1872, and have not since been disturbed.”

On the first day of the sale lots 100 to 107 totalled 32 “Dozens of Port, Vintage 1851, “Extra,” Tuke, Holdsworth & Co., Bottled by W. Fennell, January 1857, and laid down 1872, Capsuled”, sold at 90/- and 96/- per dozen.

On the third day of the sale lots 555 to 561 totalled 21 dozen and 5 bottles “of Port, Vintage 1851, “Plain,” Tuke, Holdsworth & Co., Bottled by W. Fennel, March 1854, and laid down in 1872”, sold at 108/- to 102/- per dozen.

So “Extra” was cheaper than “Plain”. Not what I would have guessed.

(My pictures 19456/60-2/73-4.)

But "extra" is late bottled vintage port while "plain" is vintage port bottled after 3 years.

AHB wrote:But "extra" is late bottled vintage port while "plain" is vintage port bottled after 3 years.

Ahh, so “Extra” isn’t juice quality, it is wood age. Ahh! Thank you.

FYI, for the ’51 bottling dates were all over the place. Utterly inconsistent.

Where do you find all this stuff?

Is it the 1851 Stibbart that Broadbent raves about?

LGTrotter wrote:Where do you find all this stuff?

Click on the orange PV icon in my signature and all will be revealed.

I do not want to revive the discussion about the origins of LBV. I am curious though as to how closely, in the century or so between the decline of the Companhia Geral and the institution of the IVP, the shippers regulated themselves, with regard to maintaining the rigid boundaries between different categories. I'm sure there would have been a lot of juice that didn't quite get shipped or bottled early enough, or which got transferred to smaller or larger vats purely according to what could be sold; in other words, besides the reasonably clear definition of VP (I'm guessing it was in their interests to maintain that), perhaps other categories were rather fluid and loosely defined. This period also coincides with the rise of the new producers (Sandeman, Graham, etc.) so I'm sure they did things their own ways, in the absence of an effective regulator breathing down their necks.

I think AHB's hypothesis is plausible, but there are many other possibilities. The concept of a shipper producing just one vintage blend is relatively new. Many old price lists have qualifiers such as "Extra Rich", "Dry", etc which suggests that different blends were used for different purposes. We should not fall into the trap of retro-fitting today's regulated styles onto what was produced a century and a half ago.

I'm not retro-fitting. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to understand how we got to the styles that were regulated in the 1930s and again in the 1970s and after. This period must have been something of a free for all: new shippers, vertically integrated from the Douro to London for the first time, regulation disappearing, new markets.. I wonder, when we open some mysterious 19th century bottle with only a merchant's name on it, what they would have understood that to be at the time.

djewesbury wrote:I'm not retro-fitting.

I'm not accusing you of doing so.