ThePortForum.com

On French e-bay there is a Cockburn 1947 for sale. I did not know that this existed. Have anyone seen this before?
Sten
www.vintageport.se

Is it a 57 or a 47? Please clarify.

Broadbent mentions a "late-bottled" 1957 Cockburn ("unimpressive" when tasted in mid-60s) in his book.

In his notes, that could easily mean a bottling done 3-years after harvest rather than "LBV" (and late 50s / early 60s was presumably on the cusp of when practices regarding Vintage / Late Bottled Vintage ports started to become more defined anyway). A curiosity - it certainly doesn't seem to have been served at the big Cockburn vertical that the Symingtons did a couple of years ago

Sten wrote:On French e-bay there is a Cockburn 1947 for sale. I did not know that this existed.

TNs: 2008 Mar; 2008 Oct; 2010 Jan; 2012 Nov; 2014 Feb.

jdaw1 wrote:

Sten wrote:On French e-bay there is a Cockburn 1947 for sale. I did not know that this existed.

TNs: 2008 Mar; 2008 Oct; 2010 Jan; 2012 Nov; 2014 Feb.

those are 1947s - it is a 1957 on ebay

RAYC wrote:those are 1947s - it is a 1957 on ebay

Hence questioning of questioner. Ahh!

I've not seen or heard of a Cockburn 1957 - and handful of other shippers but not Cockburn. As far as I know, there was not even a small volume production for a family member.

Only one reference:

• Wine & Food No. 132, Winter 1966, page 72, a record of the autumn meeting of the Southport branch of the Wine and Food Society: “On Wednesday 28 September, 1966 a dinner was held at the Prince of Wales Hotel, Southport. The President was Mr. Alan V. Slater and the Chairman Mr. C. J. Park. The fare: Prawn Cocktails; Chicken Cordon Bleu, Petits Pois, Duchess: Potatoes; Cold Orange Soufflé Grand Marnier; Coffee. The wines: Bernkasteler Green Label, 1961; Rosé Clos Varenne; Cockburns, 1957.”

Port aficionados will know, of course, that Mr. Alan V. Slater appears in the History of Scouting in Southport Volume 3, 1951 - 1970.

Possibly a misprint if it's the only known reference.

It was on sale one week ago with photo so it was no misprint, but perhaps you mean misprint on the dinner where it was mentioned.
I know that Cockburn had some very unusual vintage such as 1911 (not so unusual perhaps) and 1916 which is or have been in my cellar but for me 1957 was strange and I have never heard of it

Sten
www.vintageport.se

Sten wrote:It was on sale one week ago with photo so it was no misprint, but perhaps you mean misprint on the dinner where it was mentioned.

I just did a search including completed listings on ebay.fr but did not see it; do you have a link (browser history) by any chance? I'd be interested to see the image.

Here: http://www.ebay.fr/itm/porto-COCKBURNS- ... 3ceb6085c1

Scroll down.

Odd bottle shape — slightly Burgundy. With selo.

(thx for the link and posting the image)
All quite odd. Several things immediately strike me as unusual:
- the bottle shapes (only the '50 looks the expected shape for Oporto-bottled Cockburn of this age)
- the label position (usually at the base of the bottle at this age/style)
- the labels (which are more like 1970+ labels, with shipper text on the white instead of the black).
- the Selo's (being present)
I would have some concerns here; unless known to be from a later release (in '80s or '90s) of older bottles when the label style would be more typical, and could explain selos and similar capsules. Hmm... interesting.

Also thought the 57 label was rather clean and the others rather unconvincingly dirty!

And the text at the bottom of the label "Shipped by Cockburn's Smithes..." rather than all the other examples elsewhere of "Shipped by Cockburn Smithes..."

I doubt that it could be fake, why would anyone bother? But they do look odd. The labels look OK, I just assumed they were facsimiles of one sort or another. The point about the selos made me wonder, as did the same wax capsules on all three bottles. And the shapes of the bottles is a bit peculiar too. I suppose the simplest explanation is that they were bottled with what they had at the time in a non commercial setting. But that doesn't account for the selos.

Actually I have no idea about these.

I agree that fakes seem very unlikely but these really don't look authentic. If they were 80s or 90s releases, did the company of Cockburn Smithe still exist then? If not, why mention them? Too many inconsistencies. Fakes don't necessarily have to be perpetrated on a Rudi-like scale. Could just be someone with a few odd bottles knocking about that they fancied getting a slightly higher return for.

One part of me says the label text issue signals definite fake. But I can't see someone going to all the effort of putting a selo in place, waxing, creating some faux leakage etc. which would then lead me to conclude that they are in fact bottles of some kind of port, on which the label has been faked and added. But then why Cockburn? Was that the easiest label to fake?

Edit: perhaps some distributor stored them and ruined the labels, and then subsequently created new ones, albeit not quite exact facsimiles...

Phil: you have the database. Please post images of 1947 to 1970 labels, so that we can compare.

flash_uk wrote:And the text at the bottom of the label "Shipped by Cockburn's Smithes..." rather than all the other examples elsewhere of "Shipped by Cockburn Smithes..."

Good catch, I missed that one.

djewesbury wrote:I agree that fakes seem very unlikely but these really don't look authentic. If they were 80s or 90s releases, did the company of Cockburn Smithe still exist then?

Yes - see the '85 (and later) labels linked below.

djewesbury wrote:Also thought the 57 label was rather clean and the others rather unconvincingly dirty!

Indeed; and new looking label with old-looking selo.

jdaw1 wrote:Phil: you have the database. Please post images of 1947 to 1970 labels, so that we can compare.

I don't necessarily have permission to post all the images here, but the following links will provide a display of bottle shapes and labels:
Cockburn bottles '47 to '70: Ck bottles '47-'70
All Cockburn labels '47 to '90 : Ck front labels '47-'90

In all three bottles above the “COCKBURN’S” and the “VINTAGE PORT” are in a sans-serif typeface, and all the same. Only one of Phil’s images has sans-serif there, a 1960, and that’s a different sans-serif typeface (compare the ‘K’ and the ‘1’).

jdaw1 wrote:In all three bottles above the “COCKBURN’S” and the “VINTAGE PORT” are in a sans-serif typeface, and all the same. Only one of Phil’s images has sans-serif there, a 1960, and that’s a different sans-serif typeface (compare the ‘K’ and the ‘1’).

That is because the font used here is none other than Arial Black. See my mock-up below - note that there is only one difference, in the diagonal tail of the R, but the G, the 1 and the other distinctive characters are identical:
The interesting news is that this font was designed in 1982, but as that link shows, a TrueType version of the font was not made available until 1990, and a PostScript version not until 1991. These bottles were, I suspect, filled substantially after that date. And I do not believe that they are Cockburn's VP!

Very good.

Except that you made that image using Microsoft Word, whereas the labels seem to have been made with something better, perhaps Adobe Illustrator.

I made the image using Adobe Photoshop.
Sackcloth for you.

EDIT: I also had to select the straight quote glyph as opposed to Arial's distinctive and rather ugly curly quote.

I do not own Microsoft Word, or any Microsoft software (sorry Glenn).

djewesbury wrote:I made the image using Adobe Photoshop.
Sackcloth for you.

Sackcloth being worn — but the Photoshop’s kerning is just as shabby as Microsoft’s.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I made the image using Adobe Photoshop.
Sackcloth for you.

Sackcloth being worn — but the Photoshop’s kerning is just as shabby as Microsoft’s.

I didn't attempt to kern it. I wasn't preparing this for a client. I was showing the letterforms to port nerds! Surely nobody would use automatic kerning in any other circumstance?

:whooshoverheademoticon:

flash_uk wrote::whooshoverheademoticon:

Please could you sign up for the Geek 503 refresher course in the appropriate forum?

flash_uk wrote::whooshoverheademoticon:

Quite. However I have a suspicion that not a few folks on this site will be delighted with the turn this thread has taken. *sigh*.

LGTrotter wrote:

flash_uk wrote::whooshoverheademoticon:

Quite. However I have a suspicion that not a few folks on this site will be delighted with the turn this thread has taken. *sigh*.

I think the relevant point is that the typeface is a modern one, much more modern than the supposed vintages in the (peculiarly shaped) bottles. I was distracted into an arcane discussion of typography by an admin who really should know better. If the labels and selos are contemporaneous, then these are also very very leaky bottles!

In conclusion I do not think that this is evidence of a Cockburn 1957 ever having been made. I believe that we have answered the original question.

Now, Sir, I invite you to withdraw your slur.

Zzzzzzzzzz......zzzzz.....zzzzz.....

And you Sir may have proved something about the typeface, I am not sure you have proved much about the bottles and their contents. My bet is that they have something porty inside, maybe not exactly as advertised. Good day to you!

LGTrotter wrote:Zzzzzzzzzz......zzzzz.....zzzzz.....

And you Sir may have proved something about the typeface, I am not sure you have proved much about the bottles and their contents. My bet is that they have something porty inside, maybe not exactly as advertised. Good day to you!

O thou thuggee, do you question my train of thought? Dodgy looking labels = rather incredible claims re contents. Does anyone know of any bottles this shape containing porty things? I don't think I do. If the bottles look so wrong and the labels look so wrong why would the contents somehow be right?

Next, go to Phil’s images of the labels of the 1960 and the 1963. Random lines come in from the left hand side. Looking at the top-left it is very obvious that these are different. I don’t know by what analogue printing technology the pattern was done, but it was re-done for the ’63. Then return to the ebay.fr image, and the left-hand sides of the ’55 and ’57 seem to be identical. Interesting.

jdaw1 wrote:Next, go to Phil’s images of the labels of the 1960 and the 1963. Random lines come in from the left hand side. Looking at the top-left it is very obvious that these are different. I don’t know by what analogue printing technology the pattern was done, but it was re-done for the ’63. Then return to the ebay.fr image, and the left-hand sides of the ’55 and ’57 seem to be identical. Interesting.

I think too much is being made of the labels. I have bought and drunk with satisfaction bottles with facsimile labels, Wylie fine wine (local to me) are often explicit about this. As to having odd shaped bottles it is not so unusual, perhaps these are odder than most but I think private bottlers would use what they had. I have heard of, but never seen, port being put in burgundy bottles. The things which strike me about the bottles is the presence of selos and the identical capsules on three disparate vintages.

djewesbury wrote:O thou thuggee, do you question my train of thought? Dodgy looking labels = rather incredible claims re contents. Does anyone know of any bottles this shape containing porty things? I don't think I do. If the bottles look so wrong and the labels look so wrong why would the contents somehow be right?

I think your train of thought is faultless. As are you. Hic.

LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.

I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.

I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.

You're in the greenhouse.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.

I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.

I'm afraid you've hopelessly latched on to the most tenuous statement in this whole thread. A facsimile label is just that: a facsimile. Or, it's a very simple label with no attempt to reproduce or imitate the design of the original. These are precisely that, an attempt to 'pass off' as Cockburn labels. What reputable dealer would do that?

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.

I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.

I'm afraid you've hopelessly latched on to the most tenuous statement in this whole thread. A facsimile label is just that: a facsimile. Or, it's a very simple label with no attempt to reproduce or imitate the design of the original. These are precisely that, an attempt to 'pass off' as Cockburn labels. What reputable dealer would do that?

There was a time when I was creating facsimile labels on demand for people here. Most notably AHB. There are therefore lots of bottles in TPF member's cellars with non-original labels, non of which were created or applied with the intention to deceive. Owen has already mentioned a well respected wine merchant who is renowned for doing the same.

Speculating about whether or not there would be variability in the style of bottles used in the mid 20th century is quite laughable. Off course they were. 150 years of recycling bottles in the trade resulted in exactly what you see in that picture. The landed gentry, university colleges, gentleman's clubs, livery companies, etc. all recycled their bottles by handing them back to their wine merchant to be re-filled with the next vintage. The picture above is therefore utterly unsurprising for the time period.

Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.

DRT wrote:Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.

Whist I do not think these bottles are in any way sinister and I am reluctant to alienate my only current supporter but it was through making fakes of burgundy that never existed which led to Rudy Kurwinian being nabbed.

DRT wrote:Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.

So what is your explanation?

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.

I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.

I'm with you two, too.

Because there's never been a case where new labels were affixed to old bottles of Port after the original labels fell off and were lost (or were never present in the first place).

Never.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.

So what is your explanation?

Cockburn 1977.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.

So what is your explanation?

someone made a mistake.

3 mistakes - broadbent, the author of jdaw1's excerpt, and whoever labelled the bottles?

Ah. Didn't pick those up. Cockburn 57 existed.

djewesbury wrote:Does anyone know of any bottles this shape containing porty things? I don't think I do. If the bottles look so wrong and the labels look so wrong why would the contents somehow be right?

Errr, yes. Calem 1935 is contained in thoroughly non-porty-thingy-shaped bottles. And it contains porty stuff. Only the person who put the Calem 1935 into the non-porty-thingy-shaped bottles didn't bother with anything as facile as a facsimile label. No label at all, in fact.

Oh God! I've just realised what you're saying. Tom's Calem 1935 is as fake as a bottle of Cockburn 1957. Oh no! I've been duped! Rudy Kurniwan is alive and kicking and churning out more fakes from his prison cell in Alcatraz. Damn him!

DRT wrote:There was a time when I was creating facsimile labels on demand for people here. Most notably AHB.

At one time I had 13 bottles of Cockburn 1912. All of these were relabelled using the kind services of DRT. Many of these have been drunk but if you search the review thread for mention of Cockburn 1912 you might well see a picture of a bottle with a facsimilie label. These were produced to order and were made to look like the Cockburn 1963 format label.

I'm sure that original labels (if any) on Cockburn 1912 were normally whatever the merchant / club / country house butler decided to stick on the bottle.

A dodgy label does not mean a fake wine. A dodgy bottle does not mean a fake wine. We've seen at least one example of where a cork branded with one shipper / vintage combination was used in error in a different port! It is really tough to differentiate a well intentioned and genuine effort to make your bottles look nice so you can cuddle them when you visit your cellar, from a malicious and deliberate attempt to mislead a potential buyer in an effort to extract more cash from them.

On the whole, I believe that this is probably the former, that the 1957 Cockburn is an unofficial vintage which was probably blended, bottled and shipped in very small quantities probably for a single customer. Similar to Taylor 1947 and 1950 or Dow 1946 - none of which exist and all of which I have drunk.

I second the excellent opinion in the previous post (hereafter written as “+1”).

Except that I haven’t had Dow 1946.

Daniel,

You have some nerve, in 24 hours you are serving a so called Taylor's 1970 with no label dodgy bottle, no provenance etc. shame on you ! Mind you I'm really looking forward to it and my (tom's)dodgy bottle as well. And I know the full story on yours (all will be revealed tomorrow night).