ThePortForum.com

Posted: **13:51 Fri 24 Apr 2015**

According to Wikipedia, on St. George's day it is traditional to consume traditional English drink; I therefore felt obliged to open a bottle of port, which was a Graham '90 (very pleasant, not a blockbuster). Did anyone else celebrate in a similar (or different) manner?

I also noted that according to the Julian calendar, '23 April' (i.e. the anniversary of the death of St. George) currently falls on 6 May; If Julian felt unable to celebrate last night as a consequence, I am fairly sure we are likely to be able to raise a glass with him on that date also.

Posted: **14:29 Fri 24 Apr 2015**

PhilW wrote: on that date also.

Speaking of which, have people booked masterclasses?

Posted: **14:54 Fri 24 Apr 2015**

Yes. The port ones. I wanted to do the madeira in view of the unknown line-up for the VP but decided I like port more than I like madeira.

Posted: **11:37 Wed 29 Apr 2015**

djewesbury wrote:Yes. The port ones. I wanted to do the madeira in view of the unknown line-up for the VP but decided I like port more than I like madeira.

Knowing the restriction this year about not being able to attend consecutive tastings I still tried to go for both the Port ones and the Madeira but unless I opt otherwise am in the Tawny and Madeira tastings only.

Is thre any sign of the catalogue yet?

Posted: **22:01 Wed 29 Apr 2015**

idj123 wrote:Is thre any sign of the catalogue yet?

Nothing on the website yet.

Posted: **11:20 Fri 01 May 2015**

idj123 wrote:Is thre any sign of the catalogue yet?

Yes: www.thebft.co.uk/images/PDFs/bft2015catalogue.pdf.

Of note:
• Quinta do Vesuvio Vintage 2013;
• Dow’s Senhora da Ribeira Vintage 2013;
• Graham’s Malvedos Vintage 1965 (and DRT absent);
• Cockburn’s Vintage 1977 (note description).

Posted: **14:06 Fri 01 May 2015**

jdaw1 wrote: • Cockburn’s Vintage 1977 (note description).

Wonder how they are getting around not calling this is a Crusted Port? IIRC, I thought it was registered as such and the corks say crusted on them?

Posted: **14:51 Fri 01 May 2015**

The BFT catalogue is not renowned for its accuracy.

Posted: **16:25 Fri 01 May 2015**

Andy Velebil wrote:
jdaw1 wrote: • Cockburn’s Vintage 1977 (note description).
Wonder how they are getting around not calling this is a Crusted Port? IIRC, I thought it was registered as such and the corks say crusted on them?

I thought the corks said "Vintage 1977" but the label said Crusted

Posted: **16:31 Fri 01 May 2015**

AHB wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
jdaw1 wrote: • Cockburn’s Vintage 1977 (note description).
Wonder how they are getting around not calling this is a Crusted Port? IIRC, I thought it was registered as such and the corks say crusted on them?
I thought the corks said "Vintage 1977" but the label said Crusted

I don't recall. Does anyone know for sure?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **16:54 Fri 01 May 2015**

Crusted.

Posted: **17:48 Fri 01 May 2015**

So how did the Sym's get around not calling it a crusted? Did they recork all the bottles and re-register it (can you re register a Port to something else?). Or was it originally registered with the IVP back then as a VP?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **18:56 Fri 01 May 2015**

DRT wrote:The BFT catalogue is not renowned for its accuracy.

Posted: **19:46 Fri 01 May 2015**

DRT wrote:
DRT wrote:The BFT catalogue is not renowned for its accuracy.

Maybe not (although you haven't cited any evidence) but the information they print is just the information they're given. They wouldn't write the entries themselves, so this info has been provided either by Fells or by SFE.

Posted: **19:54 Fri 01 May 2015**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
DRT wrote:The BFT catalogue is not renowned for its accuracy.
Maybe not (although you haven't cited any evidence) but the information they print is just the information they're given. They wouldn't write the entries themselves, so this info has been provided either by Fells or by SFE.

You haven't cited any evidence to support that assertion.

There is nothing, as in nothing at all, to suggest that SFE have now decided to call Ck77 "vintage port". Nothing. But please continue the speculation if it feels useful.

Posted: **19:55 Fri 01 May 2015**

Look, oh great wise smug one, are you saying that the boys at the BFT made that up themselves? I'm sure it's a mistake but I imagine it's not theirs.

Posted: **20:00 Fri 01 May 2015**

I am simply pointing out that an obvious error in a wine trade catalogue is a dubious basis upon which to begin speculating about a change in status of such a well-known anomaly.

Posted: **20:01 Fri 01 May 2015**

Who was doing that?

Posted: **20:01 Fri 01 May 2015**

Oh, Andy. Never mind him. I hear it's hot in LA. It must get distracting.

Posted: **20:02 Fri 01 May 2015**

Andy Velebil wrote:So how did the Sym's get around not calling it a crusted? Did they recork all the bottles and re-register it (can you re register a Port to something else?). Or was it originally registered with the IVP back then as a VP?

Posted: **20:29 Fri 01 May 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Crusted.

That corresponds to my memory of the bottles that we had in Porto during the 2014 Harvest Tour. I have pictures of them somewhere, but can't seem to locate them at the moment. But I'm pretty sure the labels said VP and the corks said Crusted.

Posted: **20:33 Fri 01 May 2015**

Glenn E. wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Crusted.
That corresponds to my memory of the bottles that we had in Porto during the 2014 Harvest Tour. I have pictures of them somewhere, but can't seem to locate them at the moment. But I'm pretty sure the labels said VP and the corks said Crusted.

Found a picture. Sadly no picture of the corks. These were allegedly the last 2 bottles that Miguel Corte-Real had in his cellar.

: 2014-09-29 21.19.16.jpg (126.63 KiB) Viewed 6904 times

Posted: **22:01 Fri 01 May 2015**

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
DRT wrote:The BFT catalogue is not renowned for its accuracy.
Maybe not (although you haven't cited any evidence) but the information they print is just the information they're given. They wouldn't write the entries themselves, so this info has been provided either by Fells or by SFE.
You haven't cited any evidence to support that assertion.

There is nothing, as in nothing at all, to suggest that SFE have now decided to call Ck77 "vintage port". Nothing. But please continue the speculation if it feels useful.

Not true. They had an online contest where the winner won a bottle of 1977 Cockburn's Vintage. (Iirc it didn't say VP, just vintage. I remember thinking it was odd they left off the word port after vintage. On my phone but will try to find a link).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **22:06 Fri 01 May 2015**

Here is proof.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **22:07 Fri 01 May 2015**

And there seems to be a bit more bottles than Miguel thought.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **22:12 Fri 01 May 2015**

Looks like mischief rather than an attempt to formally change the classification.

Posted: **22:28 Fri 01 May 2015**

DRT wrote:Looks like mischief rather than an attempt to formally change the classification.

But that is how they also called it when announcing they were going to sell some of these too. A play on words perhaps, since it may not be technically registered as a VP??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **22:56 Fri 01 May 2015**

Cockburn '77 is an undeclared vintage. It was never booked with the IVDP as a special port, and unless there has been some recent special pleading IRO the 30 - 40 cases that remain, is an unclassified private bottling, and technically, a standard ruby.

Posted: **22:58 Fri 01 May 2015**

uncle tom wrote:Cockburn '77 is an undeclared vintage. It was never booked with the IVDP as a special port, and unless there has been some recent special pleading IRO the 30 - 40 cases that remain, is an unclassified private bottling, and technically, a standard ruby.

Actually, it is unapproved vintage port. "Declared" or "undeclared" have no meaning whatsoever.

Posted: **23:22 Fri 01 May 2015**

Miguel's cellar != Cockburn's reserves. We may very well have had the last two of Miguel's bottles even if there are 40 cases left in the Cockburn lodge.

Posted: **23:27 Fri 01 May 2015**

Glenn E. wrote:Miguel's cellar != Cockburn's reserves. We may very well have had the last two of Miguel's bottles even if there are 40 cases left in the Cockburn lodge.

Gosh, a pling. You don't see many of them these days.

Posted: **23:54 Fri 01 May 2015**

DRT wrote:
uncle tom wrote:Cockburn '77 is an undeclared vintage. It was never booked with the IVDP as a special port, and unless there has been some recent special pleading IRO the 30 - 40 cases that remain, is an unclassified private bottling, and technically, a standard ruby.
Actually, it is unapproved vintage port. "Declared" or "undeclared" have no meaning whatsoever.

registered or unregistered?? Regardless, I think we know what he means.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **00:48 Sat 02 May 2015**

Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
uncle tom wrote:Cockburn '77 is an undeclared vintage. It was never booked with the IVDP as a special port, and unless there has been some recent special pleading IRO the 30 - 40 cases that remain, is an unclassified private bottling, and technically, a standard ruby.
Actually, it is unapproved vintage port. "Declared" or "undeclared" have no meaning whatsoever.
registered or unregistered?? Regardless, I think we know what he means.

"Registered" - is this a new classification

Posted: **01:47 Sat 02 May 2015**

DRT wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
uncle tom wrote:Cockburn '77 is an undeclared vintage. It was never booked with the IVDP as a special port, and unless there has been some recent special pleading IRO the 30 - 40 cases that remain, is an unclassified private bottling, and technically, a standard ruby.
Actually, it is unapproved vintage port. "Declared" or "undeclared" have no meaning whatsoever.
registered or unregistered?? Regardless, I think we know what he means.
"Registered" - is this a new classification

Well, you either register/declare/log/submit/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the IVDP within the allotted time frame for what you want it to be or you don't, and you hope they agree. Is that better?

Posted: **08:30 Sat 02 May 2015**

djewesbury wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Miguel's cellar != Cockburn's reserves.
Gosh, a pling. You don't see many of them these days.

Some of us see them almost every day. Whatever they call it, I guess I'll be trying to persuade the Symingtons to allow me to prop up their stand - I wonder if they need any "help" serving it...

Posted: **08:32 Sat 02 May 2015**

Phil, tell them you'll bring your Durand and open the bottles for them, then we can read the corks.

Posted: **20:36 Sat 02 May 2015**

djewesbury wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Miguel's cellar != Cockburn's reserves. We may very well have had the last two of Miguel's bottles even if there are 40 cases left in the Cockburn lodge.
Gosh, a pling. You don't see many of them these days.

An old habit from my college days. I still use them fairly regularly.

Posted: **21:11 Sat 02 May 2015**

djewesbury wrote:Phil, tell them you'll bring your Durand and open the bottles for them, then we can read the corks.

I could; of course if we want to read the corks, I'd bring the Durand and then open the bottles with something else, since the one disadvantage of the Durand is that it scores the sides of the corks. I could just use the middle bit though.

ThePortForum.com

St. George

St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George

Re: St. George