Could a Port house be born twice? That is actually not the only mystery we have encountered with Delaforce 1997.
We bought two bottles of Delaforce Vintage 1997 and noticed some intriguing facts:
1) On one bottle it says "since 1834" and on the other "since 1868"
2) One is produced and bottled by "CD Vintners Soc. Vitivinicola S.A." while the other is produced and bottled by "Quinta and Vineyard bottlers - Vinhos S.A."
We have noticed that Delaforce was established in 1868 both before and after 1997. Delaforce was currently established in 1868 according to the home page of Delaforce. However, in 1997 it was established in different years.
Does anyone know anything more about this mystery of the twice born house of port?
The mystery of the twice born Port house
-
- Quinta do Noval LBV
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 09:18 Fri 17 May 2013
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
-
- Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
- Posts: 3511
- Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
- Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Re: The mystery of the twice born Port house
An interesting anomaly; perhaps just a printing error by the bottlers/printers when that bottling was done. Checking images in the VPID confirms that all other vintages and bottlings of Delaforce Corte show "since 1868" - the only image I have of the '97 is the one which (apparently erroneously) shows the 1834 date; may I add the label from the image below to the VPID please?
Various sites (including your own) mention Delaforce as being "involved in the port trade since 1834", i.e. when John Delaforce joined Martinez Gassiot; A couple of references appear to incorrectly state that the Delaforce was founded in 1834 instead of 1868, so I imagine this was the confusion by the labellers - or perhaps someone in 1997 decided they had an earlier date they could claim, but was then corrected for the second bottling...
Various sites (including your own) mention Delaforce as being "involved in the port trade since 1834", i.e. when John Delaforce joined Martinez Gassiot; A couple of references appear to incorrectly state that the Delaforce was founded in 1834 instead of 1868, so I imagine this was the confusion by the labellers - or perhaps someone in 1997 decided they had an earlier date they could claim, but was then corrected for the second bottling...
Re: The mystery of the twice born Port house
I don't know about the foundation dates but I think the naming of different bottlers can be explained by the recent change of ownership of of the Delaforce brand. The bottle on the right has a paint mark on it which suggests it spent time in a bin before being labelled. The one on the left was probably bottled, labelled and shipped prior to Delaforce being bought by The Fladgate Partnership. The one on the right is probably an ex-cellers release by TFP, hence the naming of their bottling/shipping company on the label.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
-
- Quinta do Noval LBV
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 09:18 Fri 17 May 2013
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: The mystery of the twice born Port house
Sure, you may use the photo in your database.PhilW wrote:An interesting anomaly; perhaps just a printing error by the bottlers/printers when that bottling was done. Checking images in the VPID confirms that all other vintages and bottlings of Delaforce Corte show "since 1868" - the only image I have of the '97 is the one which (apparently erroneously) shows the 1834 date; may I add the label from the image below to the VPID please?
Various sites (including your own) mention Delaforce as being "involved in the port trade since 1834", i.e. when John Delaforce joined Martinez Gassiot; A couple of references appear to incorrectly state that the Delaforce was founded in 1834 instead of 1868, so I imagine this was the confusion by the labellers - or perhaps someone in 1997 decided they had an earlier date they could claim, but was then corrected for the second bottling...
-
- Quinta do Noval LBV
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 09:18 Fri 17 May 2013
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: The mystery of the twice born Port house
This is a perfectly plausible explanation.DRT wrote:I don't know about the foundation dates but I think the naming of different bottlers can be explained by the recent change of ownership of of the Delaforce brand. The bottle on the right has a paint mark on it which suggests it spent time in a bin before being labelled. The one on the left was probably bottled, labelled and shipped prior to Delaforce being bought by The Fladgate Partnership. The one on the right is probably an ex-cellers release by TFP, hence the naming of their bottling/shipping company on the label.