The mystery of the twice born Port house

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
JB vintage
Quinta do Noval LBV
Posts: 222
Joined: 09:18 Fri 17 May 2013
Location: Sweden
Contact:

The mystery of the twice born Port house

Post by JB vintage »

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.
delaforce1997 x 2  since 1834 and since 1968.jpg
delaforce1997 x 2 since 1834 and since 1968.jpg (62.39 KiB) Viewed 3646 times
Does anyone know anything more about this mystery of the twice born house of port?
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: The mystery of the twice born Port house

Post by PhilW »

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...
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: The mystery of the twice born Port house

Post by DRT »

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
JB vintage
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

Post by JB vintage »

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...
Sure, you may use the photo in your database.
JB vintage
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

Post by JB vintage »

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.
This is a perfectly plausible explanation.
Post Reply