Pointless Statistics

Anything to do with Port.
User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 22:58 Tue 09 Dec 2008

As it's coming close to the end of the year, it seems to be traditional to take a look at any statistics that I can come up with, which can be vaguely related to port.

There is, of course, the classic statistic of time taken by the cellar to gain 1 collective year of additional bottle age, but following the debates of last year I now accept that this is exactly 12 months.

Given my significant withdrawls from the cellar and modest acquisitions this year, the most interesting statistics (to me, at least) are about what I have left in the cellar. 82% of my bottles are port, 7% is bordeaux, 2% Australia, 2% English and the rest is somewhat of a mix.

The 21st anniversary of any particular declaration is traditionally considered the time it is ready for drinking. On this basis, 42% of my port is ready and the rest is still to be left to slumber. Of this 42%, 13 comes from the 1963 vintage (no surprise, really). 1994 accounts for 9% of my port and 1997 accounts for 8%. A surprising (at least it is to me) 20% of my port comes from the 21st century.

My second-favourite shipper is Fonseca, and they make up 10% of my cellar. Graham, Smith Woodhouse and Martinez each account for 5%. It will come as no surprise to anyone that Quinta do Vesuvio is the largest shipper in my cellar - but guess what the percentage turns out to be...
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by jdaw1 » 23:20 Tue 09 Dec 2008

The first Vesuvio vintage was 1989, which isn’t yet ready, so all the V lies in the 58% (of the port) slumber zone. We also know that Fonseca is 10% of the port (let me guess that is mostly vintages up to 1985, so not reducing the 58%), and 5% each for Graham, Smith Woodhouse and Martinez. I know that you have ≥2 bottles of Mz97, and some SW90s and 2k’s also plausible. So let’s say that half of that 15% isn’t yet mature, leaving about 50% which could be Vesuvio. Leave off some Mg91 (lots?), leaves a Vesuvio percentage between 10 and 40.

So, having thought too hard I’ll just guess at 25%.

ajfeather
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 122
Joined: 20:44 Thu 16 Aug 2007
Location: London, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by ajfeather » 09:13 Wed 10 Dec 2008

Vesvuio is also the most popular port in my cellar (pipping Niepoort). Given I have nearly twice as much vesuvio as fonseca I will go for 20%!

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 18:21 Wed 10 Dec 2008

With a mixture of shame and pride, I can tell you that you are both too low - but that Julian's logic was working up until the point that he threw in the towel and guessed.
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
SushiNorth
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1244
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: New York, NY

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by SushiNorth » 20:35 Wed 10 Dec 2008

Hmm, i never bothered to do my VP math... but you've inspired me. Excluding some pending purchases...
@ 12% Warres, Graham
@ 7-9% Taylor, Fonseca, Calem, Croft
@ 1-6% 15 other houses.
By the 21yr measure, only 8% is drinkable and all of it is SW, Grahams, and Warres.
SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 21:02 Wed 10 Dec 2008

I admit, all these statistics are reported by the spreadsheet I developed to track the contents of my cellar. I find it mildly amusing to be able to find out what proportion of my cellar is port. How much of it is ready to drink.

I wonder what proportion of my bottles become drinkable on 1 January under the 21 year rule...
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
SushiNorth
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1244
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: New York, NY

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by SushiNorth » 21:28 Wed 10 Dec 2008

AHB wrote:I wonder what proportion of my bottles become drinkable on 1 January under the 21 year rule...
88 was a decent year... i pick up another 4%, but I've been drinking those this past year already heheh.
SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2759
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by uncle tom » 01:05 Thu 11 Dec 2008

Currently 2,485 bottles of VP, with average age of 25.684 years, total bottle years 63,825, increasing by one year every three hours and thirty two minutes..

At present, I have stocks of 285 different vintage ports.

..I might concede the word 'adequate' at some point, but not just yet... :D

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by jdaw1 » 01:37 Thu 11 Dec 2008

uncle tom wrote:with average age of 25.684 years
Are you willing to report deciles?
uncle tom wrote:increasing by one year every three hours and thirty two minutes..
! by one bottle-year every !; and anyway merely being one year divided by the number of bottles.

User avatar
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3339
Joined: 13:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by g-man » 03:19 Thu 11 Dec 2008

hmmm

18% of my collection is port
out of which 90% of my collection is Fonseca.
5% taylors
5% dow
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz

Glenn E.
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3329
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by Glenn E. » 06:31 Thu 11 Dec 2008

Given JDAW's math and AHB's reputation, I will venture a guess at 33%. :lol:
Glenn Elliott

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2759
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by uncle tom » 12:38 Thu 11 Dec 2008

Are you willing to report deciles?
That doesn't work terribly well - for example, the oldest 10% of bottles includes slightly less than half of my '63's - which bottles does one include?

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

Glenn E.
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3329
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by Glenn E. » 19:44 Thu 11 Dec 2008

I created a spreadsheet from memory... it should be pretty close, but is certainly off by a handful of bottles. When one's "cellar" is in fact a refrigerator that in the best circumstances will hold roughly 200 bottles, something as powerful as CellarTracker is overkill.

45% of my cellar is too young to drink.
65% of my cellar is VP or SQVP.

An overwhelming 88% of my cellar is 750 ml bottles. I have but two 500ml bottles and five Magnums, but nearly 8% of my cellar is half bottles.

17% of my cellar is Quinta do Noval, which is apparently my favorite producer. Graham is second at 13%, followed by Rocha (12%), Dow (10%), Vesuvio (8%), and Taylor (7%). (I'm double counting Magnums for this purpose, but still counting halves as bottles. Rocha drops just below Dow if those 8 halves are counted as 4 bottles.)

1994 is apparently my favorite vintage at 20%, this despite the fact that I have never opened a bottle of 1994. 1964 follows closely at 19%, then 2003 (13%) and 1985 (12%) and 1977 (10%).

Edit: updated spreadsheet with actual contents of the fridge, so it's accurate now :roll: I didn't count non-cellared bottles such as the ruby reserves and 20-yr old tawnies that I have stored in a handier location.

Edit2: 2008 - 1977 != 21. Even more of my cellar is of drinking age than I previously thought! Though personally I do think that 30 years is a more appropriate limit than 21 years, so for me it's still 61% of my cellar that is too young to drink.
Glenn Elliott

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by jdaw1 » 16:38 Mon 15 Dec 2008

uncle tom wrote:
Are you willing to report deciles?
That doesn't work terribly well - for example, the oldest 10% of bottles includes slightly less than half of my '63's - which bottles does one include?
Just the deciles of the years: so one would report ‟1963”.

(Or, pedantically, one could order the houses by the date that their harvests finished too much like work.)

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2759
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by uncle tom » 19:14 Wed 17 Dec 2008

65% of my cellar is VP or SQVP.
- 95.3%
An overwhelming 88% of my cellar is 750 ml bottles. I have but two 500ml bottles and five Magnums, but nearly 8% of my cellar is half bottles.
- 99.6% are 750ml - I have just six magnums, one litre and two halves

(but after tomorrow, there will be just one half!)

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

Glenn E.
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3329
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by Glenn E. » 21:33 Wed 17 Dec 2008

uncle tom wrote:
65% of my cellar is VP or SQVP.
- 95.3%
Yes, but this still means you have more than twice as many bottles of non-VP as I have. :lol:

4.7% of your cellar is 117 bottles. 35% of my cellar is... 51 bottles. :wink:
Glenn Elliott

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2759
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by uncle tom » 22:24 Wed 17 Dec 2008

Yes, but this still means you have more than twice as many bottles of non-VP as I have.
Yes, I have a fairly varied mix of non-vintage ports, including an interesting collection of Crusteds going back to 1941, and some interesting tawnies, two of which pre-date the 'indication of age' era. I also have a modest stash of colheitas and an adequate stock of LBV's. I have only four bottles of 'standard' port, and three of those are whites..

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 13:16 Tue 23 Dec 2008

Glenn E. wrote:Given JDAW's math and AHB's reputation, I will venture a guess at 33%. :lol:
Almost spot on - it's 34%! That's a lot of Vesuvio - what do I do with all those pretty little chestnut boxes?
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 13:19 Tue 23 Dec 2008

uncle tom wrote:Currently 2,485 bottles of VP, with average age of 25.684 years, total bottle years 63,825, increasing by one year every three hours and thirty two minutes..

At present, I have stocks of 285 different vintage ports.

..I might concede the word 'adequate' at some point, but not just yet... :D

Tom
The most important statistic that I keep in my mind is the one where I calculate the number of bottles I will need to buy in the future to have sufficient port to drink at my current rate for the rest of my life (assuming that I live to the average age of my father and both grandfathers). Frighteningly, I still need more bottles than Tom has in his cellar...
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 13:23 Tue 23 Dec 2008

SushiNorth wrote:
AHB wrote:I wonder what proportion of my bottles become drinkable on 1 January under the 21 year rule...
88 was a decent year... i pick up another 4%, but I've been drinking those this past year already heheh.
I've worked it out. I only gain another 2% of my cellar for current drinking :(
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 13:39 Tue 23 Dec 2008

I've played around with my spreadsheet a little more and come up with some more statistics.

96% of my port is vintage or SQVP, 2% is crusted and 2% is unfiltered LBV. I have one bottle each of colheita, ruby and tawny.

96% of my port containers are 750ml bottles. All of the remaining 4% are half bottles. I own no magnums (and can't really see this changing considering the way in which I store and drink port).

And on the "thirty-years for drinking rule", only 35% of my port would be ready for drinking. At my normal rate of consumption, that will last me just under 3 years. Yikes! :shock: I need to go shopping after Christmas!
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

Glenn E.
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3329
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by Glenn E. » 18:25 Tue 23 Dec 2008

I consume at a much slower rate than the rest of you. I probably average one bottle of VP per month over the course of a year, plus another bottle of Colheita every other month. So at total of 18 bottles out of my cellar in any given year. (And really, that's probably too high at my current rate of consumption. But I'm allowing for an assumed rate increase. ;))

The bulk of my consumption is Tawnies with an indication of age, which I purchase and drink right away. I don't have any of those included in my cellar spreadsheet because they wouldn't stay there long enough to matter.

So... just counting VP and Colheita... my cellar will last about 8 years. Eek! I'm almost out of Port!!!
Glenn Elliott

User avatar
AHB
Fonseca 1970
Posts: 10989
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by AHB » 02:02 Sun 09 Jan 2011

Whilst watching something pointless on TV this evening, I was playing with my tasting note database and decided to pull out some pointless statistics. Pointless, because I will not do anything as a result of having worked out the spread of tasting notes written over the course of the 12 months of 2010. I found that of the wines I scored, the distribution was:

>97 points - not used during 2010
97 points - 1 wine (0.3%)
96 points - 1 wine
95 points - 6 wines (1.7%)
94 points - 12 wines (3.4%)
93 points - 14 wines (4.0%)
92 points - 32 wines (9.1%)
91 points - 34 wines (9.7%)
90 points - 33 wines (9.4%)
89 points - 41 wines (11.7%)
88 points - 34 wines (9.7%)
87 points - 25 wines (7.1%)
86 points - 19 wines (5.4%)
85 points - 33 wines (9.4%)
84 points - 19 wines (5.4%)
83 points - 12 wines (3.4%)
82 points - 6 wines (1.7%)
81 points - 5 wines (1.4%)
80 points - 8 wines (2.3%)
79 points - 3 wines (0.9%)
78 points - 2 wines (0.6%)
76 points - 1 wine (0.3%)
72 points - 1 wine (0.3%)

Does this seem a reasonable distribution of scores?
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14976
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by DRT » 10:25 Sun 09 Jan 2011

AHB wrote:Does this seem a reasonable distribution of scores?
Yes, apart from a small blip at 86 points your scores appear to more or less follow a classic standard disctibution curve.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
JacobH
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2283
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Pointless Statistics

Post by JacobH » 23:59 Sun 09 Jan 2011

I decided to pull out the same pointless statistics as AHB. I rate Ports by my answer to the to the question ‟Is this a good Port?”. There are three categories Certainly, Possibly, and No. When I am feeling particularly equivocal I might add a plus or minus sign. The results are:

C+ 27
C 83
C- 4

P+ 15
P 77
P- 16

N+ 0
N 19
N- 2

Comparing my statistics to AHB’s (assuming that 90+ points ≈ C, 83+ ≈ P, <=82 ≈ N), it appears I have a somewhat less critical palate than he does, since I certainly don’t think I drink better Port than he! :oops:
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests