Crusted port database

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 81/March 82:


(List missing Dow bottled 1974; list already has Cockburn bottled 1974.)

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 88/March 89:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated January ”“ March 1992:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated May ”“ September 1995:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated January ”“ April 1998:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated June ”“ September 2000:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 2002 ”“ February 2003:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated August ”“ October 2004:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated July ”“ October 2006:

Does ‟2006” minus ‟four” = equal 2002? But the same phrasing occurred in several catalogues: perhaps this is the 2001 and non-updated wording. As the 2001 bottling occurs in later catalogues, we should be cautious and not be confident that this is the 2002 bottling.

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated October 2007 ”“ January 2008:

[jdaw1]

From the Wine Society catalogue dated April ”“ July 2009:

[jdaw1]

•â—Š• Here ends the list of crusted ports in my Wine Society data. •â—Š•

[DRT]

From various Berry Brothers price lists - the dates being in the file names:

BBR Jan 1927.JPG (419.21 KiB) Viewed 7258 times

BBR Jan 1928.JPG (393.39 KiB) Viewed 7258 times

BBR Apr 1954.JPG (508.15 KiB) Viewed 7258 times

BBR Apr 1961.JPG (325.98 KiB) Viewed 7258 times

BBR Apr 1963.jpg (63.83 KiB) Viewed 7257 times

BBR May 1964.jpg (30.72 KiB) Viewed 7257 times

BBR Apr 1965.JPG (593.51 KiB) Viewed 7257 times

BBR Jan 1968.jpg (32.23 KiB) Viewed 7257 times

BBR Jun 1983.jpg (41.35 KiB) Viewed 7257 times

BBR Jun 1986.jpg (53.89 KiB) Viewed 7257 times

For some reason some photos are scaled down to fit and others are not. Don't know why as the source photos are all the same size

[uncle tom]

List updated.

Vintage character wines judged to be a different beast and not included. Implication of the existence of a Fonseca '02 probably erroneous, so also not included.

Also added: Churchill 2004 - now released. Churchill appear to have skipped 2003.

Note existence of Fonseca '70 Crusted - caution needed when buying F70 VP if bottled by the WS..

Tom

[DRT]

Vintage character wines judged to be a different beast and not included.

I have been reading H. Warrner Allan's "The Wines of Portugal" (1963) today and found the following introduction to his definition of Crusted Port:

CRUSTED PORT, otherwise Port of vintage character, if a step lower in rank, belongs to the aristocracy, since it owes its maturity to the bottle.

When did the modern "Vintage Character" (i.e. the filtered premium ruby port that is now known as "Reserve") come into being? I suspect that the vintage character wines listed by BBR are in fact Crusted rather than being the now defunct VC that never quite seemed a plausible name for the style of wine we know it was.

[jdaw1]

Worshipful Company of Drapers, Livery Dinner, 25 March 1970:

Yes, the menu was hideously coloured.

[jdaw1]

Justerini & Brooks, 1963/64 wholesale catalogue:

(This is already in the list.)

[jdaw1]

Justerini & Brooks, 1964 wholesale catalogue:

(This is already in the list.)

[jdaw1]

Justerini & Brooks, Autumn 1973, my picture being rather out-of-focus:

• Taylor’s Crusted (Bottled 1969);
• 1952 Ferreira Crusted (Oporto Bottled) £2·45;
• 1947 Offley Crusted (Oporto Bottled) £3·50.

[jdaw1]

Justerini & Brooks, Autumn 1976:

(This is already in the list.)

[jdaw1]

Morgan Furze, 1977:

[jdaw1]

As a good proportion of the work in this thread has been done by yours truly, would there be much unhappiness if it were to become a chapter in the book currently (not being) written by DRT and I?

[KillerB]

As a good proportion of the work in this thread has been done by yours truly, would there be much unhappiness if it were to become a chapter in the book currently (not being) written by DRT and I?

I'm more bothered by the grammar. If it were written just by you would you have said "written by I?" Obviously not, this does not go out of the window just because you've added a third person into the sentence. It is always incorrect to use 'I' as the object as it is a pronoun whilst 'me' is the first person object. In this case you are the object so it is "written by DRT and me?"

"It is I" is considered correct only in very formal and distinctly pretentious circumstances whilst "It's me" is more informal and friendly. This is no excuse for the above.

Please do not make this faux pas again.

[jdaw1]

Please do not make this faux pas again.

Noted. Agreed.

[jdaw1]

Justerini & Brooks, Autumn 1980.