I'm not sure when the rules defining Vintage Port, Late Bottled Vintage Port and colheita port came into force but I suspect that this port was bottled in England and from a barrel that was "forgotten" in a cellar somewhere. There certainly doesn't appear to be a sello on the bottle.
If this had been bottled in Portugal under the current rules, it would have had to have been labelled as a colheita since it has spent more than 6 years in wood. However, it would be an extraordinarily youthfully bottled colheita and would most certainly have continued to mature and develop in the bottle. Probably by accident, the merchant who bottled this has created the sort of geeky experiment that many of us would love to try.
But I shan't be bidding for it.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
AHB wrote:I'm not sure when the rules defining Vintage Port, Late Bottled Vintage Port and colheita port came into force ... .
The rules defining Vintage Port should base on the act of 1.1.1974.
According to my knowledge bottling of VP was made until the vintage 1974 by the Port trade. I can't imagine, that portuguese law obliged british traders (located in the UK) those days.
This is very weird.. I don't think I can help. But a Vintage Port bottled 7 years after the harvest, when the legislation imposes a maximum of 2 years, without selo from the IVP?!? As far as I know, Vintages from 1958 were not an exception regarding bottling, all I have seen were bottled in 1960.
Maybe it's all about price and 99GBP is not a bargain...
You need to remember that up until the 1970 vintage, vintage ports were routinely shipped in bulk for bottling in the UK and other countries. Of the wines seen today from the 1950's, the great majority were not bottled in Oporto.
These bottles do not have selos, and sometimes were not bottled as soon as might be expected.
Some people presume that UK bottled vintage ports must be inferior to those bottled in Oporto, but my own experiance suggests that there is very little difference, and some people (including Michael Broadbent) have argued that the UK bottlings were better.
There is of course only one way to find out! Do let us know when you next visit London, as I think this will give us a good excuse to open some old bottles!
Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
The ebay page also shows these pictures of the back label and capsule:
The missing word in the top right of the label is probably wood or cask, which would make this a Colheita. But it's more likely that, as AHB says, this is Vintage Port exported in cask and then bottled later than it should have been. Or does the contradiction between the capsule and back label indicate it's a fake?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
Offley being a second division player makes me doubt that this is a fake - if you're going to play at fakery, why go for milk when the cream is just as easy!
However, the rather tacky printed seal on the bottom of the label is very much at odds with the norms of vintage port labels; and pretentious wax seals, real, printed or even made of plastic; are fairly common on the early Colheitas.
Imagine the office of the bottler; mid sixties...
"Morning sir, I got a good deal on a couple of pipes of port from Offley. It's from 1958. They call it a Colheita."
"You what? We can't sell it as that, no-one'll have a clue what we're talking about..
..OK, Bill, can you sort us a label for this? - make it look important, you know the score - yes, it's from the 1958 vintage, but don't mention that other rubbish - don't want to confuse people, you know..
..oh, and Bill, on your way home could you drop in that record shop and get me a 45 of that Tears song by Doddy? It's me anniverasry on Tuesday, - you know what women are like...
- Ta mate.."
Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
I've seen those "tacky" printed seals on labels before from that period, but mainly on lesser priced bottles. So I'm not to concerned about that.
I'm more inclined to agree with Tom. The UK not being a big Colheita market, it probably wouldn't have sold if they printed a label that actually stated "Colheita". So they chose the simpler way of just putting vintage on it...which while a stretch of the truth in the Port world, really isn't when Colheita is used to refer to a Port from one vintage.
From the pics, I don't see any signs that this is counterfeit.
Tom, you are right about the possibility to bottle in UK, so no selo would be used.
What you think about the letteing of the brand "Offely" and the absence of logo in the label? On the other hand, we have the original logo and lettering of "Offley" in the cap. Maybe the wine is a really Offley Port, since the cap seems perfect, but someone stuck a different label in the bottle.
What you think about the letteing of the brand "Offely" and the absence of logo in the label? On the other hand, we have the original logo and lettering of "Offley" in the cap. Maybe the wine is a really Offley Port, since the cap seems perfect, but someone stuck a different label in the bottle.
Some UK bottlings had no labels, some had labels that were designed by the shipper, and some had labels designed by the bottler.
I suspect this label was designed by the bottler.
Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
When port was bottled in the UK, the shippers would also lend a seal to the bottler to be used to impress the wax over the cork. The seals were only lent for a short time and had to be returned, but it was a way in which the shipper was able to provide some authenticity to bottles filled in the UK.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
