Port Vintages: The Book

[Andy Velebil]

JDAW1,
Please help DRT in posted the pics/text so we can read them. The right 1/2 is being cut off.

[RAYC]

Good sleuthing DRT!

[RAYC]

JDAW1,
Please help DRT in posted the pics/text so we can read them. The right 1/2 is being cut off.

Have you tried simply re-sizing your browser? Displays fine on my computer.

[jdaw1]

Please help DRT in posted the pics/text so we can read them. The right 1/2 is being cut off.

This evening I’ll convert it to text and quote it,

[jdaw1]

In common with most of the shippers at the end of last century Graham used to send their agent to stay at one of the quintas usually the Quinta das Carvalhas during the vintage. But with the coming of the railway, which made access to the riverside quintas both quicker and more convenient, many of the shippers decided to buy a quinta of their own, not so much for the wine but to serve as a centre of operations. Thus it was that Graham, quickly following the example of John Smithes at nearby Tua, purchased Malvedos in 1890.

It was decided to replant the quinta with red grape varieties. largely Tinta Francisca. Unfortunately, according to Colin Graham (one of the directors before the company was bought out by the Symingtons), for a variety of reasons the quinta did not do well. The manager of the quinta appointed around the turn of the century, Jim Yates, tried to copy the experiments which were being carried out at neighbouring Tua by Cockburn. But most of Yates’s theories and experiments resulted in extremely poor production ‘8, 9 or 10 pipes, and as often as not terribly burnt’, according to Colin Graham. ‘We used to keep a few cases just for fun, and when we had visitors up we’d bring out a bottle just to show what a really burnt wine was.’ At that time the backbone of Graham’s vintage port came from the Quinta das Lages in the Rio Torto.

Consequently, the produce of Malvedos was insignificant and even the wine from off-vintages which was sold under the ‘Malvedos’ label was generally a blend from the Rio Torto: only very occasionally was it a straight quinta wine. The company decided to use the name ‘Malvedos’, which had already been registered for olive oil and citrus fruits, only because ‘Rio Torto’ had been registered as the brand of another company.

!

Be that as it may, under the new Symington régime these problems of low production and poor quality are a thing of the past. Everything is set fair for Malvedos to realize its owner’s exacting expectations well before the end of the century. These improvements mean that a single quinta Malvedos port is now in prospect. As Paul Symington explained to me in an interview in 1989, ‘as soon as we get production of decent enough wine from the quinta, which we actually have over the last couple of years, we'll be calling the wine ‟Quinta dos Malvedos”, because we don’t actually particularly agree with the old Graham policy ! It is slightly misleading to call a wine ‟Malvedos”, for people assume it comes from that quinta, but we inherited a situation which we couldn’t solve overnight. Indeed, the production of the vineyard had fallen to negligible levels, so that is why we still call the ’76 and ’78 ‟Malvedos". I don’t know which wine we’ll actually call ‟Quinta dos Malvedos” but it’s one we’re satisfied we can produce 100 per cent off the property and bottle it as such.’ Two years later, in 1991, as the book was going to press, Paul Symington reported that ‘in practice ‟Malvedos” vintage port has been produced in recent years only from the quinta, as we have acquired the adjoining vineyards from which company used to buy to make up the ‟Malvedos” blend. ‟Malvedos” can therefore [now] be considered a single quinta wine.’

[John Owlett]

Hi Julian,

Reading through the Taylor chapter this evening, I noticed a few places where the latest version of the taylor.pt website disagrees with The Book.

1922:

You quote Amanda Brunner as writing, "We have no record of this vintage." Yet
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... 1900-1960/
lists 1922 as a declared year, with the remark, "do not have tasting notes or harvest reports".

1931:

The Book includes this year only among the dates with conflicting reports, as "not listed by the Shipper ... perhaps this was a Colheita". Yet the web page above lists 1931 as a declared year for Classic Port, again with the remark, "do not have tasting notes or harvest reports".

2006:

http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... nha-velha/
does not list a 2006 QVVV but The Book does.

2008:

Both
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... le-quinta/
and
http://www.fortheloveofport.com/vintage ... ort-review
list a 2008 Vargellas which The Book omits.

Later,

John

[jdaw1]

Noval added to PortVintages.com.

Next task: use comments received to update Taylor.

Fonseca will be published soon.

[jdaw1]

2006:

http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... nha-velha/
does not list a 2006 QVVV but The Book does.

2008:

Both
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... le-quinta/
and
http://www.fortheloveofport.com/vintage ... ort-review
list a 2008 Vargellas which The Book omits.

2006 was only a cask sample, so can die. About 2008, it probably hadn’t been released when we gathered the data. just before publication we intend to re-gather data for ≥2005s.

Re 1922 and 1931: well spotted, thank you. It wasn’t on Taylor’s list of vintages sent to us in 2009. Sigh.

[John Owlett]

Hi Julian,

I surf too much.

A few days ago I was reading a recent entry to Richard Mayson's blog

http://www.richardmayson.com/Vintage_Port_Notes/

an entry from 16 September called

"Recent Vintages of Noval and Noval Nacional (plus 1963 Nacional)"

in which Mayson gives a tasting note for 2004 Nacional, a "‘secret Nacional’, bottled but undeclared".

Later,

John

[jdaw1]

in which Mayson gives a tasting note for 2004 Nacional, a "‘secret Nacional’, bottled but undeclared".

Also tasted recently by AHB of this forum which I forgot to add. Thank you.

[Axel P]

Jdaw,

please pm me with the list of pics I might possibly contribute to the book. I will bring them next week.

Axel

[jdaw1]

Fonseca added to PortVintages.com.

Note that our earliest Fonseca vintages are a generation older than those claimed by The Fladgate Partnership. {Smugness}

[DRT]

{Smugness}

+1

[Glenn E.]

{Smugness}

+1

Or Rudy?

[DRT]

{Smugness}

+1

Or Rudy?

Only if Rudy was able to time-travel back to the mid 1800s to write the evidence in the Whitehaven cellar books

[John Owlett]

Hi Julian,

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal 1999.

This is not in The Book, nor is it listed on the Fonseca website, but Richard Mayson reports tasting it on 25 May 2011 on the Vintage Port Notes section of his website:

http://www.richardmayson.com/Vintage_Po ... 996__2009/

Later,

John

[DRT]

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal 1999.

This is not in The Book, nor is it listed on the Fonseca website, but Richard Mayson reports tasting it on 25 May 2011 on the Vintage Port Notes section of his website:

http://www.richardmayson.com/Vintage_Po ... 996__2009/

This selection of wines from the Fladgate Partnership was presented by David Guimaraens and Natasha Bridge in the tasting room at the Fonseca lodge during a recent visit to Porto.

So perhaps an as yet unreleased Panascal?

[John Owlett]

So perhaps an as yet unreleased Panascal?

That's possible, of course ... but it's been more than 14 years since the vintage. Wouldn't that be rather a long time in which not to announce an SQVP?

[DRT]

So perhaps an as yet unreleased Panascal?

That's possible, of course ... but it's been more than 14 years since the vintage. Wouldn't that be rather a long time in which not to announce an SQVP?

There are many VPs and SQVPs produced that are never released. This might be one of them.

[RAYC]

Re 1922 and 1931: well spotted, thank you. It wasn’t on Taylor’s list of vintages sent to us in 2009. Sigh.

I don't think the website suggests they declared those - it's still not on Taylor's vintage charts (link) - though presumably for 31 the "1931 Taylor Pinhao" that CMAG brought to a tasting earlier this year gets a mention?

[jdaw1]

Noval updated to add NN45.

[jdaw1]

I am constructing the Croft chapter. Our general policy is to have six references, a baby case, for each wine. Sometimes we have no more data than that, so show it all. And sometimes we have more, so pruning must happen. For this Port, Thompson & Croft 1878, I’m asking the public about pruning.

Some facts.

â—Š Generally, I prune, then check facts for those that survive the pruning. This time you are seeing them all, so none have been compared to the photos. Also, comparing to the photos often entails much re-writing: as yet not done.

â—Š Preferences? generally we aim to keep the following:
The earliest, usually the earliest two.
Those mentioning the wax/seal colour.
Those mentioning royalty, or other people of historical significance.
Those with interesting information, including tasting notes, prices, etc.
Those from sources otherwise little used.
Those that take my fancy.
That list is in approximate order of priority.

In the light of that, what do you think should be kept of the following, and which should die? Your reasoning is more important than your vote.



â–º Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors, Wine Committee, meeting 4 November 1880, discussed ‟2 Pipe of Port (1878) Croft, Dowes, Clode & Baker, Sandeman, Martinez”, ‟Write G Claridge Harp Lane for Samples”; [••LMA291••] and on 4 January 1881 noted ‟Ordered 5/1/81 Mr George Claridge Harp Lane One Pipe Croft’s Vintage 1878 as per sample sent on 5/11/80 @ £85 per pipe duty paid and delivered into Cellars. ! terms Cash less 5% discount”. [••LMA293••] On 10 December 1897, the wine committee tasted two samples, both bottled 1880, one of ‟Croft’s Dry” from Meryon, Roger & Co at 86/- per dozen, the other of ‟Croft’s” from Lister & Beck at 80/-. Ordered were 25 dozen of the former, 15 dozen of the latter, [••LMA348••] the cellar book recording delivery on later that month. Inconsistently with the minutes, the cellar book describes Lister & Beck’s as ‟very dry”. [••LMA176••] On 11 December 1917 the Committee ordered that 13+24 dozen and 1+7 be sold, ‟leaving 53 doz 7”. [••LMA387••] The minutes of 23 May 1918 record that lots 1333-7, totalling 37 dozen, were sold, after the auctioneer’s commission of 8d/£1 (3⅓%), for £289.5.6, so an average price of about 161/9 per dozen. [••LMA388••]

â–º Worshipful Company of Cordwainers, entry into cellar book on 21 November 1881: ‟Bottled Pipe of Port Crofts 1878. Purchas’d from Deut & Co June 1881. Bin 12. 57 doz + 9 Bottles”. [••LMA043••]

â–º The Army & Navy Co-Operative Society, January 1882, ‟Bottled Vintage Port for Laying Down”, ‟Croft’s 1878, per dozen 32⁄0”. [••DRT’s 007••]

â–º Middle Temple wine book lists ‟Thompson + Croft black seal” vintage 1878 bottled 1881, at ‟50/” (presumably per dozen), adjacent to which is written ‟£145” (presumably being value of the whole parcel, therefore 58 dozen, a generous pipe) received from Robertson+Nicholson on ‟Mar.3.1886”. [••4283 4311: why twice?••]

â–º Corney & Barrow order book, 24 March 1891, records the purchase of one of each of ‟T+C” 1875, 1878 (at 4/6), 1885 and 1887, presumably for a small vertical. Then on 24 August 1893 the National Liberal Club ordered ‟10 Dz Croft’s 1878 Vintage Port dip red” at £31.10s, so at 5/3 per bottle. [••5896 5990••]

â–º ‟Croft’s 1878” served by The Worshipful Company of Gardeners at the ‟Master’s Installation Banquet”, held on 6 July 1897 at ‟The Vintner’s Hall”. [••9143••] Drapers, Stock of Port of August 1898 includes Croft 1878, bottled 1880, 540 bottles in bin 25, this remaining in stock until 1923. This is also mentioned, from 1905, in a corresponding Bin Book, sold by Lister & Beck and being bottled 1881, and that in another bin as bottled 1880. [••2881 2910 3018 3024••]

â–º BBR, February 1907, at 132/- per dozen [••DSC00005••]

â–º The Worshipful Company of Vintners, as of July 1913, owned 583 bottles of ‟Port Thompson & Croft Vin 1878”, bottled August 1881, ‟(J&G White)”. [••5372••]

â–º Red Cross Auction Sale on 19 June 1918 (see Kopke 1878), lots ‟1006@1009”, 10 Dozens, bottled ’81, presented by ‟The Merchant Taylors Company”, at 240/ to 300/ (though the meaning of the price is unclear). [••LMA287••]

â–º Present in the vintage lists of André L. Simon (1919), Ernest Cockburn (1949), H. Warner Allen (1963), Wyndham Fletcher (1978), and George Robertson (1978).

â–º Tables of Content (1933), André L. Simon, #63: ‟Luncheon at 27 Clement’s Lane. 30 July 1931 ! The ’78 Croft”, served with ‟Cheese Souffl锝, ‟was a remarkably good bottle: absolutely fresh and lively.” [••9860••]

â–º ALS Vintagewise

â–º Shipper (email of March 2009).



Which are to be deleted, and why? Which are to be kept, and why?

[PhilW]

â–º Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors, Wine Committee, meeting 4 November 1880, discussed ‟2 Pipe of Port (1878) Croft, Dowes, Clode & Baker, Sandeman, Martinez”, ‟Write G Claridge Harp Lane for Samples”; [••LMA291••] and on 4 January 1881 noted ‟Ordered 5/1/81 Mr George Claridge Harp Lane One Pipe Croft’s Vintage 1878 as per sample sent on 5/11/80 @ £85 per pipe duty paid and delivered into Cellars. ! terms Cash less 5% discount”. [••LMA293••] On 10 December 1897, the wine committee tasted two samples, both bottled 1880, one of ‟Croft’s Dry” from Meryon, Roger & Co at 86/- per dozen, the other of ‟Croft’s” from Lister & Beck at 80/-. Ordered were 25 dozen of the former, 15 dozen of the latter, [••LMA348••] the cellar book recording delivery on later that month. Inconsistently with the minutes, the cellar book describes Lister & Beck’s as ‟very dry”. [••LMA176••] On 11 December 1917 the Committee ordered that 13+24 dozen and 1+7 be sold, ‟leaving 53 doz 7”. [••LMA387••] The minutes of 23 May 1918 record that lots 1333-7, totalling 37 dozen, were sold, after the auctioneer’s commission of 8d/£1 (3⅓%), for £289.5.6, so an average price of about 161/9 per dozen. [••LMA388••]

â–º Worshipful Company of Cordwainers, entry into cellar book on 21 November 1881: ‟Bottled Pipe of Port Crofts 1878. Purchas’d from Deut & Co June 1881. Bin 12. 57 doz + 9 Bottles”. [••LMA043••]

â–º The Army & Navy Co-Operative Society, January 1882, ‟Bottled Vintage Port for Laying Down”, ‟Croft’s 1878, per dozen 32⁄0”. [••DRT’s 007••]

â–º Middle Temple wine book lists ‟Thompson + Croft black seal” vintage 1878 bottled 1881, at ‟50/” (presumably per dozen), adjacent to which is written ‟£145” (presumably being value of the whole parcel, therefore 58 dozen, a generous pipe) received from Robertson+Nicholson on ‟Mar.3.1886”. [••4283 4311: why twice?••]

â–º Corney & Barrow order book, 24 March 1891, records the purchase of one of each of ‟T+C” 1875, 1878 (at 4/6), 1885 and 1887, presumably for a small vertical. Then on 24 August 1893 the National Liberal Club ordered ‟10 Dz Croft’s 1878 Vintage Port dip red” at £31.10s, so at 5/3 per bottle. [••5896 5990••]

â–º ‟Croft’s 1878” served by The Worshipful Company of Gardeners at the ‟Master’s Installation Banquet”, held on 6 July 1897 at ‟The Vintner’s Hall”. [••9143••] Drapers, Stock of Port of August 1898 includes Croft 1878, bottled 1880, 540 bottles in bin 25, this remaining in stock until 1923. This is also mentioned, from 1905, in a corresponding Bin Book, sold by Lister & Beck and being bottled 1881, and that in another bin as bottled 1880. [••2881 2910 3018 3024••]

â–º BBR, February 1907, at 132/- per dozen [••DSC00005••]

â–º The Worshipful Company of Vintners, as of July 1913, owned 583 bottles of ‟Port Thompson & Croft Vin 1878”, bottled August 1881, ‟(J&G White)”. [••5372••]

â–º Red Cross Auction Sale on 19 June 1918 (see Kopke 1878), lots ‟1006@1009”, 10 Dozens, bottled ’81, presented by ‟The Merchant Taylors Company”, at 240/ to 300/ (though the meaning of the price is unclear). [••LMA287••]

â–º Present in the vintage lists of André L. Simon (1919), Ernest Cockburn (1949), H. Warner Allen (1963), Wyndham Fletcher (1978), and George Robertson (1978).

â–º Tables of Content (1933), André L. Simon, #63: ‟Luncheon at 27 Clement’s Lane. 30 July 1931 ! The ’78 Croft”, served with ‟Cheese Souffl锝, ‟was a remarkably good bottle: absolutely fresh and lively.” [••9860••]

â–º ALS Vintagewise

â–º Shipper (email of March 2009).



Which are to be deleted, and why? Which are to be kept, and why?

I would suggest to keep
- bullet 4 : due to mention of seal colour & description
- bullet 5 : due to interesting/different description re: small vertical
- bullet 6 : due to the bottling date difference
Given your rule of keeping earliest references, I would add bullets 1 and 2 to that list.
Of the rest, I would select the 1933 André Simon reference, purely as I think it is slightly more interesting that the others, but this last choice is essentially personal whim.
So overall my selection would be: 1,2,4,5,6,[1933]

[DRT]

I have just noticed that the bottles sold at the Red Cross Auction Sale in 1918 are probably some of those purchased in bullet point 1.

[jdaw1]

I would suggest to keep
- bullet 4 : due to mention of seal colour & description
- bullet 5 : due to interesting/different description re: small vertical
- bullet 6 : due to the bottling date difference
Given your rule of keeping earliest references, I would add bullets 1 and 2 to that list.
Of the rest, I would select the 1933 André Simon reference, purely as I think it is slightly more interesting that the others, but this last choice is essentially personal whim.
So overall my selection would be: 1,2,4,5,6,[1933]

Your reasoning rhymes with mine. (I haven’t made a selection from the list, but I’m reassured that our arguments seem aligned.)