ThePortForum.com

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The last sentence of the first post wasn’t wrong.

Agreed, but did you expect the longest and most intense rant to be in support of Taylor?

Only because I haven't had time to compose an apposite riposte.

Before you do, and I hope you will, I will say that having spent most of my career as a Project Manager it would be hypocritical of me to criticise this…

LGTrotter wrote:Taylor is taking the kudos for another man's work.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The last sentence of the first post wasn’t wrong.

Agreed, but did you expect the longest and most intense rant to be in support of Taylor?

Sure. There’s inevitably going to be a project-manager type about, who has become rich off the back of the workers, etc etc.

Edit: next post just seen.

Will the launch be overshadowed by the release of yet another rare old tawny by Graham's? Have just been watching this.
Funny how nobody balks at the Symingtons releasing old Graham tawnies that they weren't responsible for making. Perhaps in a few decades people will have stopped complaining about TFP releasing Krohn stock under their own label.

djewesbury wrote:Funny how nobody balks at the Symingtons releasing old Graham tawnies that they weren't responsible for making.

The Graham tawnies were made by Graham. And are sold under that name.

If they had been sold as “Symington Old Tawny”, then ranting would indeed be likely.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Funny how nobody balks at the Symingtons releasing old Graham tawnies that they weren't responsible for making.

The Graham tawnies were made by Graham. And are sold under that name.

If they had been sold as “Symington Old Tawny”, then ranting would indeed be likely.

You're being over-literal ( ). I mean that they are none of them Grahams, indeed for a time they put up quite a fight to prevent people who were from using the name Graham. None of it is of any consequence. Do you like it and can you afford it? Then drink it. Personally, I doubt I will be able to, and, separately, I question the wisdom of pushing a product which arguably already suffers from being perceived as a niche, luxury good into even more of an exclusive market. But that presumably just means that I will be drinking more Quinta de la Rosa and Passadouro in the future.

The ranting was about things made by Krohn being labeled Taylor. Your counter-rant used the example of things made by Graham being called Graham. Huh? Does Not Equal.

jdaw1 wrote:The ranting was about things made by Krohn being labeled Taylor. Your counter-rant used the example of things made by Graham being called Graham. Huh? Does Not Equal.

Does not equal. Yes. Correct. Both examples involve a company being bought by another company, and in each the bought company's name is attached to the people who made the product being sold. The people using the name (in one instance) or putting it under their own name (in the other) are not those people. It seems that while this 'does not equal' it is proximate enough to raise similar questions. And the same answer: so what?

I think DJ's argument is fundamentally flawed.

The debate is about companies, not people.

• A company bought Graham, continued to call it Graham and continues to sell its wines under the name Graham's regardless of whether they were made before or after the ownership of the company changed hands.
• A company has bought Krohn, continues to call the company Krohn but will sell some of its old wines using the new parent company name and other wines under the name Krohn.

Different.

I think what's being lost here is that old stocks get sold all the time, so who knows what percentage were Krohn's wines from the get-go. Does it seem slightly strange for someone to put ~150 years of effort (assuming they owned the 1863 the whole time) and sell it under a different brand? Sure, but if this was old stock from a Quinta/shipper that had gone bankrupt or had an extra barrel of crazy old tawny sitting in a corner and sold it, such an issue would have never been raised. Taylor isn't hiding where the stuff comes from, they just don't see value in using that brand name to market it anymore. More power to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure that I have wind enough to respond fully to the very reasonable points that Alex has made. It is true that Krohn wanted to sell and Taylor wanted to buy, I am unconvinced by the inference that this somehow took place in a vacuum, I think it very likely that a relatively small company faced with the uncertainty of the financial landscape in which they were operating would be glad to take the money from the much larger one. However this does not seem to be a panacea for the port industry. As has been discussed elsewhere the increasing hegemony exercised by two companies may be a wonderful thing for these companies but I am unconvinced that it is good for consumers or indeed the port industry as a whole.

My curmudgeonly instincts were most awoken by the phrase 'adding value', I assume this is a euphemism for putting up the prices. In what sense has real value been added when the only thing that has been changed is the price tag? The price of everything and the value of nothing... I am perplexed by the inference that this is a 'good thing' of itself.

I know that this is an argument which probably has more to do with ones personal view of economics than that of port but I think it is worth making.

I should also add that I am entirely sanguine about TFP buying whatever they wish and am less emotionally attached to my arguments than maybe is clear, the other backstory to this is that I have always felt I paid too much and got too little from Taylor wines. I hope I haven't ranted too much and that Alex will forgive any unfair assumptions I may have made. I may think of more later...

LGTrotter wrote:I hope I haven't ranted too much and that Alex will forgive any unfair assumptions I may have made. I may think of more later...

Owen,
I view our discourse as nothing more than the debate that occurs between two opinionated middle-aged men whenever they have been sharing an alcoholic beverage or two. The only slight challenge being that we are separated by a couple of counties. However, I have rather enjoyed a lovely bottle of Rioja this afternoon and evening while writing an article for Roy's next newsletter and watching this afternoon's IPL match.

Any unfair assumptions you have made are hereby forgiven.

Alex

Who made what can be bit academic, the more so when you go back in time.

Historically, most growers got no credit for their efforts whatsoever, and many established brands had little or no input when it came to blending the wines they sold.

Better to not worry too much about the origins of a port, but hold to account those who put their name on the label..

uncle tom wrote:Who made what can be bit academic, the more so when you go back in time.

Historically, most growers got no credit for their efforts whatsoever, and many established brands had little or no input when it came to blending the wines they sold.

Better to not worry too much about the origins of a port, but hold to account those who put their name on the label..

My sentiments, more succinctly!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think my broader point has got lost (I was looking at the majuscule, as it were, but I was countered in the minuscule). In the end I think both Tom and Owen have made excellent points. I too dislike the phrase 'added value' to mean 'higher price'. If TFP can pop a premium on a product because it has their name on it, well, good luck to them, but I agree that it doesn't exactly rank as a long-term strategy, especially in a market that's dwindling. I suppose this is a disagreement about economics (as Owen points out) - in a reduced market are you better to cut or hike your prices? I think this is what is referred to as 'negative feedback' and 'positive feedback' by market theorists, but I don't really have much in terms of economic literacy to back this up with...

In summary: if it's good for you, go ahead and fill your boots. But we may not be there tomorrow.

Dear All

Happy to see lots of posts about a Port that we will launch in VinExpo HK next week, in London on 3rd June and New York on 4th June.

No David Guimaraens did not show any last week - his focus was on Vintage Port, showing some single varietal experimental batches from the early 90s, the great Vintage Ports we made in the 90s and introducing the new 2012 single quintas.

I may see some of you in London or New York. For reference Krohn did sell a small quantity on 1863 in a pack with 1896 (see: http://www.erobertparker.com/members/msquires/ms51.asp ) at US $13,000. This was with a silk screen bottle, a simple box, decanter and two glasses.

We look forward to showing you the packaging and price when we launch.

Wiess and Krohn is now fully integrated into our business with all the staff given new jobs and contributing to the team. We are planning to re-introduce foot treading at Quinta do Retiro Novo this harvest. The visitors' centre in Gaia is open as usual and welcome plenty of guests. The Krohn branded ports remain availble to purchase but not where those same wines have been used to create a Taylor product - Single Harvest 1964 and 1863.

Kind regards, Adrian Bridge

Thank you for posting Adrian. It's always fascinating to have information direct from those who are actually bringing the ports to the market - even if it means that our wilder speculations and prognostications have to be reined back in!

Was I the only one who had to google

djewesbury wrote:majuscule.

?

LGTrotter wrote:Was I the only one who had to google

djewesbury wrote:majuscule.

?

And I had you down as one of the eruditer ones.

Echoing the thanks to Adrian. We like to hear truth from its source.

And it is also good the none of the Krohn staff were made redundant, especially given the state of the Portuguese job market.

And we like foot treading.

jdaw1 wrote:Echoing the thanks to Adrian. We like to hear truth from its source.

And it is also good the none of the Krohn staff were made redundant, especially given the state of the Portuguese job market.

And we like foot treading.

+1!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AdrianBridge wrote:Happy to see lots of posts about a Port that we will launch in VinExpo HK next week, in London on 3rd June and New York on 4th June. We look forward to showing you the packaging and price when we launch.

L'Assemblage has a sneak preview, I assume the small picture of the 1863 complete with your signature is what this launch is about. Hope you don't do a smiley face on the dot over the 'i' in your surname, I'm not sure I would buy one under such circumstances.

LGTrotter wrote:

AdrianBridge wrote:Happy to see lots of posts about a Port that we will launch in VinExpo HK next week, in London on 3rd June and New York on 4th June. We look forward to showing you the packaging and price when we launch.

L'Assemblage has a sneak preview, I assume the small picture of the 1863 complete with your signature is what this launch is about. Hope you don't do a smiley face on the dot over the 'i' in your surname, I'm not sure I would buy one under such circumstances.

I want to buy one now specifically to get Adrian to sign my bottle that way.

Darn, now I'll have to get mine signed with a heart over the i.

AdrianBridge wrote:Happy to see lots of posts about a Port that we will launch in VinExpo HK next week, in London on 3rd June and New York on 4th June.

London is the “International” launch, so is the earlier Hong Kong launch merely domestic?

Is there anybody out there who attended both the Taylor's 1863 launch and the Graham's 'Ne Michael Buble' shindig who can comment and contrast? I wondered if there was a similarity in the presentation of the events.

I notice there is a similarity of packaging between them, all morocco leather and teak. It's a bit like the Vesuvio packaging debate but magnified. As though one would carry a bottle of port around like a piece of luggage. Personally I would rather they sold it in jam jars if it kept the price down.