Cockburn 1957

Anything to do with Port.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by jdaw1 »

djewesbury wrote:I made the image using Adobe Photoshop.
Sackcloth for you.
Sackcloth being worn — but the Photoshop’s kerning is just as shabby as Microsoft’s.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by djewesbury »

jdaw1 wrote:
djewesbury wrote:I made the image using Adobe Photoshop.
Sackcloth for you.
Sackcloth being worn — but the Photoshop’s kerning is just as shabby as Microsoft’s.
I didn't attempt to kern it. I wasn't preparing this for a client. I was showing the letterforms to port nerds! Surely nobody would use automatic kerning in any other circumstance?
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by flash_uk »

:whooshoverheademoticon:
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by djewesbury »

flash_uk wrote::whooshoverheademoticon:
Please could you sign up for the Geek 503 refresher course in the appropriate forum?
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by LGTrotter »

flash_uk wrote::whooshoverheademoticon:
Quite. However I have a suspicion that not a few folks on this site will be delighted with the turn this thread has taken. *sigh*.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Cockburn 1957

Post by djewesbury »

LGTrotter wrote:
flash_uk wrote::whooshoverheademoticon:
Quite. However I have a suspicion that not a few folks on this site will be delighted with the turn this thread has taken. *sigh*.
I think the relevant point is that the typeface is a modern one, much more modern than the supposed vintages in the (peculiarly shaped) bottles. I was distracted into an arcane discussion of typography by an admin who really should know better. If the labels and selos are contemporaneous, then these are also very very leaky bottles!

In conclusion I do not think that this is evidence of a Cockburn 1957 ever having been made. I believe that we have answered the original question.

Now, Sir, I invite you to withdraw your slur.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by LGTrotter »

Zzzzzzzzzz......zzzzz.....zzzzz.....

And you Sir may have proved something about the typeface, I am not sure you have proved much about the bottles and their contents. My bet is that they have something porty inside, maybe not exactly as advertised. Good day to you! :wink:
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by djewesbury »

LGTrotter wrote:Zzzzzzzzzz......zzzzz.....zzzzz.....

And you Sir may have proved something about the typeface, I am not sure you have proved much about the bottles and their contents. My bet is that they have something porty inside, maybe not exactly as advertised. Good day to you! :wink:
O thou thuggee, do you question my train of thought? Dodgy looking labels = rather incredible claims re contents. Does anyone know of any bottles this shape containing porty things? I don't think I do. If the bottles look so wrong and the labels look so wrong why would the contents somehow be right?
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by jdaw1 »

Next, go to Phil’s images of the labels of the 1960 and the 1963. Random lines come in from the left hand side. Looking at the top-left it is very obvious that these are different. I don’t know by what analogue printing technology the pattern was done, but it was re-done for the ’63. Then return to the ebay.fr image, and the left-hand sides of the ’55 and ’57 seem to be identical. Interesting.
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by LGTrotter »

jdaw1 wrote:Next, go to Phil’s images of the labels of the 1960 and the 1963. Random lines come in from the left hand side. Looking at the top-left it is very obvious that these are different. I don’t know by what analogue printing technology the pattern was done, but it was re-done for the ’63. Then return to the ebay.fr image, and the left-hand sides of the ’55 and ’57 seem to be identical. Interesting.
I think too much is being made of the labels. I have bought and drunk with satisfaction bottles with facsimile labels, Wylie fine wine (local to me) are often explicit about this. As to having odd shaped bottles it is not so unusual, perhaps these are odder than most but I think private bottlers would use what they had. I have heard of, but never seen, port being put in burgundy bottles. The things which strike me about the bottles is the presence of selos and the identical capsules on three disparate vintages.
djewesbury wrote:O thou thuggee, do you question my train of thought? Dodgy looking labels = rather incredible claims re contents. Does anyone know of any bottles this shape containing porty things? I don't think I do. If the bottles look so wrong and the labels look so wrong why would the contents somehow be right?
I think your train of thought is faultless. As are you. Hic.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by DRT »

LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.
I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by djewesbury »

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.
I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.
You're in the greenhouse.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by djewesbury »

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.
I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.
I'm afraid you've hopelessly latched on to the most tenuous statement in this whole thread. A facsimile label is just that: a facsimile. Or, it's a very simple label with no attempt to reproduce or imitate the design of the original. These are precisely that, an attempt to 'pass off' as Cockburn labels. What reputable dealer would do that?
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by DRT »

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.
I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.
I'm afraid you've hopelessly latched on to the most tenuous statement in this whole thread. A facsimile label is just that: a facsimile. Or, it's a very simple label with no attempt to reproduce or imitate the design of the original. These are precisely that, an attempt to 'pass off' as Cockburn labels. What reputable dealer would do that?
There was a time when I was creating facsimile labels on demand for people here. Most notably AHB. There are therefore lots of bottles in TPF member's cellars with non-original labels, non of which were created or applied with the intention to deceive. Owen has already mentioned a well respected wine merchant who is renowned for doing the same.

Speculating about whether or not there would be variability in the style of bottles used in the mid 20th century is quite laughable. Off course they were. 150 years of recycling bottles in the trade resulted in exactly what you see in that picture. The landed gentry, university colleges, gentleman's clubs, livery companies, etc. all recycled their bottles by handing them back to their wine merchant to be re-filled with the next vintage. The picture above is therefore utterly unsurprising for the time period.

Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by LGTrotter »

DRT wrote:Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.
Whist I do not think these bottles are in any way sinister and I am reluctant to alienate my only current supporter but it was through making fakes of burgundy that never existed which led to Rudy Kurwinian being nabbed.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by jdaw1 »

DRT wrote:Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.
So what is your explanation?
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by Glenn E. »

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I think too much is being made of the labels.
I just read this thread from start to finish and finally came across the only sentence that makes any sense.

Owen, I'm your +1.
I'm with you two, too.

Because there's never been a case where new labels were affixed to old bottles of Port after the original labels fell off and were lost (or were never present in the first place).

Never.
Glenn Elliott
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by Glenn E. »

jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.
So what is your explanation?
Cockburn 1977.
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by DRT »

jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:Is it Cockburn 1957? Unlikely. Did someone decide to create a fake of something that never existed? Equally unlikely.
So what is your explanation?
someone made a mistake.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by RAYC »

3 mistakes - broadbent, the author of jdaw1's excerpt, and whoever labelled the bottles?
Rob C.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by DRT »

Ah. Didn't pick those up. Cockburn 57 existed.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

djewesbury wrote:Does anyone know of any bottles this shape containing porty things? I don't think I do. If the bottles look so wrong and the labels look so wrong why would the contents somehow be right?
Errr, yes. Calem 1935 is contained in thoroughly non-porty-thingy-shaped bottles. And it contains porty stuff. Only the person who put the Calem 1935 into the non-porty-thingy-shaped bottles didn't bother with anything as facile as a facsimile label. No label at all, in fact.

Oh God! I've just realised what you're saying. Tom's Calem 1935 is as fake as a bottle of Cockburn 1957. Oh no! I've been duped! Rudy Kurniwan is alive and kicking and churning out more fakes from his prison cell in Alcatraz. Damn him!
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

DRT wrote:There was a time when I was creating facsimile labels on demand for people here. Most notably AHB.
At one time I had 13 bottles of Cockburn 1912. All of these were relabelled using the kind services of DRT. Many of these have been drunk but if you search the review thread for mention of Cockburn 1912 you might well see a picture of a bottle with a facsimilie label. These were produced to order and were made to look like the Cockburn 1963 format label.

I'm sure that original labels (if any) on Cockburn 1912 were normally whatever the merchant / club / country house butler decided to stick on the bottle.

A dodgy label does not mean a fake wine. A dodgy bottle does not mean a fake wine. We've seen at least one example of where a cork branded with one shipper / vintage combination was used in error in a different port! It is really tough to differentiate a well intentioned and genuine effort to make your bottles look nice so you can cuddle them when you visit your cellar, from a malicious and deliberate attempt to mislead a potential buyer in an effort to extract more cash from them.

On the whole, I believe that this is probably the former, that the 1957 Cockburn is an unofficial vintage which was probably blended, bottled and shipped in very small quantities probably for a single customer. Similar to Taylor 1947 and 1950 or Dow 1946 - none of which exist and all of which I have drunk.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by jdaw1 »

I second the excellent opinion in the previous post (hereafter written as “+1”).

Except that I haven’t had Dow 1946.
Justin K
Niepoort LBV
Posts: 251
Joined: 19:19 Mon 15 Dec 2008

Re: Cockburn 1957

Post by Justin K »

Daniel,

You have some nerve, in 24 hours you are serving a so called Taylor's 1970 with no label dodgy bottle, no provenance etc. shame on you ! Mind you I'm really looking forward to it and my (tom's)dodgy bottle as well. And I know the full story on yours (all will be revealed tomorrow night).
Post Reply