2007 Vintage Port Declarations - discussion

[uncle tom]

Discussion split off from this thread which is being used to capture 2007 VP declarations.

DRT (Admin 2)

here we are, just twiddling our thumbs til thursday...

I was thinking that. Though it’s a shame that since so many other shippers have declared already there isn’t much sense of expectation!

On a separate issue: when are release prices likely to trickle down to us consumers?

A few weeks yet. Those that are going to sell into the UK seriously should all be priced by the end of June.

The main questions in my mind are:

1) Will there be a Delaforce? - is there really an agenda to kill the name, as was implied by the TFP last year.

2) Who will Berry's endorse? - they put a shot across the big boys bows last time by going for Q. de la Rosa.

3) Will Sogrape take the UK market seriously? - The marketing of Ferreira, Offley & Sandeman VP's in the UK has been minimalist for a long time now.

Tom

[JacobH]

3) Will Sogrape take the UK market seriously? - The marketing of Ferreira, Offley & Sandeman VP's in the UK has been minimalist for a long time now.

I'm surprised they don't try to sell more Sandeman; it's such a well recognised brand in the UK that I would have thought they could grab a sizeable chunk of the Ruby market if as many supermarkets had stocked them as they do in France and elsewhere.

[uncle tom]

I'm surprised they don't try to sell more Sandeman

Agreed. I would have thought that for Ruby reserves, LBV and maybe a Tawny or two, the UK supermarkets would be easy to approach; especially if they were exclusive to one chain, so there were no price wars in prospect.

It's easy to presume that Sogrape are just too greedy, and would rather forego the business than compete with the Symingtons and TFP; but given that they sell a lot of Ruby to France, which is the most meagre market from a profit standpoint, that doesn't stack up..

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

I apologize to alll regulars and readers because I truly do not want to hijack this thread, which is great to show the various 2007 VPs about to be launched in the marketplace.

However, someone needs to refute irresponsible claims, which offers little justice for those in the Port trade who don't post on Forums to defend themselves.

Tom wrote:

... is there really an agenda to kill the name, as was implied by the TFP last year.

Wow!
The Fladgate Partnership clearly has stated their reasons for selling off the Delaforce Ports. Again, it is the irresponsible use of "to kill the name, as was implied by the TFP last year" which is offensive in its arrogance and unnecessary negativity. There seems to be an agenda with these ad hominem claims against TFP ... this by no means being the first.

Just the facts m'aam:

1. Nearly a year ago to the day, TFP sold off Delaforce to Real Companhia Velha.
2. RCV is a Port company with very deep pockets.
3. TFP sold RCV the name, but will continue to produce Delaforce for RCV.
4. TFP can be far more profitable with a long term "supply contract" to RCV than carrying the stocks of Ports that they do not wish to sell (like Delaforce Colheita as just one example).
5. This deal made a lot of sense as Delaforce enjoys strong marketshare in Germany and also The Netherlands. RCV is very strong in Germany with a considerable sales emphasis there too, along with Brazil and Portugal, of course.
6. TFP clearly wanted to focus on their 3 core brands (Taylor/Fonseca/Croft) which had fantastic Quinta and vineyards, an integral part of TFP's ongong success ... Delaforce had neither a Quinta nor any vineyards to add to the mix. That is why Croft was such an invaluable part of the purchase of Croft/Delaforce when TFP bought them both together. Croft's Quinta da Roeda (as anyone who has ever been there can attest to) is one of the crown jewels in the Douro and treasured by TFP who once upon a time owned this jewel over a century ago and wanted it back in their crown.



One other point before I depart ...


Tom also wrote:

It's easy to presume that Sogrape are just too greedy, and would rather forego the business than compete with the Symingtons and TFP; but given that they sell a lot of Ruby to France, which is the most meagre market from a profit standpoint, that doesn't stack up..

Sogrape are (... is ... calling JDW for judgement ) too greedy you say?

Is this just more speculation or are you basing this on some facts? "Presume" ... well, you know what they say about assume. Please do share your version of the facts with us, rather than present just another off the cuff remark that besmirches a Port company's reputation, while in reality, having no basis in fact.

I do agree with you that France buys a lot of cheap Port. In terms of sheer volume of Port sold -- in France, not only are they the largest market in the world, but in 2008, they imported 28.1% of all Port sold globally. To put that in perspective they imported 2.7 million cases (out of 9.8 million cases of ALL Port sold in the world)! The UK on the other hand was a mere 10.2% with 996,000 cases, the USA a paltry 4.2% with only 412,000 cases imported, and Canada at half the USA with 2.1% which translates to 205,000 cases (actually a phenomenal achievement considering their population is 33 million, compared to 303 million people in the USA). There is a good reason there is so much focus on the Canadian market these days!

When we flip that and look only at the premium Port (pP) categories "the higher cost items" the numbers change. France clearly buys a ton of cheap Port. However, given the population base of 61 million people (just a tad more than the UK), France deserves less grief than the USA, as they still buy more pP than the USA, especially on a per capita basis, fwiw. The real news is the % of premium Port purchased by Canada!

The facts are:
France - 258,000 cases (of pP) or 9.6% of total Port sold to France
UK - 531,000 cases (of pP) or 53.4% of total Port sold to the UK
US - 239,000 cases (of pP) or 57.9% of total Port sold to the USA
Canada - 151,000 cases (of pP) or 73.5% of total Port sold to Canada

In terms of VALUE* of premium Ports as a % of total Port sales for each country, that is what is the most telling:
France = a rather low 18.2% (but they use a lot of cheap stuff to cook with too! ; )
UK = a solid 65%
US = a respectable 76%
Canada = a spectacular 84.2%

* if my % don't replicate the IVDP's, it's just that my math is better.

[g-man]

1. Nearly a year ago to the day, TFP sold off Delaforce to Real Companhia Velha.

Does that mean that some of the wine would go to Royal Oporto VP?


Also regarding Canada,

I think most of canada liquor importing is controlled by a govt entity like the LCBO.

It's not actually the users buying I thought, but the government buying and redistributing the sales to the individual buyer in canada.

Having deep pockets and near limitless storage, I don't quite believe your Canadian numbers regarding individual port drinkers =)

[Glenn E.]

It's not actually the users buying I thought, but the government buying and redistributing the sales to the individual buyer in canada.

Sure, but I doubt that the Canadian government is using Port as an investment option, so what the LCBO (and other agencies) buys is pretty much by definition representative of what the individual in Canada is ultimately consuming.

It may be the case that if the LCBO and other agencies imported more basic Port that Canadians would buy it up and drink it (or cook with it), thus lowering their premium Port percentage, but as things currently stand I'd think these numbers would be accurate.

[g-man]

It's not actually the users buying I thought, but the government buying and redistributing the sales to the individual buyer in canada.

Sure, but I doubt that the Canadian government is using Port as an investment option, so what the LCBO (and other agencies) buys is pretty much by definition representative of what the individual in Canada is ultimately consuming.

It may be the case that if the LCBO and other agencies imported more basic Port that Canadians would buy it up and drink it (or cook with it), thus lowering their premium Port percentage, but as things currently stand I'd think these numbers would be accurate.

LCBO says it's 680$ for a Taylor 94 and a 1000$ for a 63 dows? ...
Also, the discontinued wines they have are all the cheap ports, so the natural assumption is that the cheap ones are going, but the VPs are sitting there.

And speaking about governments and representative of the individual, don't get me started on my senator.

[Glenn E.]

LCBO says it's 680$ for a Taylor 94 and a 1000$ for a 63 dows? ...
Also, the discontinued wines they have are all the cheap ports, so the natural assumption is that the cheap ones are going, but the VPs are sitting there.

Yeah but it's illegal for individuals to import alcohol into Canada, and they enforce that rather strictly, so if the cheap ports are selling and the VPs are not then over time the sales/import numbers for the LCBO would reflect those purchasing habits. The numbers indicate that it's the premium stuff that's selling. (Also note that we're not 100% clear on the definition of "premium" - does that include Ruby Reserves, for example?)

$680 for a T94 and $1000 for a D63 may look like highway robbery to you and I, but then again our prices in the US look the same to the guys in the UK. It's all relative, and those poor Canadians are a captive audience for the LCBO and other government agencies.

[g-man]

(Also note that we're not 100% clear on the definition of "premium" - does that include Ruby Reserves, for example?)
.

oops you make a good point Glenn

I went looking at the LCBO documentation. Their vintages program is what's considered the fine wine and premium spirits which are the vintage ports.

Here's their breakdown of sales for 06-07 (which they have stats for)

Net Sales 11.6$ million (in CAD)
White wines 2.5 $ million
Red Wines 2.3$ million
icewine 6.6 $ million
Roses 155 thousand
Sparkling 133 thousand.

So it sounds like most of the stats that Roy points to probably do include the ruby reserves

[Roy Hersh]

Code: Select all

Does that mean that some of the wine would go to Royal Oporto VP?

Gman, simply put ... no. Only for Delaforce bottlings.

Also regarding Canada,
I think most of canada liquor importing is controlled by a govt entity like the LCBO.

Actually each Province in Canada has its own jurisdiction and buying force. Pricing nor SKU's from one Province have anything to do with the other.

It's not actually the users buying I thought, but the government buying and redistributing the sales to the individual buyer in canada.

Ultimately that is not all that dissimilar to the way it works in the USA, except instead of Big Brother doing the buying, we have Big Distributors (privatization) doing the work. Of course there is more freedom here, but many arcane regulations from state to state as well.

Having deep pockets and near limitless storage, I don't quite believe your Canadian numbers regarding individual port drinkers =)

Er, I did not make up these numbers. They came directly off the IVDP website. So unless they are mistaken (and I make no claims as to the accuracy of what the IVDP reports) they should be pretty much in line with reality. However, I did find mistakes in their calculations of some percentages in their tables and have alerted their peeps.

[g-man]

Er, I did not make up these numbers. They came directly off the IVDP website. So unless they are mistaken (and I make no claims as to the accuracy of what the IVDP reports) they should be pretty much in line with reality. However, I did find mistakes in their calculations of some percentages in their tables and have alerted their peeps.

intern doing the website might be consuming too much port during work =)


side note: all this unneccessary posting on my part is due to the anticipation of a certain TFP possible declaration in 2 days.

[Roy Hersh]

Duly noted and anticipated. However, as they have long ago announced trade tastings to show their lineup ... it is a bit anti-climactic. Nonetheless, it will be very good to hear that they are also declaring 2007 worthy of a major declaration and when they do ... it will kick something interesting into play.

[jdaw1]

it is a bit anti-climactic

Don’t spoil the plot: I’m on the edge of my seat! Will Mr Bond escape again, or will Dr Evil finally do him in?

[DRT]

it will kick something interesting into play.

Oh no!!!! - Croft Pink 2007

[jdaw1]

Could be worse: Morgan Magenta.

[DRT]

I "declare" that I know absolutely nothing of what Roy is talking about.

My guess is that if there is a surprise in the offing they may declare an SQVP and a classic VP from one house, most likely to be Croft out of those three.

Any more guesses?

[Glenn E.]

Taylor Fladgate Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha

[SushiNorth]

Fonseca Light -- The difference is Drinkability (C)(TM)(All Rights Reserved)

[SushiNorth]

You know, it occurs to me a downside to an industry (like port) declaring two years in a row would be that fresh juice could be compared apples-to-apples. In other words, only 1 yr of aging, vs 3 or 4 of the standard gap. This is advantageous if your product's quality is otherwise merely a guesstimate for 30 yrs and you want folks to buy all of your vintages, not pick one out of a pair.

[DRT]

It would still be apples to one-year-older-apples. I am speculating here but I would think that the first few years in the life of a VP would see the most accelerated changes so the difference between a wine bottled now to a wine bottled 1 year ago would be more marked (on a per year basis) than to a wine bottled 2, 3 or 4 years ago. Am I making this up? Yes. But it seems sensible to me.

[Andy Velebil]

it will kick something interesting into play.

Oh no!!!! - Croft Pink 2007

I'm not saying a word.......

[g-man]

I "declare" that I know absolutely nothing of what Roy is talking about.

My guess is that if there is a surprise in the offing they may declare an SQVP and a classic VP from one house, most likely to be Croft out of those three.

Any more guesses?

Croft, Quinta de Lara

[uncle tom]

Roy said:

"to kill the name, as was implied by the TFP last year" which is offensive in its arrogance and unnecessary negativity.

TFP stated publicly that they thought there were too many port brand names. In their own statement, they could hardly have been more negative about the future of Delaforce. The deal brokered with RCV left as many questions as it provided answers, and implied that this was perhaps a wind down operation for Delaforce, or the reduction of the brand to no more than a labelling exercise for specific markets.

Was that really the intention? That is the question.

Roy also said:

Sogrape are (... is ... calling JDW for judgement ) too greedy you say?

No, I didn't say that. Try reading what I write a little more carefully before coming out with all guns blazing.

Tom

[JacobH]

Could be worse: Morgan Magenta.

Would that be worse than a Roeda Rosé?

[jdaw1]

Would that be worse than a Roeda Rosé?

Croft Cerise?
Burmester Blush?
Ferreira Fuchsia?