Is the secondary market price for Port changing?

[DRT]

I think we could ponder this entomological question for quite some time but the absolutely plain fact is that in the Douro region, and most if not all of modern day Portugal, a "Quinta" is a farm. In the Douro most of them farm grapes and make Port or wine. SQVP comes from one property (with whatever extremely small tolerance the IDVP regulations allow). Trying to extrapolate English translations onto the Portuguese meaning is at best pointless.

[JacobH]

I wasn't doubting the meaning of it, just thought the etymology was unusually obscure! (I'd contrast it with herdade which comes from hereditas meaning an inherirence or maybe an estate. It also gives us hereditament in English which just about hangs on in there as a term used in tax law).

[Glenn E.]

I think you're misreading it. "Or wine estate" seems to me to be explaining what a "Quinta" is. I read it as "not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, i.e., a wine estate".

Exactly right. That sentence is setting out the two conditions that must be met in order to use the term "single quinta vintage port".

+1

"Quinta" meaning "thursday" is short for "quinta-feira" which means literally "fifth market (day)" and is not the correct translation for this usage.

The correct translation means farm or estate, and the law quote is a clarification. That law dictates that what we refer to as an SQVP must come from a single estate and a single year.

[winesecretary]

While it is always with trepidation that I venture into what I think are other people's mutual non-comprehensions, I do think that everyone in this discussion has a point. Portuguese laws on this stuff are a legal code. The code exists and is immutable (until changed). But, there is a certain latitude in practice which is unwritten and unspoken and which arises from the rich chaos of human existence. There is an illuminating exchange in relation to the attitude to the pirate code in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 between KK and GR which illustrates my point. In this context, GE is KK and TA is GR.

[Glenn E.]

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that this is how things are actually done, just that this is how the law says they're to be done.

I've had similar discussions with Andy in the past regarding "topping off" or "refreshing" of old Colheitas. He says he's been told that there are exceptions to the year date law for refreshing old Colheitas, because otherwise they'd all be molasses. Except that there are no exceptions that I can find... if it has a year on the label, all wine in the bottle must come from that year. Legally. I think it fairly obvious that this can't actually be the case, because as Andy has argued any Port stored in cask since 1863 would be molasses at best. So they've been refreshed or diluted in some way over the years. But doing so and they labeling them as an "1863" Port isn't legal. But, neither is speeding, yet we all do it.

I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong in either case, but to date no one has been able to do that. So until disproven, I assert that the use of a year date on the label means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been harvested that year, and that the use of Quinta on the label* means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been grown at that Quinta. wink, wink.

*other than in the fine print as the name of the company.

Otherwise, why is it just "Noval Black"? Clearly the producers also believe this.

[DRT]

While it is always with trepidation that I venture into what I think are other people's mutual non-comprehensions, I do think that everyone in this discussion has a point. Portuguese laws on this stuff are a legal code. The code exists and is immutable (until changed). But, there is a certain latitude in practice which is unwritten and unspoken and which arises from the rich chaos of human existence. There is an illuminating exchange in relation to the attitude to the pirate code in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 between KK and GR which illustrates my point. In this context, GE is KK and TA is GR.

The Pirate Code, as stated by Barbosa, is more like guidelines than actual rules. The IDVP issue regulations (not guidance), backed by Portuguese and EU law.

In that context, this is utter nonsense...

The IVDP, in its guidance, states that single quinta vintage ports are:

"not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate"

This would appear to acknowledge the option of using wine from other quintas owned by the producer, when blending an SQ port.

[DRT]

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that this is how things are actually done, just that this is how the law says they're to be done.

I've had similar discussions with Andy in the past regarding "topping off" or "refreshing" of old Colheitas. He says he's been told that there are exceptions to the year date law for refreshing old Colheitas, because otherwise they'd all be molasses. Except that there are no exceptions that I can find... if it has a year on the label, all wine in the bottle must come from that year. Legally. I think it fairly obvious that this can't actually be the case, because as Andy has argued any Port stored in cask since 1863 would be molasses at best. So they've been refreshed or diluted in some way over the years. But doing so and they labeling them as an "1863" Port isn't legal. But, neither is speeding, yet we all do it.

I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong in either case, but to date no one has been able to do that. So until disproven, I assert that the use of a year date on the label means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been harvested that year, and that the use of Quinta on the label* means that all wine in the bottle is supposed to have been grown at that Quinta. wink, wink.

*other than in the fine print as the name of the company.

Otherwise, why is it just "Noval Black"? Clearly the producers also believe this.

I agree with all of this, including the wink, wink parts.

The regulations are the regulations, and the IDVP is perhaps the most anally-retentive regulator I have ever encountered. Broad-brush "do what you like" style guidance just isn't in its DNA. Yet there are, I believe, certain minuscule tolerances that allow wines to be "corrected" with the use of extremely small amounts of something other than what might appear on the label. What producers absolutely are not allowed to do is assemble wines from various properties, blend them together and call them an SQVP. That is just not allowed and I don't believe it happens.

I think this was clearly evidenced by Graham between the 1950's and 1998. I recall Paul Symington making a press announcement (and also discussing it with myself and others in the Douro and at trade tastings) that the first vintage of "Quinta dos Malvedos" that could use that designation was 1998. This was despite the fact that for two or three decades prior to that what was then simply "Malvedos" was produced from exactly the same vineyards but some of them were not owned by the Symington family. Those vineyards were contiguous to Quinta dos Malvedos but until 1998 were not part of the quinta. If the notion of simply bringing wine into a quinta from other places and calling it SQVP was permissible why would Graham or the Symingtons have waited nearly half a century to use the SQVP designation?

[winesecretary]

Derek is making my point for me. For the Governor's daughter, the Pirate Code is a code, because she is taking the ... rule-bound-law-abiding-English-Governor's-daughter approach. Captain Barbosa, who actually lives the pirate life, interprets the code differently. And, of course, it only applies to pirates...

[DRT]

Derek is making my point for me. For the Governor's daughter, the Pirate Code is a code, because she is taking the ... rule-bound-law-abiding-English-Governor's-daughter approach. Captain Barbosa, who actually lives the pirate life, interprets the code differently. And, of course, it only applies to pirates...

Do these things happen? Yes. Do the big boys (i.e. the vast majority of the trade) under intense scrutiny from a regulator get away with it? I very much doubt it. Your experience might be different to mine

[uncle tom]

Timbers shivered, parrot fed, might I venture two pieces of eight?

- Where exactly are the rules on blending ports?

On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

[DRT]

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

Screenshot 2021-11-28 at 09.29.44.png (403.57 KiB) Viewed 2858 times

[MigSU]

[Glenn E.]

On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

This is roughly what Andy has said, too, but no one seems to be able to find this mysterious document that directly contradicts an easily found law.

I'm not saying that it definitely doesn't exist, but... it seems pretty suspect given how often it is mentioned without proof of existence, and how often people have looked for it.

Also, if true, then why wasn't Whitwham's Millennium Port marketed and sold as a Colheita?

[DRT]

On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

This is roughly what Andy has said, too, but no one seems to be able to find this mysterious document that directly contradicts an easily found law.

I'm not saying that it definitely doesn't exist, but... it seems pretty suspect given how often it is mentioned without proof of existence, and how often people have looked for it.

Also, if true, then why wasn't Whitwham's Millennium Port marketed and sold as a Colheita?

Or Scion.

[Glenn E.]

On the matter of colheitas I was told some years ago that it is allowable to add a percentage of new wine (IIRC 10%) and I gained the impression that this is fully above board and not covert practice.

There is, presumably, a document that lays down what is, and isn't permissible, irrespective of what happens in practice; but I don't know where it is..

This is roughly what Andy has said, too, but no one seems to be able to find this mysterious document that directly contradicts an easily found law.

I'm not saying that it definitely doesn't exist, but... it seems pretty suspect given how often it is mentioned without proof of existence, and how often people have looked for it.

Also, if true, then why wasn't Whitwham's Millennium Port marketed and sold as a Colheita?

Or Scion.

My understanding for Scion is that they were pretty sure what it was, but not entirely positive, and that they basically had very little proof (if any at all).

But for the Millennium Port, my understanding is that Cristiano knew exactly what it was (an 1880, as I recall), and had sufficient proof, but didn't think it was quite worthy so added some Niepoort (1945?) to freshen it up. Somethink like 7%, as I recall. So if this "10% rule" is in fact true, the Millennium Port could have been marketed and sold as a Colheita.

[DRT]

My understanding for Scion is that they were pretty sure what it was, but not entirely positive, and that they basically had very little proof (if any at all).

But for the Millennium Port, my understanding is that Cristiano knew exactly what it was (an 1880, as I recall), and had sufficient proof, but didn't think it was quite worthy so added some Niepoort (1945?) to freshen it up. Somethink like 7%, as I recall. So if this "10% rule" is in fact true, the Millennium Port could have been marketed and sold as a Colheita.

That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is a 10% rule unless it is a one-off allowable thing immediately prior to bottling. If it is being suggested that a Cloheita can be refreshed with 10% new juice per annum that would mean it was possible to grow stocks of old wine despite the angel having her share.

[Glenn E.]

What doesn't make sense is a 10% rule unless it is a one-off allowable thing immediately prior to bottling. If it is being suggested that a Cloheita can be refreshed with 10% new juice per annum that would mean it was possible to grow stocks of old wine despite the angel having her share.

Exactly. That's called a Solera.

[uncle tom]

For a long time I've had an uneasy feeling that sooner or later, someone is going to radio carbon date one of these very old dated wines, and that the resultant mean age is going to fall embarrassingly short of that claimed.

Some of the source stocks for these old wines were probably family soleras rather than original unrefreshed casks, else they would have reduced to treacle, as previously mentioned - and as such may have a mean age of only a few decades.

[Andy Velebil]

To be factually correct about SQVP. A small Percentage of grapes can come from a different Quinta. IIRC, somewhere around 10-15% (but I forget the exact percentage so don’t quote me).

This type of allowed variance is quite normal in the wine world. Example, Cabernet Sauvignon from The USA can be up to 25% something else and still legal be labeled as 100% Cab Sauv.

The wine production trade around the globe is full of allowable exceptions to rules. The Douro is no different.

[Glenn E.]

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Just because it is normal in other wine regions does not mean it is allowed for Port.

I.e. pics or it didn't happen.

[PhilW]

Example, Cabernet Sauvignon from The USA can be up to 25% something else and still legal be labeled as 100% Cab Sauv.

That just seems ridiculous to me; I can appreciate there needs to be a margin/tolerance, but I'd have expected at most 1-2% not 25!

[JacobH]

If we were discussing English law, I wouldn’t be surprised if any exceptions were contained within a general labelling regulation for all wine (or, indeed, all food) rather than a Port-specific one which might explain why it is commonly believed that it exists but no-one can find it. As an example, I think a few producers are making Port below the minimum ABV percentage because modern methods of measuring the ABV are sufficiently accurate that you can consistently make Port at the bottom end of the tolerance (e.g. if it is a 1 percentage point tolerance, make it at 18% but label at 19%). I think the IVDP regulations just give the ABV rather than the tolerances which must be elsewhere. But I haven’t looked at this in any detail!

[uncle tom]

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed?

A Quinta name is a brand name, if it does not explicitly say on the bottle that the wine comes exclusively from that Quinta it does not appear to breach EU product law if part or all of the content is sourced elsewhere. There is also a marketed Quinta port, the amusingly titled Quinta da Revolta, that neither appears to be located within the demarcated area nor (from a Google earth search) have any vines - unless there is a second property with the same name.

[DRT]

Except that no one can find the text of this alleged exception, and we can find the text that says it isn't allowed.

Where does it say it's not allowed?

The IVDP website...

Single Quinta Vintage Port
These Vintages are unique in that they are not only the product of a single harvest but also of a single quinta, or wine estate, which makes them truly exceptional.

[DRT]

Thousands of IVDP regulations, announcements, etc can be accessed here by someone with sufficient knowledge of Portuguese to be able to find them.