ThePortForum.com

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:Labelling wines as being from a "Chateau", "Weingut", "Quinta" or any other form of estate or holding should, in my opinion, indicate a connection between the wine and the land.

I am not sure about 'Wiengut' but I have never entertained the notion that all the Chateaux mentioned on bottles were quite as bucolic as the picture on the label suggested and I would say the same is true of Quinta. There are of course quality producers where it does mean something.

DRT wrote:

RAYC wrote:

AHB wrote: If these grapes formerly could not have been used to make "Quinta do Bomfim" but now can be, what have we lost? Was there a Quinta do Sabordella that we could have bought in the past? No. Again, I ask what have we lost?

If the concept of a "Quinta" is so malleable that its area under vine can be increased by over 50% by acquisition yet still be called the same, to my mind the whole notion of SQVP becomes meaningless. That's what i think is lost

It is impossible to lose something that you never had. I don't think there has ever been a point in the history of Port production where clear lines could be drawn around what was and was not a true SQVP. That situation hasn't changed as a result of this acquisition, so what has been lost is a bit of romance about what we thought we had.

Glenn E. wrote: "Quinta" is closer to "estate" than "vineyard," so adding to a Quinta via purchase actually makes sense. You're just increasing the size of your property. I would have more of a problem if they were expanding a vineyard by purchasing a neighboring plot, as to me a vineyard is a fixed thing. (Even that, though, is more of a romantic notion than a real limitation.)

There is consensus that the use of the name of a holding or a group of vineyards , where wine is actually produced , creates an image of prestige among consumers and add value .
This notion of authenticity in relation to the land where the wine is produced and men who take the responsibility to create , produce and store hap- pail setting rules making the use of the name of exploration and strict measures of control and surveillance , so as to prevent its misuse and not create confusion or misinterpretation , lesi -ing the interests of consumers .
Community legislation , in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity , leaving member states free to establish rules regarding the uti -tion of the name of the vineyard .

Of the terms used to designate the name of a vineyard , stand out from the ' Quinta ' and ' Herdade ' as the most frequently used that matters right now regulatory reserving other expressions normally associated with patrimonial -balance sheet values ”‹”‹in the presence capable of enhancing the prestige of a wine to the consumer , but whose qualification as vineyard requires stricter rules for further regulation that subjects the more restrictive use.

RAYC wrote:

There is consensus that the use of the name of a holding or a group of vineyards , where wine is actually produced , creates an image of prestige among consumers and add value .
This notion of authenticity in relation to the land where the wine is produced and men who take the responsibility to create , produce and store hap- pail setting rules making the use of the name of exploration and strict measures of control and surveillance , so as to prevent its misuse and not create confusion or misinterpretation , lesi -ing the interests of consumers .
Community legislation , in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity , leaving member states free to establish rules regarding the uti -tion of the name of the vineyard .

Of the terms used to designate the name of a vineyard , stand out from the ' Quinta ' and ' Herdade ' as the most frequently used that matters right now regulatory reserving other expressions normally associated with patrimonial -balance sheet values ”‹”‹in the presence capable of enhancing the prestige of a wine to the consumer , but whose qualification as vineyard requires stricter rules for further regulation that subjects the more restrictive use.

DRT wrote:Excellent. That's cleared all that up then

Does anyone else fancy opening up a Bomfim to celebrate the longest and most active Port debate we have had in many months?

LGTrotter wrote:I would dispute this vociferously. Not only do we have no resolution to the present and projected meaningless of the word Quinta. Neither have we resolved the vexed question of how to protect the financial needs and cultural heritage of the growers.

LGTrotter wrote:I would dispute this vociferously. Not only do we have no resolution to the present and projected meaningless of the word Quinta. Neither have we resolved the vexed question of how to protect the financial needs and cultural heritage of the growers.

GoogleTranslate wrote:I would dispute this vehemently. Not only have no resolution for this project and the meaning of the word Thursday. Neither have we solved the vexed question of how to protect the financial needs and the cultural heritage of the producers.

Glenn E. wrote:See? Even Google doesn't know what a Quinta is. Nothing that a couple of passes from English to Portuguese and back to English couldn't solve.

(Thursday??? Really, Google???)

Google Translate wrote: 1. Nobody knows what the fifth is.

2. Consolidation will continue.

Sorry if this sounds a bit waffly.

DRT wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:See? Even Google doesn't know what a Quinta is. Nothing that a couple of passes from English to Portuguese and back to English couldn't solve.

(Thursday??? Really, Google???)

The same trick on my solution gives us!

Google Translate wrote: 1. Nobody knows what the fifth is.

2. Consolidation will continue.

Sorry if this sounds a bit waffly.

So a quinta must mean Thursday the 5th.

RAYC wrote:

AHB wrote: If these grapes formerly could not have been used to make "Quinta do Bomfim" but now can be, what have we lost? Was there a Quinta do Sabordella that we could have bought in the past? No. Again, I ask what have we lost?

Labelling wines as being from a "Chateau"...

AHB wrote:

RAYC wrote:

AHB wrote: If these grapes formerly could not have been used to make "Quinta do Bomfim" but now can be, what have we lost? Was there a Quinta do Sabordella that we could have bought in the past? No. Again, I ask what have we lost?

Labelling wines as being from a "Chateau"...

But plots of land change hands all the time in Bordeaux! For example, I know that Chateau Meyre in Moulis acquired 2 hectares in the Margaux commune in 1992 and added these to 15 hectares already owned. Their vineyards aren't contiguous - they aren't even in the same appellation - but all wine made by this company can be labelled as Chateau Meyre. In 1991 this wine came only from the original 15 hectares. In 1993 this wine could have come from all 17 hectares.

RAYC wrote:I don't think it is correct that the wine made from these extra two hectares can go into their classified Cru Borgeois wine - I think it is used for a different wine.

And I may well be wrong more generally, but I had thought the Bordelais restricted what went into wines that have some sort of classification - eg the wine for the Grand Vin of Latour being purely from the "L'Enclos" vineyards that were part of the original classification (and wines from other vines only being available for second and third labels).

AHB wrote:If you really want to drink only from the exact same boundaries of vineyard all the time, you'd have to only drink Nacional, Vargellas Vinha Velha, Vesuvio Capela, Nieport Pisca / Bioma and now Graham Stone Terraces. It would be an expensive hobby!

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:I don't think it is correct that the wine made from these extra two hectares can go into their classified Cru Borgeois wine - I think it is used for a different wine.

And I may well be wrong more generally, but I had thought the Bordelais restricted what went into wines that have some sort of classification - eg the wine for the Grand Vin of Latour being purely from the "L'Enclos" vineyards that were part of the original classification (and wines from other vines only being available for second and third labels).

I think that it is the properties that are classified in Bordeaux rather than the land. The disappearance and renaissance of properties in Margaux, both classed and Cru Bourgeois would seem to confirm this.

RAYC wrote:a "Bomfim" wine made with grapes from Sabordela has ceased to be a "SQVP" in the way i think most people would understand it and has instead become something more akin to Fonseca Guimaraens.

RAYC wrote: and i've got that wrong.

LGTrotter wrote:The Guimarens is clear but I have never been quite sure about Malvedos. If it says Quinta do Malvedos I assumed that it was from the place. But if it says just Graham's Malvedos I assumed it was any old thing from an undeclared year. Is that right?

AHB wrote: If you really want to drink only from the exact same boundaries of vineyard all the time, you'd have to only drink Nacional, Vargellas Vinha Velha, Vesuvio Capela, Nieport Pisca / Bioma and now Graham Stone Terraces. It would be an expensive hobby!

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:The Guimarens is clear but I have never been quite sure about Malvedos. If it says Quinta do Malvedos I assumed that it was from the place. But if it says just Graham's Malvedos I assumed it was any old thing from an undeclared year. Is that right?

The Symingtons started using "Quinta dos Malvedos" following the acquisition of a number of adjoining vineyards that are now part of the enlarged quinta. Perhaps it should be called Quinta dos Malvedos Plus Wine From Some Adjoining Plots That Were Not Part of the Original Quinta Vintage Port?

Dominic Symington, by email, wrote:I see that there has been some considerable discussion about to merge or not to merge a vineyard into a property ! with a small digression on the way!

In the wine world, & not exclusive to Portugal or the Douro; wine property boundaries are fluid, in that generally purchases of contiguous vineyards are absorbed into the main/purchasers property. (in Bordeaux these purchases do not even have to be contiguous as is the case in a significant number of the top Classed Growths)

As a general rule in the Douro, purchases tend to be contiguous and as Derek mentioned, Malvedos is a classic example. Although exceptions are many! When we purchased Bom Retiro from the Serodio family (the smaller 1/3^rd.) it had a number of parcels that were some distance from the main property but all classified as Bom Retiro (Serodio).

I’m sure any number of properties in the Douro are changing and expanding as parcels of vineyard become available. The only difference with Sabordela, or indeed Sibio at Malvedos is that; 1) we announced the purchases & 2) the parcels of land are slightly larger.

Regarding Sabordela. We only very occasionally have purchased the grapes from this property.
The interest in this property is that being of a reasonable size it will allow us to produce more wines in a virtually identical style to Dow’s being a virtually identical terroir, indeed the only difference being that the property rises a little higher than Bomfim and therefore the higher wines will probably be a little fresher. Apart from terrior which obviously has an influence, the other two main influencers are the vineyard husbandry and the winemaking style.

There is nothing in the IVDP legislation to stop a company purchasing wines and presenting them as their own. The only limitation regarding SQ wines is that there must be a guarantee that they are indeed produced from the said property and within the volume limitations (beneficio) allocated to the property in the said year.

I hope this will answer more questions than it raises, although I’m not sure.

Dominic Symington, by email, wrote:I hope this will answer more questions than it raises, although I’m not sure.

As a general rule in the Douro, purchases tend to be contiguous and as Derek mentioned, Malvedos is a classic example. Although exceptions are many! When we purchased Bom Retiro from the Serodio family (the smaller 1/3rd.) it had a number of parcels that were some distance from the main property but all classified as Bom Retiro (Serodio).

jdaw1 wrote:Thank you Dominic. That concurs with my prejudices, so must be true.

Glenn E. wrote:But I was the one that brought up Malvedos, not Derek! /pout

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:But I was the one that brought up Malvedos, not Derek! /pout

Actually I saw her first, gerroff.

LGTrotter wrote:I can understand that having vineyards higher up may give them more flexibility in the wines they produce, perhaps they will be able to declare Dow more often.

LGTrotter wrote:More wine identical to Dow? I wonder if this will mean an increased output of it. Or perhaps like the Bordelais they intend it for second tier production. But if it is identical surely there would be some temptation. I can understand that having vineyards higher up may give them more flexibility in the wines they produce, perhaps they will be able to declare Dow more often.

DRT wrote:Warning: that might be nonsense.

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:Warning: that might be nonsense.

That depends. How many iterations into the cycle are you?

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:More wine identical to Dow? I wonder if this will mean an increased output of it. Or perhaps like the Bordelais they intend it for second tier production. But if it is identical surely there would be some temptation. I can understand that having vineyards higher up may give them more flexibility in the wines they produce, perhaps they will be able to declare Dow more often.

Interesting thought, which made me think of another potential benefit from this sort of acquisition:

Producer A owns a quinta with 40Ha of vines. He is given a Beneficio allocation that allows him to produce a volume of Port from that property equivalent to 20Ha of vine production.

Producer A then buys an adjoining quinta of 30Ha with a 15Ha Beneficio. He merges the two quintas into one. He can now use 35Ha from his original quinta to produce Port.

Warning: that might be nonsense.

RAYC wrote:This is exactly what I was thinking - but is only really relevant in the context of a Quinta that solely produces SQVP (and presumably those are relatively rare if not non-existent)..

DRT wrote:!

RAYC wrote:This is exactly what I was thinking

djewesbury wrote:

RAYC wrote:This is exactly what I was thinking - but is only really relevant in the context of a Quinta that solely produces SQVP (and presumably those are relatively rare if not non-existent)..

Most of the small producers?

RAYC wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

RAYC wrote:This is exactly what I was thinking - but is only really relevant in the context of a Quinta that solely produces SQVP (and presumably those are relatively rare if not non-existent)..

Most of the small producers?

Who are you thinking of?

Crasto is one example that do seem to brand all the port that they produce "SQ" ports - their finest reserve, LBV and VP are all under the "Quinta do Crasto" label. But presumably they produce so much dry red wine from vineyards with beneficio allocation that port production is not an issue for them.

RAYC wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

RAYC wrote:This is exactly what I was thinking - but is only really relevant in the context of a Quinta that solely produces SQVP (and presumably those are relatively rare if not non-existent)..

Most of the small producers?

Who are you thinking of?

Crasto is one example that do seem to brand all the port that they produce "SQ" ports - their finest reserve, LBV and VP are all under the "Quinta do Crasto" label. But presumably they produce so much dry red wine from vineyards with beneficio allocation that port production is not an issue for them.

Andy Velebil wrote:actually most of their dry wine production comes from another large Quinta they own, which is east of Vesuvio. Only the Reserva old vine and above comes from the actual Quinta.

RAYC wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:actually most of their dry wine production comes from another large Quinta they own, which is east of Vesuvio. Only the Reserva old vine and above comes from the actual Quinta.

I'm not sure it is quite right that it is only the Reserva old vine. I thought also:

- Maria Teresa
- Ponte
- TOuriga Nacional single varietal
- Tinta Roriz single varietal