ThePortForum.com

We heard recently that Martinez is a brand that will probably not be used again. In 2013, here, in answer to a question from JDAW,

Cynthia J wrote:

No Gould Campbell?

No, nor Quarles Harris nor Martinez. These ports are typically made with the grapes bought in from Douro farmers, primarily in the Pinhão and Rio Torto valleys. For 2011 Symington was focussed on the opportunity to make creme de la creme ports from our own quintas - and when Charles reviewed the possible blends for these brands, the wines were simply not in the same league, so the decision was taken to let this year pass for those brands.

With the benefit of some time, and bearing in mind the word on Martinez, does anyone think that Gould has also ceased to be? 2011 Quarles did surface of course, but only in the States, as a BOB.

I certainly hope not. It has been one of the better QPR Ports for several decades.

Bring back Gould Campbell!

(sic 'em, Julian)

It would be a loss. While it may result in the emergence of a number of small-grower vintage ports, the idea that one stops making port under these brands after a century or three is a damm shame.

The thing that struck me in Cynthia's post was the idea that the bought-in ports were so much lower in quality than the SFE-grown ones. I find that curious in a year like '11, where so many small growers were capable of producing real 'wow' port (and given that it's all about the blend). I think the decision to release QH11 subsequently tests that argument too. Julian's query at the time ("is this the end of the non-terroir ports"?) probably has more truth to it than I think SFE wish to admit. So I'd be surprised if, having missed the opportunity to make GC in a landmark year like '11, they release it as part of a lesser declaration.

I think all of this tells us something about the shifts in concentration of producers. It is not obvious to me where the equilibrium will settle. My thinking is as follows. It seems like QH, GC, Mz have been brands which source their grapes from independent growers in the Douro, rather than having access to a quinta which supplies a substantial proportion of the grapes. In the past, the independent shipper (GC etc) would have made a decision about the quality of the blend and how much to bottle. Now SFE makes that decision. And they perhaps have a different view on the quality threshold required when considering whether or not to bottle.

That leads me to wonder what happens to the grapes from the independent growers, when SFE decide they don't want them as the blends are not delivering the quality threshold. If SFE don't take them then as griff observed, it could lead to the emergence of some new, small independent brands seeking to make use of that grape supply. This might be theoretically possible, but I do wonder how feasible it is for a new entrant into this market, and if there is a minimum efficient scale which would make it difficult to enter.

I can understand why SFE might want to consolidate the number of brands in their stable which only use bought-in grapes. Why would they need 3 or 4 or 5? It is somewhat surprising though, as Daniel points out, that in the wonderful year of 2011, the blends from those independent growers was not up to scratch What I am not sure about, is what quantities were produced under the main brands. Perhaps D, G, W etc hoovered up all the grapes...

Presumably the vines are still there and farmers will want to sell what they grow, so while it may be sad that it is not being sold as these traditional brands it will be made and sold as something.

My understanding is that all of the SFE big brands apart from Vesuvio have at least some bought-in grapes included in the blend. These tend to be from neighboring properties where the owners have long-standing relationships with the relevant SFE companies dating back decades. There has been a trend towards consolidating these properties into the main SFE quintas, as happened a few years ago with Malvedos. That was what enable Malvados to be labelled Quinta dos Malvedos. The grapes used didn't change, just the ownership of the land they were grown on.

Most of the 2nd tier labels do not have quintas, but that doesn't mean they are made from bought in grapes. I think it is more likely that the core of those blends will come from the left-over lots of vintage quality wines made at the various SFE quintas. The decision whether or not to release wines under these brands is likely to be driven by the availability of left-over lots and the commercial circumstances that prevail at the time the blends are being put together. In today's market it probably makes more sense for lots of this stuff to end up as supermarket BOBs than it does to spend scarce marketing budgets on too many brands.

The bulk of the wines that are bought in go into the lower end styles.

The two now-SFE brands that have always been explicitly described as being made from bought-in grapes are GC and QH. In the case of GC, they have always been described in every source I've read (online and in print) as being from small farms in the valley of the Rio Torto. The only SFE property I'm aware of in the Torto, incidentally, is Madalena, which of course 'belongs' to SW; I'm not saying that this discounts the theory that Derek puts forward as obviously I don't believe that if they were using their own surplus they would have to do it with grapes from any region in particular. But on one hand I have statements that tell me one thing and on the other I have no sources describing a situation that Derek details, where GC is just a label for general SFE surplus blends.

If SFE stop buying from small producers in the Torto, there is nothing to stop those producers making port, now that the entrepot has been deregulated. There is no particular economy of scale here; it makes sense to add value to their grapes and sell locally as Vinho do Porto, as so many small producers did in 2011. It's that or sell them to for making into Douro wines, and that's not an economical option. Those producers are growing every year. Perhaps, herein, lies the answer to our question, hinted at by JDAW iin 2013. Why make field blend bought-in wines when you have a luxury blend market to corner, and when the small producers are already pushing past you in the middle and bottom of the market? Stone Terraces and GC cannot exist in the same portfolio.

"Bought in" is a misleading term. Gould Campbell & Co is a shipping company, not a wine producer, so by definition all of their wine (not grapes) are bought in. But who are they bought in from? Mostly the wine producing shipping companies within the SFE empire? I suspect so. Only the wine producing companies buy-in grapes. SFE does not buy any wine at harvest time as far as I am aware. I also seem to recall being told that most if not all of the "bought in" grapes come from properties that are managed and run by SFE on behalf of their owners or are managed to specifications laid down by SFE.

Just to clarify. 2011 QH is not a BOB. It's a regular labeled VP as it always has been. trader joes market (like a mark and Spenser's in the UK) is a huge chain of stores who primarily sells QH Ports. They wanted a VP from QH so the 2011 was bottled and sold to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And as DRT pointed out, and to add, virtually all larger companies buy in grapes. Where those end up varies year to year based on needs. They can be used in a VP to a basic Ruby or tawny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DRT wrote:Gould Campbell & Co is a shipping company, not a wine producer, so by definition all of their wine (not grapes) are bought in.

Andy Velebil wrote:And as DRT pointed out, and to add, virtually all larger companies buy in grapes.

Thanks for the clarification Andy… I think we might need a clarification of the clarification!

Only because you continue to fail to understand the difference between a producer and a shipper.

DRT wrote:Only because you continue to fail to understand the difference between a producer and a shipper.

Do they both buy grapes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They might (if they wanted a salad).
But I think Derek's intended distinction was that producer: wine=convert(grapes,stuff), shipper: send(wine)

Sorry Phil, you're talking symbols again. English please.
Derek, there is no longer any such thing as a shipper, as distinct from a producer. It's not the 1960s any more. It isn't that I don't understand the distinction, it's more that it's irrelevant.
My point above was merely that you specified that they buy wine, not grapes; and Andy said yes, that's right, they buy grapes.

djewesbury wrote:Sorry Phil, you're talking symbols again. English please.
Derek, there is no longer any such thing as a shipper, as distinct from a producer. It's not the 1960s any more. It isn't that I don't understand the distinction, it's more that it's irrelevant.
My point above was merely that you specified that they buy wine, not grapes; and Andy said yes, that's right, they buy grapes.

Some also buy finished Port as well as just grapes. Does that clarify? Sheesh

Though what happens when a new company comes around and buys all their minimum needed stocks per IVDP regulations to get started? Are they a producer or a shipper at that point?

Andy Velebil wrote:

DRT wrote:Only because you continue to fail to understand the difference between a producer and a shipper.

Do they both buy grapes?

Most producers buy grapes. No non-producing shippers buy grapes.

djewesbury wrote:Derek, there is no longer any such thing as a shipper, as distinct from a producer. It's not the 1960s any more. It isn't that I don't understand the distinction, it's more that it's irrelevant.

You are wrong and it is relevant. The distinction between a shipper and a producer is - wait for it - steady! - yes, that's right, a producer produces wine and a shipper ships it. Some shippers produce and ship, some just ship. That is the distinction.

Gould Campbell is a shipping company - it does not make wine from grapes. It does not produce anything, it blends and ships other producers' wines.

Graham's is a producing shipper. It produces wine, it grows and buys grapes and it sells its wine to you and I and other shippers.

You were absolutely right when you said it is no longer the 1960s. No argument there. But on the rest of it you are wrong in a very wrong kind of way.

With your wonderful erudition you nonetheless fail to spot that Gould Campbell is not really a company any more; it is effectively just a brand owned by a conglomerate.
How many shippers in the traditional style, that have made port in 2011 or since, can you name? Very few I expect. Go on though. I'm sure you'll do your best to prove me wrong, in a wrongy sort of way.

djewesbury wrote:With your wonderful erudition you nonetheless fail to spot that Gould Campbell is not really a company any more

And once again you are wrong.

Gould Campbell & C. are very much a going concern as a subsidiary of Symington Family Estates. The companies survive as trading companies, with boards of Directors, P&L accounts, stocks of wine and approval from the IVDP to ship Port.

Go on, say something else that is wrong...

djewesbury wrote:How many shippers in the traditional style, that have made port in 2011 or since, can you name? Very few I expect. Go on though. I'm sure you'll do your best to prove me wrong, in a wrongy sort of way.

Most, if not all, of the traditional non-producing shippers are now either producers or are subsidiaries or brands owned by the big conglomerates. Ferriera own most of them, as in almost all of them.

And who are their directors, I wonder; and who makes their port; and where do they make it. The identity of the company as a company has nothing to do with what I said.
Go on, carry on clinging to the olde worlde.
Answer the second bit of my post properly; how many?
(Everyone, I love arguing with Derek. A lot of people could learn from his conviction and tenacity.)

Delaforce
Barros
Burmester
Cálem
Special SFE blend for The Wine Society
Quarles Harris
Skeffington
Feuerheerd
Maynard
Barão de Vilar


Enough?

djewesbury wrote:And who are their directors, I wonder; and who makes their port

Shock! Horror! Hold the front page!!! The Directors of a subsidiary and largely seeded from the Directors of the parent. What a scandal. The end is nigh! Let's all buy a tent, a Latte and a muffin and camp outside St Paul's.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:And who are their directors, I wonder; and who makes their port

Shock! Horror! Hold the front page!!! The Directors of a subsidiary and largely seeded from the Directors of the parent. What a scandal. The end is nigh!

Calm down, dear.
No-one said it was a scandal. But a shell company is hardly a distinct entity. Which is what you were trying to establish.

djewesbury wrote:who makes their port; and where do they make it.

SFE - at the quintas Bomfim, Malvedos, Reibera, Vesuvio, Cavadinha and Sol.

Riveting, Derek. Really riveting.

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:And who are their directors, I wonder; and who makes their port

Shock! Horror! Hold the front page!!! The Directors of a subsidiary and largely seeded from the Directors of the parent. What a scandal. The end is nigh!

Calm down, dear.
No-one said it was a scandal. But a shell company is hardly a distinct entity. Which is what you were trying to establish.

I think you will find that a few pages up you were trying to claim that this "shell company" was buying in grapes.

:exhale: :sigh:

Time for a whisky.

Does anybody really care whether it's grapes or wine they buy in? "The Ports are blended from our winemaker's pick of the finest wines made from grapes sourced from local farmers in the area around Pinhão and the Rio Torto […]" I would say that could be construed in at least two ways, but I don't actually care whether they're a shipper or a producer. It is evidently extremely important to you. Good, now we know that, we can move on.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Derek, there is no longer any such thing as a shipper, as distinct from a producer. It's not the 1960s any more. It isn't that I don't understand the distinction, it's more that it's irrelevant.

You are wrong and it is relevant. The distinction between a shipper and a producer is - wait for it - steady! - yes, that's right, a producer produces wine and a shipper ships it. Some shippers produce and ship, some just ship. That is the distinction.

But that is no distinction is it? Producers can produce and ship, and shippers can produce and ship.

DRT wrote: Gould Campbell is a shipping company - it does not make wine from grapes. It does not produce anything, it blends and ships other producers' wines.

Is it not more the case that what Gould Campbell is, has changed over time? Some time ago, perhaps it was a shipper (in this sentence, a shipper being your definition above for GC as a shipper). And now, regardless of whatever GC was in the past, it has become a part of the SFE empire. As such, within the boundaries of their empire, SFE have the option to create a wine from grapes from their owned quintas, create a wine from grapes bought it, blend some combination of some/all of these, stick it in a bottle, put a GC label on it, and ship it to us/others.

And then coming back to your definition of GC as a shipper:

DRT wrote: Gould Campbell is a shipping company - it does not make wine from grapes. It does not produce anything, it blends and ships other producers' wines.

You could argue that blending is a part of wine production, so they sort of would have been a "producer" of sorts. Do we know for sure that in the past, GC had no facilities to undertake vinification of bought in grapes? Or was not able to "rent" such facilities, or to contract out the vinification of grapes they bought?

This all brings me back to the point I made earlier about SFE not really needing to persist with some of these brands any more. Given that what ends up in these bottles could be anything SFE so chooses, they could equally choose to stick any one of QH, GC, Mz on the label, so why bother having more than one of these brands? I can think of some reasons why you would have more than one, but that's for another post perhaps.

Out of the heckles and cat-calls, through the haze of paper aeroplanes and ink darts, a clear voice brings us back on topic. Well done Flash, thank you for your clarity and your determination to stick to the relevant.
In fairness, in answer to one of your points (and conceding to Derek what is Derek's) I think it is probably true to say that, if it was wine and not grapes they were buying, then pre-SFE GC never vinified; that simply wasn't their industry. As one of the old companies that predated vertical integration they had a very clear idea of where their part of the process began and ended; they bought wines in the annual fair up in the Douro and shipped them back to Gaia where they blended and exported them. Long after that system changed these companies carried on business in the same way; they didn't really own any property in the Douro at all. I can recommend a couple of very interesting articles on the history of all this if you're interested!
Now, Derek - Derek?? Derek! Mike, I think you've knocked him out…

Thank you, Daniel, for pointing out where Mike went wrong. Saves me the trouble.

djewesbury wrote:I think it is probably true to say that, if it was wine and not grapes they were buying, then pre-SFE GC never vinified; that simply wasn't their industry. As one of the old companies that predated vertical integration they had a very clear idea of where their part of the process began and ended; they bought wines in the annual fair up in the Douro and shipped them back to Gaia where they blended and exported them. Long after that system changed these companies carried on business in the same way; they didn't really own any property in the Douro at all. I can recommend a couple of very interesting articles on the history of all this if you're interested!

Ah very helpful. That helps fill in a blank spot in my understanding. That raises an interesting consideration about what makes/made Gould Campbell what it is/was. When one buys/bought Gould Campbell, what does/did it offer? Clearly the business could have had some very talented people who could select wines on offer and more talented people who could blend them and create a port worthy of the GC label. Turning to the present day, if none of those people remain, then there is nothing much of what constituted GC left.
This contrasts with the likes of Graham for example, where that brand can be associated with grapes from Malvedos. And also much focus is given to the identities of the winemakers and their depth of experience and the history of their involvement in the brand, with the ability to pass know-how and expertise down the generations.

I'll send you a couple of articles about this Mike. The fair in the Douro sounds like it must have been a bizarre affair. Shippers used their go-betweens, who maintained familial links with the companies over generations, and they drove a bargain with the best farmers. Many of the deals would be sealed well in advance and, although theoretically the Companhia set the price, illegal bonuses were agreed and paid. GC would have been completely dependent on these links, assuring the quality of the wines they bought year after year. But as you say, once the system changed over the 19th and 20th centuries, most especially but not exclusively with the end of bulk shipping, it's hard to see what a brand like GC really meant.
I am betting that we will not see another GC. Does anyone disagree?

djewesbury wrote:I'll send you a couple of articles about this Mike.

Yes please!

djewesbury wrote:I am betting that we will not see another GC. Does anyone disagree?

I suspect you may be right.

djewesbury wrote:I am betting that we will not see another GC. Does anyone disagree?

I suspect you may be right.[/quote]You might be right, or you might be wrong.

I can't remember when GC was purchased or by which of the large shippers but when it was it would have come with substantial stocks of Port in a cellar in Gaia, which in those days was a legal requirement to own in order to be a licensed shipper.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I am betting that we will not see another GC. Does anyone disagree?

flash_uk wrote:I suspect you may be right.

You might be right, or you might be wrong.

I can't remember when GC was purchased or by which of the large shippers but when it was it would have come with substantial stocks of Port in a cellar in Gaia, which in those days was a legal requirement to own in order to be a licensed shipper.

To be more precise, I suspect 2007 might be the last GC released.

GC83 lovely tonight. Full report follows. Enthusiasm abounds. Glasses are empty.

Does the discontinuation only apply to VP or to anything GC makes? They make (or made) a good 10 Year Tawny as well. If I remember correctly, the last GC 10 Year Tawny I saw in a local shop was bottled in 2014. So this might be a clue that they still make wines at the lower end of the scale.

AW77 wrote:Does the discontinuation only apply to VP or to anything GC makes? They make (or made) a good 10 Year Tawny as well. If I remember correctly, the last GC 10 Year Tawny I saw in a local shop was bottled in 2014. So this might be a clue that they still make wines at the lower end of the scale.

So this wine would have been put in casks about 11 years ago, becoming available last year for bottling as 10YO. I guess in theory, even if discontinuing from now on, we could see a 40YO bottled in 30 years from now and labelled GC.

But SFE could simply use the old GC stock for blending into other SFE Tawnies.

No; a 10YO was not 'put in cask' 10 years ago. Some of it was put in cask 15 or 20 years ago, some of it only 7 years ago. The stocks were not owned by GC and this was not a GC wine in anything other than name. GC had no history if making tawnies that I'm aware of, so this is just shifting SFE tawny stocks under a label that's known in some markets.

djewesbury wrote:No; a 10YO was not 'put in cask' 10 years ago. Some of it was put in cask 15 or 20 years ago, some of it only 7 years ago.

Thank you. I wasn't quite sure of the age spread around 10 years, so I dodged it by saying "about"!

djewesbury wrote:The stocks were not owned by GC and this was not a GC wine in anything other than name. GC had no history if making tawnies that I'm aware of, so this is just shifting SFE tawny stocks under a label that's known in some markets.

That sounds very plausible. When you say the stocks were not owned by GC is that a belief or an absolute fact? I thought up above that we concluded they did buy wines.

Edit. Ignore that question. Of course they have been part of SFE for over 40 years now, so it is kind of meaningless to say "Gould Campbell" did anything since that change in ownership.

Your edit reflects my position. I don't think there can be many 'surprises' lying around, still to be released, under the Gould Campbell name. SFE have a big lodge in Gaia, which is separate from the Graham's lodge; I wonder if all the GC is there or whether they still use the property the acquired when they bought the company.
Did I mention that the corks in last night's GC83 (two bottles) were brand new with almost no staining?

The discussion suggests a theme for a future tasting: ‘A Requiem for Deceased Shippers’.

jdaw1 wrote:The discussion suggests a theme for a future tasting: ‘A Requiem for Deceased Shippers’.

thou speaks too lightly of death, snacksauce.

if gould campbell is no longer of use to the Symington family, they should consider it sold to me. thank you very much.

jdaw1 wrote:The discussion suggests a theme for a future tasting: ‘A Requiem for Deceased Shippers’.

Isn't it difficult to say the precise time of death. I understand Tuke Holdsworth is still about in various incarnations but nothing in the vintage line for a good long time.

I have sent a Telegram to the upper Douro in an attempt to obtain definitive information on the health of Messrs Gould and Campbell. It should arrive by donkey caravan in the middle of April and we should have an answer before harvest.

DRT wrote:I have sent a Telegram to the upper Douro in an attempt to obtain definitive information on the health of Messrs Gould and Campbell. It should arrive by donkey caravan in the middle of April and we should have an answer before harvest.

I hope you sent more than an enquiry. Add a sharply worded insistence that whoever did what at the shipper formerly known as Gould Campbell they must carry on doing it.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:I have sent a Telegram to the upper Douro in an attempt to obtain definitive information on the health of Messrs Gould and Campbell. It should arrive by donkey caravan in the middle of April and we should have an answer before harvest.

I hope you sent more than an enquiry. Add a sharply worded insistence that whoever did what at the shipper formerly known as Gould Campbell they must carry on doing it.

I think we should establish the facts first, notwithstanding the fact that Daniel thinks he already knows them.