Derek T. wrote:Who sets the rules on whether or not a vintage is generally declared?
Glenn E. wrote:If neither TFP nor SFE declares a vintage, for example, it's not generally declared no matter how many small producers make a vintage Port that year. You just can't have a generally declared vintage if none of Croft, Dow, Fonseca, Gould Campbell, Graham, Smith Woodhouse, Taylor, Vesuvio, or Warre are declared. (I'd say that Croft, GC, and SW aren't as important as the others, but they're still relevant to the definition.)
My guess (and it is 100% just a guess) is that no such "rules" exist. I suspect that the concept of a "generally declared" vintage is a rule of thumb, not an actual defined term, so it means whatever the most people think it means.
My take is that a Generally Declared Vintage is one where all the members of the Factory House are in agreement that the vintage be declared.
With so many players seeking to produce vintage ports in undeclared years, that tradition is under great strain; and the Factory House membership no longer wields the power it once did.
In the last decade we have seen a declarable and possibly very good year passed over in the form of 2005. More recently, 2009 is not a year wanted for declaration, but given the climate that prevailed, it is very hard to believe that some superb wines have not been made.
2010 may serve to either break or preserve the old order. Despite the economic uncertainties, I am in little doubt that it is badly wanted as a year that can be declared. If it delivers, then the strain on the system will be eased, but if the unsettled weather that has plagued Portugal this year continues, and the vintage fails to make the grade, what then?
Do the shippers sit back and hope that 2011 will be better, while the independants launch their 2009's - possibly to public acclaim?
that is a beautiful thing for the Port trade. They are still going to sell Port. The majors will sell their 2nd labels and/or SQVPs and the independents will sell their VPs as well. Bully for everyone."independents launch their 2009's - possibly to public acclaim"
- Or do they tear up the rule book, and allow themselves a fourth declaration of the naughties?
Roy Hersh wrote: The Port trade has endured over the course of 4+ centuries. It has survived through:
c. The reign of the Marques de Pombal
d. Several deep financial depressions and many more modest economic downturns too
f. The Casa do Douro
g. Several major and a few minor landscape changing acquisitions throughout history as well as some important ones in more recent times
h. All of the above
That's a good list. But will they survive in the hostile environment of internet Port Forums and Wine Blogs?
for independent companies.meaning
when you mention "independants" are you talking about any Port company that is not TFP or SFE, or do you mean any Port company that is not part of the "Big 5" or what? I just want to make sure we're clear as to your
Peter W. Meek wrote:Ahem! This had escaped your notice?????
Frederick Blais wrote:Jumpig in late.... Recently when IVDP organized a tasting in Montreal, they said to the attendees that a generally declared Vintage would be "one that at least 50%+1 of the houses would declare".
So the question mostly to ask... With what TFP and Symington's are owning, can there be a majority if they don't declare :)
Tom Archer wrote:What has to change is the increasingly transparent spectacle of talking up years that are wanted for declaration, while talking down those that are not. You can argue that hardly anyone will notice, but that's akin to saying that no-one will bother to count the lifeboats on the Titanic..
Do you really believe that in the times we live in Marketing Executives in any industry will somehow change to a new style of purely factual and objective communication?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest