The Beginning and End of the Port Commodity Chain 1703-1860

[Glenn E.]

Derek posted this link over at The Port Forum and it's an interesting read so I thought people here might enjoy it also.

https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~du ... _and_K.pdf

[Andy Velebil]

Fantastic read, thank you and Derek!

[Jonathan S]

Thank you for sharing this, Glenn!

[Eric Menchen]

I thought it was a great read for the Port history buff in me. It gave a lot of insight into the early industry and its evolution.

In reading the first few pages, however, I must say that one of my reactions was that Port isn't a commodity as that term is generally used. As I read more, there were points made that suggested it wasn't, and a few explanations that suggested it might have been. And then at the end, I read

In the process, the wine inevitably became something closer to a generic commodity than the
craft-like, individualized product it had been.

I thought this was in fact the opposite. Maybe I'm applying some of my modern knowledge of house styles, but it seemed to me that with branding and greater control of the entire chain, the large integrated companies then became something of a differentiator and something the consumer sought after.

[Glenn E.]

I thought it was a great read for the Port history buff in me. It gave a lot of insight into the early industry and its evolution.

In reading the first few pages, however, I must say that one of my reactions was that Port isn't a commodity as that term is generally used. As I read more, there were points made that suggested it wasn't, and a few explanations that suggested it might have been. And then at the end, I read

In the process, the wine inevitably became something closer to a generic commodity than the
craft-like, individualized product it had been.

I thought this was in fact the opposite. Maybe I'm applying some of my modern knowledge of house styles, but it seemed to me that with branding and greater control of the entire chain, the large integrated companies then became something of a differentiator and something the consumer sought after.

I think that within the context of the article you are correct due to the timeline, but that what the author proposed at the end of the article has finally come to pass now. The large brand groups - TFP, SFE, Sogrape, and Sogevinus - have certainly improved the overall quality of Port across their brands, but I also feel like they've homogenized them somewhat in the process. Even we, as some of their geekiest customers, usually have difficulty identifying producers in blind tastings. Oh, sure, we might be able to identify 1 or 2 Ports at a tasting... but out of 12 that's a pretty poor ratio if the product in question is supposed to be craft-like and individualized.

Even with that said, though, Port will probably never truly be a commodity in the generic sense. It is simply too niche of a product - and one protected by a PDO. "Wine" might be a commodity in some way, but PDOs like Champagne, Chianti, and Port are almost by definition not commodities since their origin is limited and protected.

[Eric Menchen]

... I also feel like they've homogenized them somewhat in the process. Even we, as some of their geekiest customers, usually have difficulty identifying producers in blind tastings.

A fair and good point. On the one hand, you can say, "I want to drink some Port tonight." And in doing, you might pick a particular bottle based on your mood, but you probably weren't originally thinking, "Tonight I feel like drinking a Smith Woodhouse in particular." Any of a great number of bottles in your cellar might fill the bill. On the other hand, for a given vintage one label might cost $30 whereas another would approach or exceed $200 (e.g. 1997 Crasto vs. Noval). The market does not view those as interchangeable. If you feel otherwise, I'll trade you some of my 1997 Quinta do Crasto for your 1997 Quinta do Noval.