Economics of VP: Old vs. Young

Harris Ueng · Post by **Harris Ueng** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:01 pm

Since getting into VP's recently at the start of this year, I've noticed that the pricing of old vintage VP's aren't astronomically higher than the young vintages, say the 2003's.

I've invested in a few bottles of 2003's at around $80, but to be honest, I've stopped because I've realized that I can spend $20-50 more now to get my hands on a nice 63/66/70 VP without the hassle of storing/caring for it for 30-40 years. Even the highest-price bottles are only going for $200-300 (not that I have that much to spend on one bottle

). The point being they are considerably more reasonable in price than some TBA's, Sauternes, or Tokaji's (especially when you factor in $/mL).

So, obviously investing into VP's doesn't even remotely yield the average return on the total stock market (killing the financial investment argument) -- especially factoring in inflation onto the original purchase price of the ports. Old VP's can be had for very reasonable prices in comparison to current young VP's.

Beyond pride of the cellar, port fanaticism, or sentimental reasons, why are people investing by cases into VP's en primeur?

Jay Woodruff · Post by **Jay Woodruff** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:08 pm

Provenance.

Sure Port is fairly tough but where have those bottles been for forty years? Can you account for all the years? It is also nice to taste the new wines as they mature, etc... blah, blah, blah ...

But provenance is the main reason.

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:59 pm

Harris,

If you are able to find 1963 and 1966 VPs in good shape that drink well today for $100-130, would you please let us know which wines you are talking about? I'd love to buy more but don't find great bottles from these vintages from good producers at prices in this range. I'd appreciate your assistance!

Jay is correct. Bottles that go from cellar to cellar and auction house to collector to auction to retailer to collector and back ... does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't think that those of us that buy our Ports on pre-release/en primeur deals are doing so, just to save a couple of bucks per bottle. Not that it is a bad reason to do so though. But speaking for myself, provenance is everything. I'd much rather spend $20 more to buy a bottle from the original owner than save the money and take a chance. I rarely do the latter, although on rare occasions have done so.

Knowing that the wines have been properly stored and aged is a huge comforting factor when opening older bottles. Of course when drinking 30-100+ year old bottles of Port, it is not realistic to have these come from our own cellars unless we are at least in our middle-age of life. But many who do store there own bottles or cases for the long term are rewarded more often and disappointed far less. Unless you are a savvy buyer that knows all the right questions to ask and purchase from very reliable sources that do the same ... your money is at risk. Port like many other wines, is an area that buying bargains (for the sake of saving a few dollars ... is not always a wise strategy!

Harris Ueng · Post by **Harris Ueng** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:49 am

Hmmmm... thanks for the thoughts Roy and Jay.

Those are all very good points that I hadn't thought about -- especially, since I wouldn't know how the bottle has been kept for the last 40-50 years.

Roy, IIRC, I saw a few 63/66's several months ago at K&L (I think) going for $130-180 range, with a 70 going for under $130. Their 63 Graham's is (of course) going for $300 -- that was one of the high-price ones I was referring to. Otherwise, they have a 63 Croft and Dow for $160 and $220 respectively. Both, I see, have WS ratings in the low 90's.

I don't think I've been much help there finding you any steals.

I'll drop you a line if I do!

Thanks for the education, guys. Cheers!

Dorene Hersh · Post by **Dorene Hersh** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:44 am

Hi Harris,

Please don't forget that the WS ratings ... all come from James Suckling's "Ultimate Guide to Vintage Port" that was released in 1990, with all tasting notes and scores completed by 1989. That makes both the tasting notes and scores, irrelevant today. What may have been a very good 1963 vintage Port when he wrote his book, very possibly is a tired if not over the hill wine today.

Harris Ueng · Post by **Harris Ueng** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:10 am

Hi Dorene! Another good point!

I enjoy just trying bottles out when I catch a VP bug and when my wallet allows. While WS ratings have proven to be a reasonably good guideline for me most of the time, I've found that I only use them as rough pointers.

The way I look at it is, I won't know unless I try. Again, thanks for the heads-up!