Are you going to buy in to 2005 VP?

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Tue May 09, 2006 12:57 pm

If 2005 is all it is cracked up to be, will you buy in?

Without getting caught up in the hype, are you still going to buy new vintages that are worthy?

Steven Kooij · Post by **Steven Kooij** » Tue May 09, 2006 1:52 pm

Oh yeah! I'm only 30, so I have a chance to drink them at their peak.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:06 pm

Count me in..Like Steve I am only 33 so i got plenty of time to indulge 8)

Derek T. · Post by **Derek T.** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:23 pm

By the time the 2005's are available in the UK I will be 44. Given my preference for mature port this means I will be retired or dead by the time they are ready to drink. They will also be vastly over-priced compared with good vintages from the 70's and 80's.

So the short answer is, yes, of course I'll buy them

Derek

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:43 pm

Unless there is an insane rush to buy them as the 2005 Bordeaux primeur wave right now, of course I'll buy plenny of them! Since I don't think I'll buy any Bordeaux, I'll have more money for them :o

tvstorey · Post by **tvstorey** » Tue May 09, 2006 6:12 pm

I share Derek's logical approach. I'll empty my VP budget in advance on drinkable wines, then find myself unable to resist and snag 2005 as well.

All of you still in your 30s should some day look out for a lot of VP at auction with provenance marked "removed from ideal cellar conditions, the only asset remaining in the estate of an eccentric coot."

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:54 pm

They will also be vastly over-priced compared with good vintages from the 70's and 80's.

This from one of the biggest nay-sayers of the 2003s who then loved them and even bought some after saying 'no way' early on.

Derek T. · Post by **Derek T.** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:04 am

Roy,

I'm happy to admit that I have absolutely no willpower whatsoever when faced with the chance of buying VP from any vintage but you can't disagree with the above quote, can you?

Derek

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:49 am

Removing the word "vastly" would make a vast difference in my response.

I don't foresee 2005 prices ranging any higher than the 2003s, but I am not in the trade. As to one's opinion about pricing, I guess I look at things differently. What was the cost of money back in the '70s and '80s vs. today?

Look at the comparative (era) cost differential in:

a. the labor cost (hiring a crew to pick or tread in lagares at harvest for example)

b. cost of packaging then and now

c. marketing and advertising costs

d. shipping costs - this difference would probably blow our minds

e. raw cost of putting 750 mls of VP in the bottle

I could go on but you get the picture. In the 1970s you could buy a low end new Toyota here in the USA for $2000-$3000 and nowadays the cheapest is probably somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000. So everything is relative and prices increase over time. That is a given.

As a consumer, I was not thrilled to see the prices of 1991/1992 which were ALL (except '91 Nacional) under $30 ... go up significantly for the best half dozen VPs of the '94 vintage which were in the upper $30s (the prices in this paragraph are all first tranch en primeur) at the time. But a dozen years later, the price I paid then for Taylor, Fonseca and many other cases of '94 seem like they were incredible bargains, today.

That said, in around 2040 when most of us will be old men (if still alive) those who are enjoying their mature 2005 VPs will sip and think, what a darn bargain. Port has always been that way and who knows if that dynamic will ever change.

In the big scheme of wine buying ... Port is still a major bargain, so don't get caught up with myopic thinking!

Derek T. · Post by **Derek T.** » Mon May 15, 2006 12:51 am

Roy,

I am a member of a wine club that allows me to buy hand-made Australian Shiraz for less than £10 a bottle. The actual cost of production and shipping half way around the world is likely to be less than £5 and I do not believe this wine would be any less expensive to produce than VP. The price of VP has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of making it and everything to do with supply and demand. Having visited Gaia and witnessed a small part of the process I also believe that VP is cheaper to produce than good quality aged tawny yet at only 2 years old costs 3 to 4 times to price of a 10 year old.

The Toyota analogy you use proves my point. If your figures are correct then he price of a car has gone up by a factor of 4 in 30 years, whereas the price of a bottle of VP has probably gone up by a factor of 20 to 30 over the same period

VP is VASTLY overpriced on release

Derek

Al B. · Post by **Al B.** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:41 am

Am I going to buy 2005 VP.

No! Absolutely not! No, no, no, no.

I have to buy some of the 2004's first! I have to have something to drink those while waiting for the 2005 to ship :twisted:

More seriously, I will buy some of the 2005's. I'm not just buying for myself, but also for my children. It is my intention that when I shuffle off this mortal coil, that I will have left a balanced cellar for posterity. Hopefully, for them to drink but for them to sell if they do not want to drink.

The more interesting question is, where will I buy the 2005 wines? Will I buy en primeur, on shipping or from auction in a few years time? I wonder what the 2003 auction prices are now that the wines have shipped to the UK?

Alex

Chris G · Post by **Chris G** » Tue May 23, 2006 2:45 pm

I suspect not, I think money is better spent on picking up 2000 and 2003 where the hype has died down and prices have come off. The exception possibly being some of the smaller production houses where if you don't buy early on you won't get it!

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Fri May 26, 2006 3:48 am

In the words of Oscar Wilde "I can resist anything, except temptation"

So while I ranted about the price of the 2003's, I also bought six cases

It appears that the port producers need better prices for their rubies and tawnies, and that the 'happy time' they've had with VP over the last few years probably does not compensate enough.

The secondary market is seriously undermining the en primeur prices for VP - as a rough 'ball park' the cost of storing and financing maturing VP's should add perhaps £5/case plus about 3% (compounded) of value per annum, over and above inflation.

In other words, if a case is worth £200 in todays money, then that case (before allowing for inflation) should be worth roughly double that amount after 20 years.

What we are seeing however, is that wine from 20 years ago is underselling the en primeur. Even if you have a very high opinion of the 2003's, it is still hard not to conclude that they were overpriced by a factor of two!

I personally think that the shippers will have to lower their expectations from VP, and raise their game over the marketing and pricing of the other 98% of production.

Good luck to them!

Tom

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Fri May 26, 2006 4:08 am

I just checked my formula on a spreadsheet - £200 actually transforms into £495 after 20 years.

The Noval '03 I bought would come to over £1000 after 20 years, and nearly £2000 after 40 - before adding inflation into the calculation!

Somehow, I doubt it!

Tom

Ted D · Post by **Ted D** » Tue May 30, 2006 5:32 pm

No way! Well, maybe a few cases.

I'm only 44 after all, and if they need 30 years I'll be merely 74 and certainly in my prime!

I'll certainly need some Taylor and Graham and Fonseca and I have a weak spot for Dow and . . .