QPR of Bordeaux vs. Vintage Porto (is there any debate?)

randomguy · Post by **randomguy** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:34 pm

Andy V. wrote: I remember the Old Jonsey port (Australian) last year and how Parker gave it a 93 pts (Oct 2004 issue #155). Everyone ran out to get some. Problem was by the time everyone figured it out they were on a new production run, which was nowhere near a 93 pt wine. Power of the press

No wonder... I kept seeing all the comments on cellar-tracker with people saying "This wine seems darker than the one RP rated", and "It's good, but it's not a 93". The one I have kind of smells like a white wine. Hmm, I wonder if it is one of those "fake" tawnies where they take white wine and add coloring and carmel flavor. If so that will make me kind of angry. Anyway,my wine buddy said it was "ok", and it only cost $10.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:45 pm

Hi guy,

A lot of subjects being treated in this thread!

Back to the original topic, I think that a clarification of what we mean by "Bordeaux" and "Port" is in order, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Also, I ask you to do one thing: save any offers for the finest wines of Bordeaux from the 2005 vintage that you may receive this spring. And then check them against auction prices in 20 years' time.
I'm willing to bet that the price increases that make you yelp now will seem absolutely ridiculous with hindsight.

Port *does* offer the advantage of "going further" i.e. 8 people are generally satisfied with just one bottle at the end of a meal, at my house anyway.

And, let's face it, Port is not really very stylish.
You combine that with health concerns and worries about drinking and driving, and what you have is an undervalued product, one of the really good deals in the world of wine.

All this discussion makes me want to open up a good bottle soon, and get back into the groove!

Best regards,
Alex R.

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Fri May 19, 2006 1:35 am

I wasn't buying port in 1994, but what was its original price at release, $20-$30, maybe $40??

$38 for Taylor and $40 for Fonseca ... on first tranch, was the best price I found in the USA at the time futures were being offered.

Don't blame me on the Jonesy. I was very honest with my review of it and a LOT less generous than RP was.

As far as the Port folks on the Squire's BB, there are a dozen guys who really know their stuff. I have racked up over 8,000 posts on Port on that BB, on Saturday it will be exactly four years there. That is about as many TOTAL posts as will be on the FTLOP Forum, when it turns one year old at the end of July!

Alex R.,

Welcome back. It is a great pleasure to have you rejoin us!

tvstorey · Post by **tvstorey** » Fri May 19, 2006 10:48 am

Alex,

I agree with you that vintage port remains "one of the really good deals in the world of wine." Greatly underpriced.

But to write that "port is not really very stylish." Now that hurts!

Vintage port may not be trendy (thank God!), but it definitely has style. At a dinner party with a succession of fine wines, there is nothing like presenting a decanter of mature port for rescuing the guests from the anti-climax of idly twirling the dregs of their Bordeaux until it's time to stand. At the end of a well-planned wine menu, it is the perfect hommage to the wines that precede it.

Which, of course, isn't to say that I am not paying very close attention to the 2005 Bordeaux futures my wine shop is sending me. :)

Marc J. · Post by **Marc J.** » Sat May 20, 2006 11:48 am

Alex - I have to agree with you that many wine merchants aren't really very knowledgeable about Port and that in turn affects the consumer's view of Port as well. For example there is a local wine mechant who is selling a bottle of port for $1,800, although the true market value of this paricular bottle is about $375-400. He just doesn't know what he has and is truly taking a guess at the value. The same goes for merchants who are selling recalled bottles of port (remember the bacterial horrors of the mid-80's?), totally unaware of the potential problems/issues associated with particular vintages. I don't know how it is going to happen, but I believe that enhanced wine merchant education is the first step in expanding consumer interest in Port.

Marc

simon Lisle · Post by **simon Lisle** » Sat May 20, 2006 3:19 pm

To be honest it's a bit silly to compare because they are both commodities supply and demand determine prices.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Sat May 20, 2006 8:29 pm

Marc Jackson wrote: The same goes for merchants who are selling recalled bottles of port (remember the bacterial horrors of the mid-80's?), totally unaware of the potential problems/issues associated with particular vintages.

Marc, I'm drawing a blank tonight, what happened in the mid 1980's?

Al B. · Post by **Al B.** » Mon May 22, 2006 1:58 am

Marc, I'm drawing a blank tonight, what happened in the mid 1980's

I'm just re-reading Mayson's book and, by coincidence, got to the chapter where he talks about hygiene in the Douro in the mid-80's. Apparently, a number of the wines that were bottled had bacterial flaws. Speculation is that this contributes to some of the problems of the 1985 vintage.

For example there is a local wine mechant who is selling a bottle of port for $1,800, although the true market value of this paricular bottle is about $375-400. He just doesn't know what he has and is truly taking a guess at the value.

I've come across examples of this, as well, and find it really depressing. There is a merchant not far from me who has Dow 1963 on his wine list, retailing at £325 per bottle. When I showed him what the current market price was on winesearcher, he didn't want to know. I have never bought from this guy and never will, but my fear is that he will sell some poor port at an exorbitant price and will turn another potential port consumer off the product.

Alex