For The Love Of Port

Glenn E. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:So why it's nice to cling to some traditions, sometimes change is good and beneficial.

I agree, with the caveat that "case" should still be defined as 12 bottles. A 6-pack is just that, a 6-pack. It is not a "case" as a unit of size.

There's a lot of dry wine producers now going to 3-packs as their standard "case". Times are a changing.

There's a lot of dry wine producers now going to 3-packs as their standard "case". Times are a changing.

Probably for two thirds the previous price for six..

And there's also a great little wheeze now that you can list 50cL bottles for 90% of the 75cL price, and people will buy it.

Sometimes, it's necessary to look people in the face and say: 'you know, we ain't stupid..'

Tom Archer wrote:

There's a lot of dry wine producers now going to 3-packs as their standard "case". Times are a changing.

Probably for two thirds the previous price for six..

And there's also a great little wheeze now that you can list 50cL bottles for 90% of the 75cL price, and people will buy it.

Sometimes, it's necessary to look people in the face and say: 'you know, we ain't stupid..'

No it has nothing to do with screwing people over, like the whole 500ml for 750ml price (I'll get to that in a sec). It has to do with the price of bottles and the limited amount made. When you're only making a small amount it allows more people to buy it, keeping the "case" allocation small. With the price of many dry wines going up in many areas like Napa and Bordeaux selling them in 3-packs is great marketing. People are more apt to by a "case" of three than a case of 6 when per bottle prices are high.

As for the 500ml for 750ml price.....This is my biggest pet peeve. I refuse to buy these products, period. Quinta de la Rosa, Vallado and Otima comes to mind with their products in a 500ml bottle that sells here for a standard 750ml price. As you said, I'm not stupid and I watch prices. No way I'm going to lose a third of a bottle and pay the same price. I will never buy those products as long as they keep trying to screw buyers over. This is also a reason why I am totally against the 500ml as a bottle size. Producers have shown they can't be trusted with appropriately pricing bottles of this size. My is over, LOL.

Andy Velebil wrote:With the price of many dry wines going up in many areas like Napa and Bordeaux selling them in 3-packs is great marketing. People are more apt to by a "case" of three than a case of 6 when per bottle prices are high.

As for the 500ml for 750ml price.....This is my biggest pet peeve. I refuse to buy these products, period. Quinta de la Rosa, Vallado and Otima comes to mind with their products in a 500ml bottle that sells here for a standard 750ml price. As you said, I'm not stupid and I watch prices. No way I'm going to lose a third of a bottle and pay the same price. I will never buy those products as long as they keep trying to screw buyers over. This is also a reason why I am totally against the 500ml as a bottle size. Producers have shown they can't be trusted with appropriately pricing bottles of this size. My is over, LOL.

I see some Douro dry wines coming in 3 bottle OWC. I don't buy anything in 500 ml either.

This is also a reason why I am totally against the 500ml as a bottle size

+1

Oddly enough , in Montréal Otima 10yr is a good buy compared to what is available at the SAQ

Luc Gauthier wrote:Oddly enough , in Montréal Otima 10yr is a good buy compared to what is available at the SAQ

Cool. Sadly, it's usually not here. It's normally around the same price as a Graham's 10 year in 750ml.

I have no problem with producers making many back-to-back declarations. This is what producers used to do in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many big names like Graham, Cockburn and Sandeman declared 7-8 times a decade and not the 3 we see today. If only there was a book we could buy which told you about these historic vintages...

I have a few verticals which I'll try to keep going when a producer ships a vintage. I've got Noval from AXA's first vintage in 1994 and Vesuvio from 1989. I'll buy a six-pack every year just so I keep the verticals going. Sure, I know that it's very unlikely that I will ever put these together into a single vertical tasting — but to celebrate a major birthday I might put together a vertical of everything over 20 years of age. A vertical of Vesuvio 1989-1997 would be 8 vintages and a very manageable tasting. Anything else could be left for another year.

More power to the producers. If they make it and it sells, keep making it.

And to counter Tom's proposal that more vintage port should be made and sold at a lower price, I'd just point out that the producers who used to be well known for their vintage ports are also now having to cope with ever-growing demand for tawny port. I don't think the equation is as simple as "make more vintage port and sell it at a lower price..." because this ignores the other side of the equation which is that when your production volume is capped by the beneficio then the other side of the equation is "...and have less tawny stocks to be sold in 8-50 years".

And to counter Tom's proposal that more vintage port should be made and sold at a lower price, I'd just point out that the producers who used to be well known for their vintage ports are also now having to cope with ever-growing demand for tawny port.

More scientific viniculture and much more accurate weather forecasting at harvest have much reduced the percentage of lower quality wine now made, yet standard ports still account for 83% of sales by volume.

I think there is ample juice for both bigger declaration volumes and increased wood aging

because this ignores the other side of the equation which is that when your production volume is capped by the beneficio then the other side of the equation is "...and have less tawny stocks to be sold in 8-50 years".

When producers declare in any given year , do they take into account the beneficio and the law of 1/3 or is this an over simplification

Luc Gauthier wrote:When producers declare in any given year , do they take into account the beneficio and the law of 1/3 or is this an over simplification

My understanding is that the law of 2/3rds does not apply to vintage port (possibly not to LBV either?) but the beneficio certainly is part of the balance of trying to forecast production volumes vs current and future demand.

My understanding - I could be wrong.. - is that the law of thirds applies to all production and that the different categories do not enter into the calculation.

Thus when cash was tight - as happened in the 50s - a producer was able to sell his entire production of '55 VP without breaking any rules, provided he held back an appropriate amount of Ruby..

Given that VP is ~2% production, it really shouldn't have much effect on the rule of thirds.

If I’m not mistaken, as Alex mentions, VP isn’t counted toward the Law. As it’s bottled so quickly after harvest (and such a small Amount overall). At least I recall many years ago being told something to that effect.

Then again, basic rubies are bottled and sold so quick too so perhaps Toms correct?????




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe Tom is right - it counts, but at roughly 2% of total production it doesn't really matter. I've never seen that particular law, though, so I'm not certain.

Well, it seems the law is not so simple. "Law of thirds," or "lei do terço," is a simplification, based on section (a) of Article 21 of
https://www.ivdp.pt/pagina.asp?idioma=0 ... codLei=192
But the (a) is for wines older than 1 year, and the other sections are added on, and then there is that único thing at the bottom which I read to mean if you come up with something special that still qualifies as a Port, and you consult with the IVDP, they will let you sell it.