For The Love Of Port

At the New York exhibition of Portuguese wines I met a very interesting and knowledgeable fellow, charming as well, who need not be named here. In answer to questioning about double-magnums and large bottle sizes, it was explained that the Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e Porto doesn’t allow for export bottle sizes above magnums. Some houses bottle large sizes ‘for family consumption’ (e.g., double-magnums or 6-liter = 8-bottle Jeroboams), and some of those houses allow a few of these bottles to be sold to purchasers physically present — they must be collected, because such bottles cannot be for export.

No, they wouldn’t hold them for me. No, I can’t collect once a decade or so. Too much administrative hassle, too much risk of bottles and their owners becoming separated, etc. No. But if one wanted several such bottles, and informed the house before the bottling for the vintage was done, that might not be impossible.

So what’s needed is a UK resident FTLOPer with a large car, and n others. The n others share pro rata the cost of n+1 Jeroboams from a good house, with the extra bottle being the transportation fee to the person who drives there and back. Obviously the drive could not be in the hot season, unless the “large car” were actually a temperature-controlled van. The hero driver would deliver to a single central location, Octavian being a natural choice.

Could this be the tentative beginnings of a plan?

Well, I certainly am nowhere near the UK, but I would even be willing to jump in on something like this. I have a feeling that purchasing such a large bottle would not only leave me with a VERY cool collectible down the road, but also a cheaper way to get a case of port home in a single bottle. Collection of said bottle may present a bit of a problem though. I don't know of any time within the next year that I will be in England...

It seems like a very good idea though!

Todd

I've chewed this one before - I'm not sure why the IVDP would get awkward about double magnums - maybe it's just that every export product has a paper chase attached to it - i.e. hassle when it's a small run..

I was mulling the idea of limited edition bottlings - perhaps 100 double magnums, with specially printed labels, numbered and signed by the wine-maker and packed in individual wooden boxes.

Would need to be a special juice - possibly drawn from a single pipe (as some special whisky bottlings are)

Tom

That sounds much more expensive, but still interesting. Something that would be worthy of the Tom Archer Memorial Port Museum!

I'm betting that a producer willing to consider this would allow for the design and printing to be taken care of by the interested party (us) representative, then they could approve, via a draft, the use of their logo on the label. Printing and production of the label could be taken care of by the party, reducing the effort of the producer and minimizing the cost. We could then ship them the labels for signing, dating and application on to the bottles.

Hmm... this could be very exciting indeed.

Todd

Editted for Stupidity

I've seen the 70 Taylor double magnum and it's something to bow down to.

Sounds like a fabulous idea! 100 bottles should be easy to round up money for. I would like to see the printing on the bottle like Niepoort does.

What about a tawny or something that already has been aging for while and just bottle that? I would hate to wait twenty years to open the bottle.

Moses Botbol wrote:What about a tawny or something that already has been aging for while and just bottle that? I would hate to wait twenty years to open the bottle.

I'm not huge on the idea of a tawny, but I agree that I would hate to wait 20-30 yrs to open it.

We'd also need to figure out how to get the things over here to N. America for guys like you and I would who want 'em here.

Todd

i own a double magnum of sandeman 1997 vau vintage. when was this rule instigated?

moses, i too bow to the 70s taylor double mag. i came this close to buying one for $1500 about 3 months ago, but finally admitted that it was simply too much, even though they are very rare.

dave

I've had several 1977 Taylor double magnums in my possession. Ended up selling two and opening one for a dinner. It was great, but opened about 30 years too early. I exchanged emails with Alistair Robertson and his daughter Natasha about the bottles back in 2003. Alistair was managing director of Taylor Fladgate back in 1977. They told me that they were "rare" but had no production records of the number of bottles. They said that they were bottled mostly for amusement. The bottles I had did have the normal paper tape on them from the IVDP.

All the best,
John

OK, it looks like my surmise was somewhere near the mark - the guy Julian was talking to reckoned he was only after a bottle or three and for that a producer would have to fill out a tedious form and then wait for, (and probably remind..) the IVDP to send the guarantee labels - and, well, if you've ever been in business, you get the picture...

So, moving on, here is a rough frame of a plan...

1) Roy, when he organises his autumnal tour of the Douro, is given a little power to his elbow - when arranging visits to Quintas and Lodges, he can mention that in addition to hosting a group of enthusiasts, there is also a business deal on the table, regarding the previous year's wine, and that cask samples (preferably, but not necessarily, from 550 litre pipes) will be considered very seriously.

2) No standing should be attributed to past prowess, and Quinta da Unknown should be given equal status to Quinta do Fame and Fortune.

3) Notes are taken of all cask samples offered, and on the evening of the last but one day of the tour, participants meet to consider whether the samples encountered are 'adequate'.

'Adequate' should have a high benchmark, and be defined as 'being well above the median for a vintage port, with sufficient depth and integrity to present well in forty years time and beyond'.

4) Wines that meet this benchmark (the best three if there are more than that number) should then be re-visited on the final day.

5) A winner should then be determined, the winning producer informed, and the pipe marked and sealed.

6) The winner shall be paid 10,000 euros for the 550 litre pipe, a fee that is increased in line with inflation each year. Within that fee, they must agree to fill the bottles, label, and pack them as directed, but all material costs relating to the filling and packing will be in addiiton to the purchase price.

7) If producers feel their wine is worth more than this amount, then their product will not be considered.

8) From each 550 litre pipe, 100 x 3 litre double magnums are filled, plus 300 regular bottles, (possibly packed in cases of 3). A further 3 dozen half litre sample bottles are also filled, which we might call Roys

The remainder of the pipe is then left for the producer to bottle as archive material, for their own use.

9) After bottling in February or March, the bottles will then be collected, and taken by road to UK bond, from whence they will be distributed globally.

OK, that's enough from me - now improve on the idea

Tom

Admin - If you try to put the number eight followed by a bracket (as one does in lists from time to time) you get this smug face emoticon 8)

This is a pretty dumb key code - can you change it? :wall:

Tom

uncle tom wrote:No standing should be attributed to past prowess, and Quinta da Unknown should be given equal status to Quinta do Fame and Fortune.

Slight disagreement. If QdU is so much better than QdF&F, then sure, go with the QdU. But if they are close, or close-ish, and QdF&F is known to be a great port in the required 40 years, let’s go with F&F. It isn’t always possible perfectly to predict the future from a cask sample, and well-founded reputation can fairly be considered to be relevant information. This also has the merit that, if some of us should die of gout before four decades have elapsed, the bottle will better feed the newly orphaned.

uncle tom wrote:100 x 3 litre double magnums are filled, plus 300 regular bottles, (possibly packed in cases of 3). A further 3 dozen half litre sample bottles are also filled

I was on for a 75th birthday bottle, which will need to be larger than a double-magnum. Would anyone want 6-litre jeroboams? Also, half-litre bottles are pointless (thread): if I’m drinking lightly by myself I want a half-bottle, and with 1+ guests at least a whole.


Also:renders as

1. The first item in a list.
2. The second.
3. Three is enough.

There are variations:

• A one-point list of type “
  • ”.
  1. A one-point list of type “
     1. ”.

These nargy forms have the merit that, if one should slip in an extra point mid-way, things renumber.

Finally, if you just hate structuring your posts, then use as the underline-on-underline-off in the middle of the smiley breaks it. “8)”.

jdaw1 wrote:Would anyone want 6-litre jeroboams? Also, half-litre bottles are pointless

I would likely prefer the double magnums myself, simply for the sake of practicality. I would need an awful lot of people to consume a 6 litre bottle of VP, or else it would tempt fate that it would be going very dead by the 3rd day or so.

I have to counter your half litre point... I wouldn't mind the ½litre bottles or 375s simply for samples of what would be a very unique bottling. This would allow participants to sample, perhaps after 20-30 years a smaller bottle size of "our VP" without having to tie into the double-mag or 6-litre jeroboam.

Todd

OK, that's enough from me - now improve on the idea

That's easy ... you take the idea and run with it. I have enough on my plate. :?


Dave, the 3.0 liters of 1997 Vau Vintage by Sandeman was legally brought into the USA under a special waiver by the (then) BATF. These were used as thank you promo gifts for top distributors and key accounts. It was a limited edition and if you purchased one, somebody who was given the double mag for free, made out nicely.

Double Mags of Port are not normally allowed into the USA and wind up here by methods of smuggling or grey market practices.

roy--you are spot on, as usual!! it was a gift from my pal who works at the distributor!!!

so was the last year for double magnums 1970??

dave

Maybe we should cut the double mags from 100 to 50 and bottle 100 magnums as well, so some wine in large formats could be shipped to the US without issue.

If you flew to the US with a single double mag in your luggage, and US customs spotted it - would they take issue? Are double mags of table wine allowed?

Tom

Tom,

Yes, double mags and even much larger formats of wine or even Champagne are legal in the USA, just not fortified wine.

I have often been told that it was due to the % of alcohol and that with the 3.0 liter size, the (now) ATF considers it "liquor" and therefore the size is banned. I spoke with George Sandeman in October about this very issue (yes, I also have one of the 3.0 liter bottles that was gifted to me from their USA importer at the time, Seagram) and he said that was total nonsense.

US Customs rarely cares about Americans returning to the USA with wine. I have hand carried two cases of Port in styro shippers and never less than one, when I take my trips and as long as I declare them on my legal document that we are given to re-enter the USA, I've NEVER been stopped from any EU or even South Africa when I used to bring back 3 cases at a time, of "samples." Fortunately, they are really looking for Agricultural products and terrorists ... as they should be!

So in practice, we could ship a pallet load of bottles and magnums by sea freight, and do the proper paperwork - and the big bottles could go back as checked luggage when you guys cross the pond.

IF the customs guys ask, you can honestly say it is wine (which it is - if you don't elaborate..). In practice, they're going to have to have a real dislike of you AND know their rule book extremely well for there to be an issue.

I suspect the root of the problem is that in the US - as well as France - cheap port is (or was) seen as the fuel of destitute alcoholics. In the UK it used to be industrial alcohol (meths) mixed with lemonade, although I've not seen any down-and-outs drinking that purple brew for many years now.

Tom

We’re buying new wine, of the highest calibre, in large bottle sizes. Drinking will be long away. Even the Americans’ bottles could sit in UK-located storage awhile — it’s not like you’re going to test how the port is progressing by opening a quick double-magnum!

jdaw1 wrote:it’s not like you’re going to test how the port is progressing by opening a quick double-magnum!

Which is why, IMHO, 375s or 500s of some of the product would be a "nice to have." Once the bottles are safe and secure in my home cellar, friends and relatives can visit it, look, but if drastic measures came, we could open a smaller one to "check on the progress."

Todd

tpettinger wrote:Which is why, IMHO, 375s or 500s … we could open

If there’s a “we” opening anything, you’ll need a 750. I have no objection to 750s, it’s the 500s I think pointless. Anyway, this is an aside. We’re missing stuff.

1. Roy’s agreement to choose;
2. Somebody to drive them to the UK;
3. A plan of how to move large bottles to the US (though I insist that task needn’t be urgent).

(uncle tom: observe “

1. …” type thing.)