For The Love Of Port

In the 2016 VP THREAD Thomas brought up that Noval has declared every year since 2011. 6 Years in a row now. I asked "Is that too many in a row?". What are your thoughts on having a producer declare so many back to back?

Thomas V wrote:

Roy Hersh wrote:Quinta do Noval

Same procedure as last year, one almost feel like saying.

Quinta do Noval has gone back to back with VP declarations since 2011? That is 6 years in a row.

aren't there more single quinta ports that have done this? Vesuvio comes to mind.

Although Vesuvio is best known, a few other small producers have been declaring most vintages since the mid eighties - names such as de la Rosa & Crasto. It is rare however, for there to be vertical tastings for these players.

But do we get into overload when big names like Noval do this? I think there is a risk here.

With vertical port tastings, we typically have around 18 wines spanning six decades - it gets expensive and impractical to have many more bottles than that. With wine verticals, the drinking window is much narrower, so there is no problem having every wine from a given decade or so, plus the odd antique and youngster to spice the occasion.

But what do we do if a port producer has declared 18 times in two decades - do we pick a narrow window - or leave several out? It's a dilemma..

The novelty of Vesuvio is already beginning to dull a little - with a couple of dozen wines now made, the number of complete vertical tastings is likely to fall rapidly due to a lack of practicality.

Although some producers champion the notion that the declaration system should become history, I would repeat my oft said mantra that one should always fear the law of unintended consequences.

Declaring only the best years, and then making a big party out of each declaration, keeps port alive in the minds of the wine trade. One only has to look at the sherry producers to see the fate of those who get stuck in a boring rut..

Tom has brought up some very valid points. Ones that have also crossed my mind. There is one producer who declares virtually every year that I used to buy every vintage of. I have stopped largely due to space issues and, as Tom brings up, the practicality of doing a tasting with what would end up with 30 something vintages of Port. While I've done a few massive tastings like that, they typically are not fun by the end as ones stamina and taste buds are pretty shot. Regardless if you spit them all or not, that is a ton of bottles to taste in a single afternoon and evening.

As far as the producer issue Tom raises. I would agree that a producer who has more of a cult following may, at some point, have a more difficult time and may experience some reluctance on the same people buying year in and year out. I would guess being in the limelight has some drawbacks too. Whereas a lesser known producer may "get away" with it more easily.

Good discussion so far and I hope some others will chime in with their thoughts about this. There's no wrong answer.

I don't see it as a problem.
Yes there is a practical issue for verticals, but you can split it over two days or just taste the vintages that are supposed to be the better ones.

By having more vintages available prices should be lower at least in the non blockbuster years, so more people can buy ports without breaking the bank.

By having more vintages available prices should be lower at least in the non blockbuster years, so more people can buy ports without breaking the bank.

Great theory, but in practice there's not a huge amount of difference at release - 'extra' declarations tend to come with the narrative: 'but for us, this was a very special year..'

For most of this century, the producers have been limiting their production volumes of VP to support prices. The daft thing is though, if you analyse how price affects sales and consumption, and the cost of bottling more VP after the initial costs are covered; the thing that screams at you from the spreadsheet is that if they increased the volume of VP production by 150% and knocked the release price down by 40%, they'd find it easier to sell and make much more money.

In practical terms:

Instead of releasing 1000 cases at 500 euros a case (revenue 500,000) release 2500 cases at 300 euros (revenue 750,000)

Even when packed in nice fancy wooden cases, the extra production will cost no more than 100 euros a case, so extra production cost 150,000 euros.

Result: Profit up by 100,000 euros - and the market will see the price as a bargain - and wade in with glee..

Hi Tom
While you are probably right, there is also a limited amount of juice that is good enough for VP.

there is also a limited amount of juice that is good enough for VP.

In some years, yes, but look at the size of many old declarations - the current ones are tiny by comparison..

I agree with Tom for the most part. I've come around to the idea of "full" declarations being something to be saved for the very best years.

That said, I don't feel like 2-3 companies should dictate a "full" declaration to everyone. If your Port in any given year meets your quality standard, you should declare. If enough other people also declare, then you have a general declaration and a big party. I understand the market issues that the big boys cause for everyone else, and that part I dislike.

So I don't really have a problem with Noval and Vesuvio declaring every year. If the Port is "good enough" for them to declare, then great! Their reason for declaring is not to make it easier for use to hold verticals. Besides, we'll find a way to "suffer" through it if they declare every year. If Vesuvio continues to declare every year into the future, I could see future "verticals" of Vesuvio being restricted to decades. I think a 1989-2011 vertical in 2040 would be a splendid idea.

Claus P wrote:By having more vintages available prices should be lower at least in the non blockbuster years, so more people can buy ports without breaking the bank.

I've seen CdP vary widely from a good year to a bad one, easily a 2x price difference. I don't track Bordeaux as much, but I know I've seen a fair bit of variation. Now how much do Vesuvio and Noval vary at retail from year to year? I have been able to pick up some lesser brands and labels on the cheap, e.g. 2005 Quinta de Roriz VP for $20, but I think those are more exceptions than rules.

Perhaps a better question to ask; About how many vintages in a row would you buy before you would say you've got enough and you don't want any more toward that vertical?

For me, at least, I'd size the vertical to the tasting. I'm fond of somewhat smaller tastings with 10-12 people, so those would need 10-12 bottles in a vertical.

But I doubt I'd stop... I'd just keep buying, and then hold another tasting every 10-12 years. :)

Eric Menchen wrote:

Claus P wrote:By having more vintages available prices should be lower at least in the non blockbuster years, so more people can buy ports without breaking the bank.

I've seen CdP vary widely from a good year to a bad one, easily a 2x price difference. I don't track Bordeaux as much, but I know I've seen a fair bit of variation. Now how much do Vesuvio and Noval vary at retail from year to year? I have been able to pick up some lesser brands and labels on the cheap, e.g. 2005 Quinta de Roriz VP for $20, but I think those are more exceptions than rules.

I just took a quick look at Vesuvio on winesearcher and it looks like a difference of 25-35% between blockbusters and the following years.
But what if they had not released in 95-96 what would have happened to the 94-prices?
We obviously don't know but my guess is they would have been higher.

Andy wrote:Perhaps a better question to ask; About how many vintages in a row would you buy before you would say you've got enough and you don't want any more toward that vertical?

Claus P wrote:I just took a quick look at Vesuvio on winesearcher and it looks like a difference of 25-35% between blockbusters and the following years.

I bought 6x 2011 Vesuvio, and 2x 2012, for which I paid the same price. I'm didn't buy any 2013.

Eric Menchen wrote:

Andy wrote:Perhaps a better question to ask; About how many vintages in a row would you buy before you would say you've got enough and you don't want any more toward that vertical?

Claus P wrote:I just took a quick look at Vesuvio on winesearcher and it looks like a difference of 25-35% between blockbusters and the following years.

I bought 6x 2011 Vesuvio, and 2x 2012, for which I paid the same price. I'm didn't buy any 2013.

Cases of six?

Cases of six?

Good point - go back half a generation and no-one bought cases of six - a case was a dozen, and if it was packed in sixes they'd often be two taped together.

- Who's the loser here? - the producer or the buyer? - ultimately, both..

Although I think there's a logical argument for cases of eight (the weight of wooden cases of twelve now exceeds manual handling limits in many countries, but eight does not..) - I'll park that theory for now.

The producers should lean on their distributors to quote in dozens, discount multi case sales, and surcharge clients who want only six..

Thomas V wrote:

Eric Menchen wrote:I bought 6x 2011 Vesuvio, and 2x 2012, for which I paid the same price. I'm didn't buy any 2013.

Cases of six?

Six bottles of 2011, two bottles of 2012. To my point, I've bought 6 bottles of a lot of vintages of Vesuvio, and more of several. But when 2012 rolled around and the price was just as much as 2011, I wasn't going to run out an buy another sixer. The 2011 I expect to last a long time. Maybe I should even buy more. The 2012 might be good, but I'm not willing to be the price of 2011 on it.

Tom Archer wrote:

Cases of six?

Good point - go back half a generation and no-one bought cases of six - a case was a dozen, and if it was packed in sixes they'd often be two taped together.

- Who's the loser here? - the producer or the buyer? - ultimately, both..

Although I think there's a logical argument for cases of eight (the weight of wooden cases of twelve now exceeds manual handling limits in many countries, but eight does not..) - I'll park that theory for now.

The producers should lean on their distributors to quote in dozens, discount multi case sales, and surcharge clients who want only six..

Here is where societal changes have dictated things change in the wine world. Most people no longer buy by the case of 12. Many factors, including price, storage issues, change in drinking habits, etc have all led to the change to more 6-pack cases being offered by producers in all wine regions. I for one am glad. I'd rather buy two 6-packs if I want 12 bottles than to be stuck buying 12. If I was required to always buy a 12'er I'd know I'd buy far less than I buy now. I also hate trying to lift a full 12 pack, especially if it's in a wood box. I'm not 21 anymore and the body isn't too keen on deadlifting cases weighing near 50 lbs.

if someone surcharges me for getting a 6'er instead of a 12-pack I simply won't buy it and the producer will lose a sale. I'm sure many others would do the same.

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

Andy Velebil wrote:if someone surcharges me for getting a 6'er instead of a 12-pack I simply won't buy it and the producer will lose a sale. I'm sure many others would do the same.

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

I don't mind the 6 packs for the same reasons. I would not pay a surcharge on a 6 pack either. My retailers should give the case discount on 6 if that is the way it comes. At least I would expect them to...

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.