Your opinion on this quote by ...

[Roy Hersh]

Adrian Bridge the Managing Director of The Fladgate Partnership is quoted in a current article:

"The economics of Vintage Port are good. We sell a young Vintage Port for about the same prices as a 20 year old Tawny, yet have not stocked it for anything like that amount of time. However, farming in the Douro is expensive and my calculations show that one of our grade A Quintas needs to produce about 25 percent Vintage Port on average over the period of a decade to justify the costs of running it."

[Andy Velebil]

WOW

I hope this includes Single Quinta VP's, becuase if it doesn't that means that property will have to declare 2.5 times per decade. For the sake of simpicity I shall say they need to declare 3 times per decade to justify the costs. I can easily see them declaring 2 times per decade, no problem. It's that third year that doesn't always seem to be there.

I guess the real financial problem is if one of their "A" properties is used only for blending and not for a SQVP.

Although it is interesting that they only need to declare a few times to keep it financially viable.

BTW, Thanks for posting this quote, it is always interesting to read about the inter-workings of the trade.

[Tom Archer]

Call me a sceptic, but he wouldn't say:

"The economics are good, we can get the same price for a 3yr old VP as we can a 23yr old, and, well, our bank manager is a very good friend these days.."

- now would he..

Tom

[Stuart Chatfield]

WOW

I hope this includes Single Quinta VP's, becuase if it doesn't that means that property will have to declare 2.5 times per decade. For the sake of simpicity I shall say they need to declare 3 times per decade to justify the costs. I can easily see them declaring 2 times per decade, no problem. It's that third year that doesn't always seem to be there.

And that also assumes they use 100% of the Grade As' output for VP in VP years. Do they, or do a portion of lesser vats get sold off or demoted?

[Derek T.]

I can easily see them declaring 2 times per decade, no problem. It's that third year that doesn't always seem to be there.

Since 1960 the following years have been declared by Taylor:

1960, 1963 & 1966

1970, 1975 & 1977

1980, 1983 & 1985

1992, 1994 & 1997

2000 & 2003

Is this a coincidence, a stable climatic cycle or economic necessity?

Haven't checked other shippers but willing to bet that a similar pattern exists almost across the board.

Derek

[Tom Archer]

Declaration worthy years seem to hit on average (but randomly) once in three years, but with most of the shippers reluctant to decare back to back, a few get passed over - resulting in the "three times a decade" average.

An interesting trend recently has been the very even run of good years - 91-94-97-00-03.

I'm sure it will be in the mind of the shippers that if they declare '06, they will be in danger of becoming typecast - with some less informed elements of the press and trade referring to declarations as something that happens "every third year".

Methinks this will have to be a very good year to get a general declaration!

Tom

[Richard Henderson]

What is not mentioned in this " business plan" quote is the place for LBV or non-vintage ports. Is this where their real economic base is?

The so-called jug wines of California and the "white zinfandel" of Beringer purportedly support the upscale wines. Does NV and LBV support the VP industry?


Maybe that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. There has been mention on this board that the French drink NV port but not much VP.


I am all for their having great success , making plenty of profit and producing all manner of ports for me to enjoy, however they do it.