This might be a perfect question for the Port trade, but let's see what everyone thinks. Hopefully Oscar, Dan and others might add their too.
Though some government regulations may be seen by some as stifling innovation, a hindrance to cash flow and a major hurdle which slows moving from "traditional" to a more "modernized" industry; there are some outspoken younger members of the Port trade who view government's role as critical in enabling the Port business to evolve into a more modern and cohesive industry.
I don´t think IVDP has been making a bad job. Probably I'm not the best person, for my age, to analyze the performance of the IVDP for the last decades. But being quite conservative in not necessarily bad to protect a very old and well known wine such as Port. Some argue that the rules should be changed for a liberalized production of Port within the region. But that would lead to a dramatic fall of the prices and would also deteriorate the quality. Port would be sold as a commodity.
On the other hand, marketing activities lead by the IVDP have been improving a lot and opening some doors also for smaller producers.
IVDP showed some openness for innovation, such as the Pink/ Light Ruby/ Rosé Port, though they have had a very weak position while negotiating with the trade and implementing new legislation. They are also trying to manage the huge stocks of the Casa do Douro and its sale to the shippers. And it seems they are finding a good balance between the decreasing sales of Port Wine on the one hand and the reduction of the production of Port and introduction of Casa do Douro stocks' in the market on the other.
That is a very balanced view and I must say it made me smile when reading it.
I am very much a traditionalist when it comes to the subject of Port and I firmly believe that the existence of the IVDP and the regulations that they watch over serve to protect the product from short term influences and preserve overall quality. I accept the need for all industries to progress over time but some industries actually rely on their history and traditions for their very existence. Port is one of those and if the traditions were lost through de-regulation the product would be hugely de-valued.
Long live the IVDP - they may not be perfect, but they protect the quality and tradition that most of us here have fallen in love with
I'm generally a laissez-faire kind of guy, but in this case I tend to agree with the rest of you in this thread. Throughout history Port has gone through ups and downs in terms of quality and market, and the worst of the downs have often been corrected by government intervention. A little looser control might allow for some interesting innovation, but the risk of a loss of quality and tradition is very real as well.
I am enjoying your opinions on this one. I hope others will chime in and hope Dan sees this too when he comes back from vacation. I am also looking forward to having Alex, Andy and others who have yet to dip their toe in the water.
I'm a great fan of choice. I love the approach taken by the Tuscans - play by the rules and call your wine by the recognised DOC name or stuff the rules and call your wine "Vino do Tavolo".
While I think that the IVDP has done a reasonable job in the past, I would love to see them relax their grip a little in the way that has happened with pink port and allow a bit more innovation. For example, why not let producers make a port fortified to 15% alcohol; or why not let a producer throw some Shiraz (or even elderflower berries) into the must. In exchange, the wine produced should not be called "Vintage Port" but perhaps could be called "Douro Fortified".
After all, it was this sort of experimentation which resulted in the creation of port in the first place.
Last edited by Al B. on Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Vino do Tavola wines became known as "Super Tuscans." I have heard that some of these Super Tuscans have finally obtained their own DOC status, apart from the traditional DOCs. I agree that this approach makes the most sense. It allows for the preservation of tradition, and it also allows for experimentation. I mentioned the idea of "Super Douros" in a recent thread about nonnative grapes being grown in the Douro region. I suppose there could be "Super Portos" as well. It's aaallliiiiiiive!!!
Aside from that, it's often hard to define tradition, as some have suggested already. Once upon a time Bordeaux wines sometimes had syrah in them, for instance, but syrah is not an approved grape for that region today. Found this article about this practice:
That same practice was used in Burgundy too with the Syrah addition. Remoissenet for example, used that practice (albeit ilicitly) back in the 1950s and even after that time.
The Super Tuscan's used to get an IGT designation if I remember correctly.
But back to the IVDP and regulatory practices within the Port trade.
As history has shown there was some serious problems that occurred in the Port industry many years ago. That led to some really horrible wines and almost destroyed the industry as a whole. I don't think we'd all be enjoying our favorite beverage without some of the drastic measures that were imployed.
As critical as we are at times with the IVDP, overall I think they do a decent job of regulating. Sure I'd love to see them act a little faster and relax some rules that IMO are now archaic. Being a government run operation, that probably isn't going to happen without some push from the producers. I know Julian has led a strong campaign to get larger format bottles and the IVDP has stated they are quite open to it, but the producers are the ones that need to step up and ask.
I'd say the system needs a little bit of an overhaul, but slowly and cautiously, especially in these times where many new "shippers" are coming onto the scene. With so many new "shippers" there is bound to be some that will cross the line to stretch their profits, just like many many decades ago. So while it may have some over-regulating, I'd rather have that then less and a return to poor quality like what occurred in the past.
In all seriousness, I loved Richard's direct answers. I had considered using this as the next: A QUESTION FOR THE PORT TRADE but did not think the full candor would be presented. It is a real political hot potato and some are very reluctant to go on the record in print on this topic. Richard's post with the op/ed piece was absolutely brilliant ... especially touching on one of my personal favorite topics, "beneficio rights."
too.
![[beg.gif]](./images/smilies/beg.gif "Praying"){kind=small}
![[friends.gif]](./images/smilies/friends.gif "Friends"){kind=small}
