Has anybody seen more 2007 VP offerings in USA or Canada?

[Roy Hersh]

Glenn wrote:

"... but let me ask you a question about it now.
Do you really think that 2007 is a vintage to rival 1994?"

I think that will be apparent soon enough, now be patient.

I enjoyed your post and found this quite poignant:

Provenance is certainly important, but getting 24 years of free aging seems like a pretty good deal too.

Who can argue with logic like that?

You can put this in terms of dollars and cents as many do and I understand that, just as I understand those that buy wine and/or Port, to trade (which of course I know you don't). It is just a different way of looking at the same apple.

[Roy Hersh]

Oscar,

Thanks for sharing!

[Roy Hersh]

Ronnie wrote:

I don't understand. Cellaring them in your own cellar isn't free?

Your sharp wit is appreciated.

[Brian C.]

Brian wrote:

Either the 1994 is going to go higher, or the 2007 is going to drop in price, or some combination thereof. Now I have not read up on 2007, but 1994 was arguably the vintage of my lifetime. If 2007 is considered by many to be a year that is going to at least rival 1994, then I can understand why the spread is so narrow.

I am not into trading in Port, as I prefer to drink it. One of your assumptions rings true to me and that is that the 1994 is undervalued. In fact, prices for those in the top dozen of the very fine 1994 vintage should be selling at a higher price, and would be in normal times. But like I've mentioned in other posts, this is not Claret we are talking about ... and I say that tongue in cheek.

I like drinking it, too. I probably obsess a bit too much about the price relationships, but that's just how I'm wired.

[Eric Menchen]

I don't understand. Cellaring them in your own cellar isn't free?

Well, not really. First, you're presuming you have a cellar. Not everyone does. I have some space, and am planning to put in a cellar. How big I make it will obviously have a cost, and extra square footage to cellar means less space for something else. I know some people around here professionally store their wine, which has a cost. Given that one has a cellar, depending on where you live, there is a cost to keep it cool and humid. And most of all, given finite space, there is the opportunity cost. Do I buy two cases of 2007 to store for 30 years, or two cases 1985 which I'll then drink and replace with two cases of 1994, which I'll then drink and replace with two cases of 2007?

[Glenn E.]

I don't understand. Cellaring them in your own cellar isn't free?

No, it's not. I don't have a cellar, so for any real quantity I would have to rent space at a wine storage facility. (I have a pair of wine fridges, but they're not really suitable for long-term storage of case-sized lots.)

Besides, the point is that it would take 24 years. It's the time that you're getting for free when you buy an already-aged Port, not the storage cost.

[Ronald Wortel]

Besides, the point is that it would take 24 years. It's the time that you're getting for free when you buy an already-aged Port, not the storage cost.

Oh, but that time is well spent. Nothing feels better than walking into your cellar and seeing all those wines and ports that still have to sit there for years and years. The best anti-stress treatment you can get.

But seriously, of course I understand the space and cost issues. I do have my own cellar in the Netherlands, and I am fortunate not having to spend extra money on temperature control, because the natural temperature is quite good. But at the moment I can't use the cellar and all my wines are in off-site storage as well. Maybe I'm just a hopeless case, but I can't help buying young vintages. Not only am I buying 2007 port, but also young German riesling, Bordeaux etc. I like the idea of ageing them myself, and being able to taste them both young and old. It may not be the most economically wise strategy, but I came to terms with the fact that I'll never be rich long time ago.

[Roy Hersh]

Ronnie,

If I did not know that you had written the above post, I'd swear those identical words and thoughts came from me. We view this dynamic very much alike, indeed.

[Eric Menchen]

Oh, but that time is well spent. Nothing feels better than walking into your cellar and seeing all those wines and ports that still have to sit there for years and years. The best anti-stress treatment you can get.

Now I do understand this. I don't even have a cellar yet, but I enjoy going down to the basement to look at my racks of bottles. Then I try to resist the urge to pull out a bottle for just a little more admiration

[Andy Velebil]

I don't understand. Cellaring them in your own cellar isn't free?

No, it's not. I don't have a cellar, so for any real quantity I would have to rent space at a wine storage facility. (I have a pair of wine fridges, but they're not really suitable for long-term storage of case-sized lots.)

Besides, the point is that it would take 24 years. It's the time that you're getting for free when you buy an already-aged Port, not the storage cost.

This post sparked a thought so I did some number ruff number crunching based on how many bottles I have and what I pay for offsite storage. It basically works out to be about 1$ per bottle per year in storage costs. So in 20 years a bottle costs $20 to store. Of course add a little for inflation, so lets just say it costs $30 over that 20 years to store it.

You buy a bottle of XYZ 2007 VIntage Port for $100. Over 20 years it costs you $130 for that bottle (cost of the bottle, then 20 years of storage). Assuming it's a decent bottle it's overall net worth also rises over time. Do you really think a top notch VP will only go up $30 in 20 years? I dare say no! Look at what people bought VP for in the 80's or even the 90's, silly cheap prices by todays comparision. Now some 20 years later that same bottle of XYZ VP costs 3-4 times what was paid back then.

It's even cheaper per bottle if you have a cellar at your house. Other than the inital build costs, annual electrical costs, and occassional repairs to the cooling unit there is very little annual costs.

So it is still cheaper to buy at release, store them yourself, and enjoy a perfectly aged bottle of VP.

[Glenn E.]

So it is still cheaper to buy at release, store them yourself, and enjoy a perfectly aged bottle of VP.

Absolutely, I don't think that was ever in question.

I'd love to have been able to buy 1970s, 1977s, 1985s and 1994s at release, because (especially on the 1994s) I'd have saved quite a bit of money. My problem with the 2007s in this regard is that I may not live long enough to enjoy them fully mature! Even being generous, the good 2007s are going to need 30 years to fully mature at which point I'll be in my mid-70s if I'm still around.

Of course, they do say that a glass of red wine (or, presumably, Port) a day is good for your health...

[Andy Velebil]

Glenn,

Considering the average person is living longer now than ever before, and that will probably only increase with technology/medical advancements, you'll need these 2007's to enjoy on your 85th birthday

So it is still cheaper to buy at release, store them yourself, and enjoy a perfectly aged bottle of VP.

Absolutely, I don't think that was ever in question.

It's the time that you're getting for free when you buy an already-aged Port, not the storage cost.

Well actually it has been. People keep saying it's cheaper, or free, to let someone else do the aging for them. Then they can buy already mature VP for a good price. Sure prices are good by todays standards, comparing old vs. new. But when you look at what initial costs were 30 years ago and then what those costs are now, VP prices have gone up quite a bit. So when you decide to buy some 2007's in 2030 and they are 2-3 times the cost, you'll be kicking yourself for not having bought any now.

Nothing in this world is free

[Michael M.]

Do you really think a top notch VP will only go up $30 in 20 years? I dare say no! Look at what people bought VP for in the 80's or even the 90's, silly cheap prices by todays comparision. Now some 20 years later that same bottle of XYZ VP costs 3-4 times what was paid back then.

Andy,
thanks for these interesting reflections. Your clue to those prices in the past is not to dismiss. One only has to look at release prices mentioned in the book of James Suckling. Dry your tears and have a decent Port!

An increase of 300 to 400% over 20 years would be indeed a nice return. So Vintage Port would not only be an investment in oneself but also interesting in financial matters. I always read the opposite on this forum so far.

I am certainly not an adept in cash item but I cannot imagine decreasing prices for the top notch Portwines long-dated. Vintage Port is short, longlived and much more robust than many other wines. OK it is for sure unfashionable at present. Don't get me wrong. I am a portlover and not a speculator. And I never would spent a large amount of my asset for Vintage Port. But it's a nice imagination to have some comodities in portfolio. Who needs Jim Rogers???

Michael

[oscarquevedo]

My problem with the 2007s in this regard is that I may not live long enough to enjoy them fully mature! Even being generous, the good 2007s are going to need 30 years to fully mature at which point I'll be in my mid-70s if I'm still around.

Glenn, I know some guys that make the elixir of live. Did you hear about Douro? You just have to visit them.

[Andy Velebil]

Do you really think a top notch VP will only go up $30 in 20 years? I dare say no! Look at what people bought VP for in the 80's or even the 90's, silly cheap prices by todays comparision. Now some 20 years later that same bottle of XYZ VP costs 3-4 times what was paid back then.

Andy,
thanks for these interesting reflections. Your clue to those prices in the past is not to dismiss. One only has to look at release prices mentioned in the book of James Suckling. Dry your tears and have a decent Port!

An increase of 300 to 400% over 20 years would be indeed a nice return. So Vintage Port would not only be an investment in oneself but also interesting in financial matters. I always read the opposite on this forum so far.

Michael,

yes, it does get mentioned here from time to time. But I honestly think those statements get blown out of proportion and taken in the wrong context. Of course top notch VP's increase in value over the years, but people often say VP is not a good investment because it's not the ultra high return in the short term and long term like top claret from Bordeaux and Burgundy is. Rest assured though that VP is a good investment.

The biggest difference I've seen, unlike Bordeaux and Burgundy, is Port lovers don't re-sell their bottles very often, most of us buy to drink.

[Andy Velebil]

My problem with the 2007s in this regard is that I may not live long enough to enjoy them fully mature! Even being generous, the good 2007s are going to need 30 years to fully mature at which point I'll be in my mid-70s if I'm still around.

Glenn, I know some guys that make the elixir of live. Did you hear about Douro? You just have to visit them.

Oscar,
Words well spoken

[Michael M.]

The biggest difference I've seen, unlike Bordeaux and Burgundy, is Port lovers don't re-sell their bottles very often, most of us buy to drink.

You hit the nail. I do have e.g. some bottles of 1997 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port which I purchased for 70 EUR/bottle. I think it would not be too difficult to sell these bottIes for a smart price. But when I think of that it is like imagining to lacerate my heart. It's much better to warm it.

[Brian C.]

Besides the storage costs, you also have the time value of money to consider. If you spend $100 on a new release VP, you are forgoing the opportunity to collect interest on that $100. I know, interest is virtually nonexistent right now, but over a 20 year period, that probably won't be the case. For the sake of argument, consider that $100 collecting 5% over 20 years would be worth about $265 at the end of the period.

There is also risk that has to be factored in if you store the bottle, whether at home or offsite. Adverse events could happen over the 20 years, like breakage, leakage, fire, earthquakes, failure of the cellar or the rented site to maintain the bottle's condition, TCA, etc.

I know that there are risks to be had if you buy a 20 year old VP instead, but I'm just saying that the other side isn't as simple as it looks.

[Eric Menchen]

An increase of 300 to 400% over 20 years would be indeed a nice return. So Vintage Port would not only be an investment in oneself but also interesting in financial matters. I always read the opposite on this forum so far.

Well, 300% over 20 years is a 5.65% return annually, and 400% is 7.18%. I expect my financial investments to do better than that. That said, I'm still buying Port because when I retire I want to have some cash as well as some Port of good provenance.

I do have e.g. some bottles of 1997 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port which I purchased for 70 EUR/bottle. I think it would not be too difficult to sell these bottIes for a smart price. But when I think of that it is like imagining to lacerate my heart. It's much better to warm it.

I don't think you would have any problem selling those, well, other than the heart problems.

To me the issue has never been, should I buy 2007 now, or should I wait 30 years and buy it then? The issue is, given my current finite financial resources, my finite storage space, and market prices, what should I buy? Should I buy

• Graham's 2003 for $40, or 2007 for $68.50?
• Croft 1991 for $59, or 2007 for $57?
• Quinta do Vesuvio 1994 for $65, or 2007 for $63.50?
• Niepoort 2000 for $70, 2003 for $46.25, or 2007 for $63.50?
• Fonseca 2000 for $59, 2003 for $70, or 2007 for $66.50?
• Taylor 2000 for $72, 2003 for $74, or 2007 for $69.50?

[Moses Botbol]

To me the issue has never been, should I buy 2007 now, or should I wait 30 years and buy it then? The issue is, given my current finite financial resources, my finite storage space, and market prices, what should I buy? Should I buy

• Graham's 2003 for $40, or 2007 for $68.50?
• Croft 1991 for $59, or 2007 for $57?
• Quinta do Vesuvio 1994 for $65, or 2007 for $63.50?
• Niepoort 2000 for $75, 2003 for $46.25, or 2007 for $63.50?
• Fonseca 2000 for $70, 2003 for $75, or 2007 for $66.50?
• Taylor 2000 for $70, 2003 for $75, or 2007 for $69.50?

I am with you on that one. Anything newer than 2000 has to be at give away prices to garner my interest. With all the 1994's still around... Who's to say prices aren't going to fall on 2007's in a few years or even this holiday season? I'd wait and see what Costco comes up with for 2007's before I start buying '07 futures...

I am not married to Fonseca, Taylor or Noval; there's plenty of brands that are spelendid and will yield great drinking enjoyment down the road.

In 30 years, I'll have the biggest collection of Hoopers, Cruz, and Porto Morgado on the East Coast, lol...