PORT BUYING DECISIONS

[Luc Gauthier]

Luc,

Let's just say that the two items I voted for, are way down the list % wise.

I'm thinking that provenance should be higher up .
Idealy It could tip the balance on whether or not a bottle is purchased .

[Roy Hersh]

Luc,

I agree 100% ... for me, that is the very first consideration when I make a Port purchase and why it was the first thing I voted for. I definitely do understand people who chose others things first, as there is no wrong answer ... nor right one, for everyone.

[Glenn E.]

I agree that provenance is important, but since it is frequently not known (at least with internet purchases) I can't get too worked up about it. That's why I rely more on producer and vintage when narrowing down my purchasing decisions - those are (usually) known quantities.

Here's a question for you: would you purchase a perfectly stored case of 1982 Hutcheson VP or a case of 1985 Fonseca VP with unknown provenance?

[Moses Botbol]

Here's a question for you: would you purchase a perfectly stored case of 1982 Hutcheson VP or a case of 1985 Fonseca VP with unknown provenance?

That's tough. I haven't tried the Hutcheson and it is perfectly stored.

[Luc Gauthier]

I agree that provenance is important, but since it is frequently not known (at least with internet purchases) I can't get too worked up about it. That's why I rely more on producer and vintage when narrowing down my purchasing decisions - those are (usually) known quantities.

Here's a question for you: would you purchase a perfectly stored case of 1982 Hutcheson VP or a case of 1985 Fonseca VP with unknown provenance?

Glenn ,
I'd have to go with Hutcheson .
Even though some people would say '82 was an off year ( most everybody )
to me a well kept bottle in an off vintage can be pleasently surprising
again

[Glenn E.]

Well it was a trick question of sorts - from what I've heard, the '82 Hutcheson is... how to phrase this politely... rather unspectacular.

So... off vintage, off brand, perfect storage vs name brand, name vintage, unknown storage. I'll take the latter every time. There are producers whose product I just don't enjoy all that much, and there are vintages that just aren't up to par. Personally, I'd rather take a small gamble on provenance than buy into a risky vintage or producer that's not to my liking.

Now if you know that the storage is dodgy, then yeah that will factor into my buying decision. But I think that most Port that you see in stores and on the internet has been stored reasonably well so knowing that the provenance is perfect just isn't that big of a deal to me.

[Russ K]

particularly for Ports, I have to agree with Glenn as well. These are damn tough wines, compared to almost anything. They can withstand even the worst of reasonable conditions, and were designed to do so.

[Roy Hersh]

But Glenn's question (the '82H vs. '85F) is like using an analogy comparing apples and chairs.

[Eric Menchen]

But Glenn's question (the '82H vs. '85F) is like using an analogy comparing apples and chairs.

I'll take the chairs. Even a poorly stored chair is probably pretty good, no matter the brand. But a poorly stored Macintosh?

[Lamont Huxley]

I think that there's a definite relationship between vintage and provenance - the older the vintage, the more important provenance becomes. I'd have no problem picking up an '03 or '07 VP sitting on the shelf in a store with suspect storage conditions - how much damage could really be done to a young VP in just a couple years on the shelf? However, if I was buying a '63 or '77 I would be much more concerned with how it was stored.

[Glenn E.]

But Glenn's question (the '82H vs. '85F) is like using an analogy comparing apples and chairs.

That's deliberate because the poll made us pick between apples, chairs, bottled spring water, and hotel reservations.

Oh and by the way, the cases are the same price. Gotta make the choice based just on shipper, vintage, and provenance.

I think that there's a definite relationship between vintage and provenance - the older the vintage, the more important provenance becomes. I'd have no problem picking up an '03 or '07 VP sitting on the shelf in a store with suspect storage conditions - how much damage could really be done to a young VP in just a couple years on the shelf? However, if I was buying a '63 or '77 I would be much more concerned with how it was stored.

An excellent point, though even a couple of years of poor storage on a young VP could affect the eventual result once the Port is opened years (if not decades) later.

These are damn tough wines, compared to almost anything. They can withstand even the worst of reasonable conditions, and were designed to do so.

That's really what it boils down to for me. Abuse - long term poor storage - will certainly kill a Port, but a year or three of somewhat less than perfect storage isn't going to have a major impact on most Ports.

Also note that there's a big difference between unknown provenance and suspect provenance. Suspect provenance will affect my buying decision, but unknown provenance just isn't that likely to matter to me. Unknown shipper? Unknown year? Both of those seem to be much more likely to have an impact to me, so that's why I rank them higher.

My ranking is probably due to my relative lack of experience with Port - I'm going on 6 years now, is all. For someone with Roy's experience I have no doubt that provenance would rank higher because he has tried all of those unknown (to me) shippers and unknown years.

But I do still find it highly suspect that Roy would buy a case of '82 Hutcheson if a same-price case of '85 Fonseca were available, provided that the price in question were reasonable for an '85 Fonseca. I might buy the Hutcheson too if the price were far too low for the Fonseca, thus indicating that something suspicious was going on.

[Roy Hersh]

I doubt I'd buy 1982 Hutcheson even if it was under $10 per bottle, but that's not the point.

There are shades of grey when it comes to provenance that bargain hunters often ignore. Now I am not telling you to pay more for your bottles to insure better provenance. However, in threads here and polls done in our Forum, we've found that participants would be willing to pay a little bit more for ex-cellars bottles. That in itself does not illustrate my point, so I will clarify below.

Often times when going to large tastings, (the recent 1980's VP tasting here in Seattle and the 1955 VP horizontal last Oct. in London are both good examples) the difference that provenance makes is truly revealed. In both of the aforementioned examples, there were bottles that did not show well or live up to their expectations based on large samplings of tasting the same producer and vintage.

A 1980 Ferreira was a great example. In Seattle, it looked like a 30-40 year old Colheita, orange-amber in color and there had been NO signs of leakage or defective cork, from a bottle that a friend brought up with him. I've had that wine on several other occasions including less than a month later in Portugal and it was completely different, much more red and vibrant overall. What explains the difference? Bottle variation or provenance. I argue in favor of the latter. The friend who bought the bottle here, paid very little with unknown provenance and imnsho, got what he paid for. Yes, you can get lucky and as Russ and others have pointed out, accurately at that, Port is a very hardy wine. However, unlike Madeira it is not invincible.

With the 1955's we had in London, I don't know where those bottles came from (some I do, but I don't want to make any sweeping generalizations) ... but a handful of VPs at that great tasting, did not show as well as they normally do. I chalk that up to provenance ... and people buying older Ports without knowing where they came from. I know of several bottles that were purchased at auction for the event. Again, I don't want to make generalizations because I only know where some of the bottles came from ... one of the individuals is a well known "bargain hunter" with provenance almost a non-sequitur when it comes to purchasing decisions.

So although minute differences may not be so evident when a VP is 20 years old and younger, there may be a very significant difference when buying a VP with 30-75+ years of age ... if the provenance is not taken into account. The flight of 1983s we did recently in our 1980's tasting, was a perfect example. Most of those Ports I've had a dozen times or more and I was quite surprised by their poor showing on that particular evening. That was not the case with the 1980's or 1985's, the latter of which was a near-perfect performance. However, the 1983s for the most part, were disappointing in how they showed. Chalk it up to bottle variation, bad luck or provenance? Again, I say it is a matter of provenance.

Although many collectors would rather purchase older bottles and back fill their collections than buy and store the wines upon release due to the lack of "appreciation" in the value of VPs, (this is good and bad ... but a separate topic) I have always felt that when possible ... it was a much better strategy for me, to buy upon release and store them myself in a controlled environment to ensure the VPs would drink beautifully when they came of age. I certainly wind up with as many corked bottles of Port as the next guy, as there is no avoiding that ... nonetheless, I have less leaker, and very few bottles with any previous signs of seepage. I was not willing to save a couple of bucks to buy from retailers that I knew were buying from grey market sources.

Again, I realize that this is not how most buyers think and price becomes the primary variable. I understand "bargain hunting" and looking for the best deal possible is part of the allure to buying Port. For me, provenance is more important. I want to know with the greatest certainty possible, that bottles I've probably spent a couple of dollars more for ... are going to reward my habit, down the road. When a VP only shows 7/8 of its potential, most people never notice that deficit and chalk it up to the wine being fully mature or whatever. For some people that 1/8 of lackluster performance/or the aging curve of the Port is not worth saving a few bucks.



I realize I am in the minority here and that's ok with me. But when I read some tasting notes decrying that certain Ports are seemingly over the hill and yet I've had the same wine within the last year where it was showing beautifully and just entering its peak drinking years ... I typically wonder first: 'where did that bottle come from and how was it stored?'

[Eric Menchen]

I doubt I'd buy 1982 Hutcheson even if it was under $10 per bottle, but that's not the point.

So for you, producer and year would seem to be the most important given that statement.

I understand all of your points Roy, and I've tried to buy all the 2007s I think I'll need based on the importance of provenance. And as you mentioned, I'll pay a little more for an ex-cellars bottle than an unknown bottle. But like many newbies here, what am I going to drink this year? I have to go somewhere to find those older bottles, and ex-cellars bottles of 1970 Taylor just aren't being released on a regular basis. So I do the best I can, and if I end up buying two unknown bottles of which one turns out to be great and one just so-so, that's acceptable to me. So far every bottle I've bought I thought was worth the price I paid.

[Andy Velebil]

But like many newbies here, what am I going to drink this year? I have to go somewhere to find those older bottles, and ex-cellars bottles of 1970 Taylor just aren't being released on a regular basis. So I do the best I can, and if I end up buying two unknown bottles of which one turns out to be great and one just so-so, that's acceptable to me. So far every bottle I've bought I thought was worth the price I paid.

Exactly! But not really a newbe issue, as anyone buying ANY older bottle of wine rarely knows the full provenance of where they bottles spent their entire life. The exception would be a just released ex-cellars. Even a seemingly "well stored" bottle "bought on release*" can have issues. Refrigerated containers are a relatively new thing in the shipping world so the odds are all of your wine shipped prior to the 80's (if not later) was not actively cooled. A day on a hot boat, truck, car ride home from the store, is all it could take to ruin the bottle.

I'm not saying all old bottles are bad, not even close to that. But the provenance issue sometimes get a little blown out of proportion. Just look at how many leakers were recently sold by a famous wine collector in the Napa area, bought on release, and stored by him, yet hyped as to what a discerning collector he was, yada, yada yada. Well he obviously didn't care about storage or he wouldn't have had all those leakers! Of course that is an extreme example but does illustrate my point.

* The whole bought on release thing can be a little misleading at times. I always look at WHO bought it on release (the importer, distributor, retailer, buyer, etc.) and WHEN they bought it on release. By that I mean, if an importer bought it on release, keep it in a passive warehouse for two years, then a store bought it and sold it as "bought on release", that is technically true, but IMO it's a bit of a white lie. Those two years in a passive warehouse could have done some serious harm that isn't visible on the outside.

In short, one really has to look at the totality of all the available information they have on hand and make an educated guess. That is all anyone can really do.

[Roy Hersh]

I'm not saying all old bottles are bad, not even close to that. But the provenance issue sometimes get a little blown out of proportion. Just look at how many leakers were recently sold by a famous wine collector in the Napa area, bought on release, and stored by him, yet hyped as to what a discerning collector he was, yada, yada yada. Well he obviously didn't care about storage or he wouldn't have had all those leakers! Of course that is an extreme example but does illustrate my point.

Barney had a passive cellar if I am not mistaken. The fact that he was a discerning collector just meant that he got in early and also had the discretionary income to invest heavily in wine, top notch wine at that. He was a lover of (and owned a massive stash of) Port and Madeira and sadly, there was next to none offered up ... which was quite telling.

[Roy Hersh]

Eric,

I surely understand where you are coming from. It is not easy to purchase older bottles with known provenance because as you say, they're not releasing lots of old bottles ex-cellars nowadays. But there are people and places, (UK wine clubs and university cellars as an example) where bottles purchased on release have been stored by them since birth. Those cool, humid cellars typically are not great for the labels but kind to the corks and wine inside the bottles. However, for current drinking ... there's nothing wrong with going out on a limb and buying from a trusted source. There are certainly some retailers that are known for being very very selective about whom/where they buy from and even a couple who specialize in procuring Ports from the UK.

I realize you were kidding re: producer and vintage for me. I actually voted for provenance and then rarity/scarcity for my own buying habits nowadays. Things change as your cellar matures. Much of what I purchased 15-20+ years ago when a major section of my collection was bought, are bottles now ready for consumption. Although I own more 2000 VP than any other singular vintage, 70% of my Port collection is 25-48 years old. Therefore my buying habits ... considering my age, are very different than most of you guys who are in their mid-late thirties or early forties. I was 25 when I started buying Vintage Ports and turn 54 this year.

[Al B.]

I thought it was a bit unkind making us choose just two factors - I chose price and vintage but the reality is that when I make a buying decision I am taking all of these factors into account.

For example, I had the opportunity to buy a couple of bottles of Fonseca 1948 from a family clearing out a house full of Victorian furniture left to them when their parents died. No other wine or port in the house other than supermarket ready-drinkers so probably no great understanding of wine or how to store wine. How much would you pay for these? I paid £40 for the pair (despite pointing out that they would probably get 10 times that at auction) and while perhaps not drinking at the heights that can be achieved by perfectly stored bottles of Fonseca 1948, I think that the one I have opened was a lovely bottle of £20 vintage port - better than the alternatives I could get today from perfect provenance for £20. Shipper + Vintage + Price > questionable provenance

On the other hand, when Taylor Fladgate emptied out the old Morgan Brothers cellars I had never tried a port made by Morgan Brothers and couldn't find any tasting notes. However, these were wines that had been shipped to London direct from the cellars in VNdG where they had been stored since being bottled. Among these ports were some six-packs of the 1945 vintage. These were auctioned for £110 per bottle and I wish I had had the courage to buy more than the six I did get, as they are absolutely delicious. In this case Vintage + Price + Provenance > Shipper.

And as a last example, I recently bought a bottle of Dow 1966 from Berry Brothers for roughly twice the going market price at the time. This was a bottle from a UK bottled pipe (bottled by Berry's), which had been bought by one of their customers at the time and had been stored undisturbed in their cellars since purchase. In this case Shipper + Vintage + Provenance > Price.

To me, it is always a trade-off between several factors. There is always a price at which I might think that it's worth a risk on unknown or doubtful provenance. Similarly, for a rare or unusual bottle I might be prepared to pay more just to be able to one day try the wine. I have had some shocking bottles of port which have been clearly ruined (usually baked or light damaged) by poor storage but I have also had some unexpectedly terrific bottles that have been dug out of the mud and damp of an old country-house cellar by the new owners as houses move from one generation to the next and the new generation does not share the same love for port and wine as the old - or neeeds the money that can be realised from the sale of the wine more than the old generation did!

And just to hedge my bets, roughly 1/3rd of my port comes from ex-cellars sources (en primeur / newly shipped / proven UK storage) with the rest being bought as and when the balance of price / provenance / shipper / vintage / rarity seems right.

[Glenn E.]

There's also often a disconnect between what people think they value and what they actually spend their money on. I've seen producer-themed tastings and I've seen vintage-themed tastings. I've never even heard of a provenance-themed tasting.

Roy will be the likely exception to this, but how many bottles in your cellar do you actually know the provenance? Compare that to the number of bottles that come from known good years, or from known top brands. Then also compare it to the bottles you purchased because they were (at the time) a good deal. Even in my cellar which contains roughly 1/3 tawnies (where the provenance is much easier to know since they're generally purchased near release), vintage and producer rank higher than provenance. But price is king - if it's not a good (or at least reasonable) deal, it doesn't get a second glance.

Like Alex said, everything listed in the poll plays a role in purchasing, but I tend to stick to producers that I know I like and to years that are known to be good ones. Provenance is only a concern to me once I've filtered by price, producer, and year first.

Even in Roy's cellar I'd be willing to wager that the incidence of perfect provenance doesn't exceed, but rather parallels the incidence of top vintage and top producer.

Often times when going to large tastings, (the recent 1980's VP tasting here in Seattle and the 1955 VP horizontal last Oct. in London are both good examples) the difference that provenance makes is truly revealed. In both of the aforementioned examples, there were bottles that did not show well or live up to their expectations based on large samplings of tasting the same producer and vintage.

So what you're saying is that in tastings where vintage (1955) and/or producer ("Best of the '80s") are already a given that provenance is about as likely to have an impact as TCA infection?

I completely agree with you that there were a couple of dodgy bottles at each tasting that were likely due to poor storage, but we also had 2 corked bottles at each tasting (and possibly a 3rd at the '55 @ 55) and there's nothing that provenance will tell you about that. I'm also not willing to completely discount bottle variation as a culprit at both tastings, because even in my own relatively limited experience I have noticed significant bottle variation between bottles pulled from the same case, and (also in my own limited experience) it seems that bottle variation grows more significant with age.