For The Love Of Port

At the RARE WINE COMPANY

"Tappit Hens" of 1977 Graham
An Historic Port in an Historic Size
IN ANCIENT ENGLAND, a Tappit Hen was a large pewter pot measuring three quarts. Over time, the term was borrowed by the British producers in Bordeaux and Oporto to refer to a three-quart bottle.

Mention of the 3-quart size--or the modern 2.1 or 2.25 liter equivalent--is rarely seen today in France. If you do come across it, you'll see it called "Marie Jeanne."

In the Port trade, the term "Tappit Hen" has survived, occupying hallowed ground for British merchants. But as for any of us actually seeing a Tappit Hen of Port today--well, that's rare.

Which makes our acquisition this morning of a few beautifully cellared Tappit Hens of 1977 Graham pretty interesting. We're not sure the exact size: it will be either 2.1 liter (which was common in the 1970s) or 2.25 liters which replaced it. But whatever the exact measurement, it will be three times the size of a bottle of 1977 Graham.

As for the wine, it needs no introduction for Port lovers. It was one of the great examples of the monumental 1977 vintage.

1977 Graham in Tappit Hen* $695.00
__
IT'S EASY TO ORDER
You can simply reply to this email or call us at (800) 999-4342.
RARE WINE COMPANY

Is this also referred to as a "tregnum"?

Gary Banker wrote:Is this also referred to as a "tregnum"?

To my knowledge no, Though one could probably argue it is close enough to qualify as a tregnum. It's was a very unique size for Port as mentioned. I've had the 77 Graham's from this format just once before a couple years ago at Quinta do Vesuvio after dinner. IIRC (it was late at night after a lot of wine/Port by then) it was somewhere just a tad over 2 liters but not up to a tregnum. But the exact amount varied a tiny bit as these were handmade (they are really neat to see in person). Even having been in many cellars in Portugal I've only seen this size a few times that I can recall. The Symington's do reuse these bottles as they are impossible to get now-a-days from what I was told.

Given that, the price is something to be desired even being in the large rare format. As 750's can be found for about $70-75 at auction right now. The price once must pay to have a rare bottle size.

Gary Banker wrote:Is this also referred to as a "tregnum"?

Yes, though since the bottles are quite rare use of either name is similarly rare.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tregnum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_bottle

(Those are just two of many sources that agree.)

Technically, a tregnum is exactly 3 bottles (so 2.25 liters) while a Tappit Hen's size is 3 quarts or ~2.85 liters. However the term Tappit Hen migrated to the 2.25 liter size along with the standardization of the 750 ml bottle for wine. And as Andy said, Tappit Hens are typically hand made so their size isn't always exactly the same.

Glenn,
We're talking a Port bottle of Tappit Hen size. And you know how the rules don't always apply in the Douro These Graham's 1977 are the older style, at just over 2 liters. So not "technically" a true tregnum.

These Tappit Hens are 2.1 litres capacity and are different from traditional port Tregnums. A Tregnum is 2.25 litres capacity and is roughly the same proportionate base : cylinder size as a magnum. The Tappit Hen is much shorter in length and much wider across the base - think of a larger version of the Niepoort 1970 in a dumpy bottle.

I have seen Tappit Hens and Tregnums (and double-magnums) almost side-by-side in cellars in Oporto, and the botle shapes are very different.

Still, it is excellent news to hear that a proper size bottle for after-dinner drinking is now available. I just have to save my pennies for a few years to be able to afford one!

I know that they're a different shape and that when you get right down to it, the shape is as much a part of their allure as the size. I was talking only about the size, and of late (since the 70s for sure) Tappit Hen and Tregnum have meant essentially the same size bottle allowing for variation in the size of the hand-made Tappit Hens.

Though as Andy said, in the Douro pretty much anything goes.

RWC wrote:As for the wine, it needs no introduction for Port lovers. It was one of the great examples of the monumental 1977 vintage"

I disagree with the above quote on two counts. I am yet to be convinced by the hype that surrounded the 77 vintage, and I have not yet tasted a G77 that was "great" (with the possible exception of the Tappit Hen at Vesuvio that Andy referred to above )

Derek T. wrote:

RWC wrote:As for the wine, it needs no introduction for Port lovers. It was one of the great examples of the monumental 1977 vintage"

I disagree with the above quote on two counts. I am yet to be convinced by the hype that surrounded the 77 vintage, and I have not yet tasted a G77 that was "great" (with the possible exception of the Tappit Hen at Vesuvio that Andy referred to above )

What would it take for a Port to be "great" in your eyes? 90 pts? 95 pts? 100 pts?

"Great" isn't a word I use while I'm doing scores. I go from Very Good to Excellent to Outstanding to Magnificent and then finally to Perfect. "Great," to me, is a rather generic term so that's why I avoid it while scoring.

So since it doesn't have a well-defined meaning for me, I'm willing to accept its use to describe the G77. I've had "excellent" G77s, and I think even "outstanding" G77s, so I'm willing to believe that someone else might have used "great" to mean the same thing that "excellent" means to me. (That'd be 90-93. Outstanding is 94-96 for me.)

Using "monumental" to describe 1977 though... yeah that seems a little overboard to me. 1977 produced a lot of really good Port, but "monumental" implies something truely noteworthy to me. And like you, I'm not quite convinced that 1977 really deserves that kind of top-end hype. There are just a handful of really outstanding Ports from 1977 while only the F77 has reached "magnificent" for me, and to me "monumental" implies more than that.

Derek T. wrote:

RWC wrote:As for the wine, it needs no introduction for Port lovers. It was one of the great examples of the monumental 1977 vintage"

I disagree with the above quote on two counts. I am yet to be convinced by the hype that surrounded the 77 vintage, and I have not yet tasted a G77 that was "great" (with the possible exception of the Tappit Hen at Vesuvio that Andy referred to above )

It may be a "monumental" vintage when first produced but none of us will probably ever know that due to all the cork-related issues this vintage has seen. A shame so many great bottles appear to have been compromised due to shoddy corks, through no fault of the producers. Though there are some bottles that do shine and shine well, giving us a glimpse of how good this vintage is. sadly it seems to be a roll of the dice to get one.

As a result, and IMO, it can't truly be called a "monumental" vintage.

I do see a plan forming...a horizontal of 1977 Graham's from 375, 750, 1.5L, Tappit Hen, 3L, 6L, and 9L

Andy Velebil wrote:
I do see a plan forming...a horizontal of 1977 Graham's from 375, 750, 1.5L, Tappit Hen, 3L, 6L, and 9L

What....no tregnum...?

Rob C. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:
I do see a plan forming...a horizontal of 1977 Graham's from 375, 750, 1.5L, Tappit Hen, 3L, 6L, and 9L

What....no tregnum...?

I see, trying to

In the mid-70's I purchased both Warres 1970 & 1975 in a large size bottles-at the time I wondered

if they were Tappin Hen's. I can't remember the exact discription it was 3 levels(?quarts.pints,oz.?-

English pint-20 0z.?) It worked out with US pint to 2 1/2 bottles. Didn't read of any port bottle of

that size.