As a quick note to preclude some of the criticism to follow my post: I realize it is not a true comparison to compare a great Claret, the vin préfére of Robert Parker if not the world, and considered the "benchmark" if not barometer for wine in general to Vintage Port, which is only one of many, of the world's great dessert wines.
Now that THAT is out of the way ... we can get back to the exercise at hand.
Let's take a look at the first growths from Bdx. 1961 and Porto 1963 and compare Latour 100 pts.) with Taylor (97 pts. JS) OR Mouton (98 pts. RP) vs. Fonseca (98 pts. JS) and now look at pricing.
Bordeaux 1961:
Latour - $900 - $1,250. is typical per bottle
Mouton Rothschild - $1,300 - $1,600 is typical/btl
now...
Porto 1963:
Taylor - $200 - $260
Fonseca - $230 - $279 is typical per bottle
When looking to buy a birth year wine for a young child, we think of buying a keepsake, a wine that will last for (hopefully) decades and be something to open to celebrate the milestones during the infant/toddler/child/teenager/20-30-40 something year old.
Port can certainly last well into a (child's) person's lifetime when they are from great vintages like 1963 or 2000 and of course, the same can be said for Bordeaux. That is why these 2 types are most frequently purchased as birth year wines, whether for a newborn or a birthday gift, many years later.
Back to your premise and my wrapping up here...
Don't get me wrong, I love Bordeaux and wish I had started buying it when I did vintage Ports ca. 1984. I also would drink the top growths today if they were more affordable. But when I look at the affordability of either wine type, there is just no comparison. And yes, I realize that most people do not consume vintage Port along with dinner.
I look forward to those that will point out the faults in my logic or comparisons made here!
QPR of Bordeaux vs. Vintage Porto (is there any debate?)
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
QPR of Bordeaux vs. Vintage Porto (is there any debate?)
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Don't think we're comparing the same thing...
Hi Roy,
As a Bordeaux resident and Bordeaux lover, I was obviously interested to read your post, which brings on a bunch of reactions.
First of all, a question: what percentage of Port is Vintage Port?
I understood it to be less than 5%. Do you have a better guestimate?
As for Bordeaux, all the great growths taken together account for much less than 5% of total production (Bordeaux and Bordeaux Supérieur alone, just 2 of 57 appellations, make up 55% of the total).
With regard to the first growths, you can imagine what sort of proportion we're talking about there!
Therefore, there is Port and Port, as there is Bordeaux and Bordeaux...
Not only first growths age well in Bordeaux, and consumers pay a very considerable premium for these, even compared to wines that are just one small notch down. For instance, when my son was born in 1985 I bought several cases of "super seconds" (hey, I'm not rich, you know!) and the futures price was quite reasonable. In other words, the only way to buy great Bordeaux - from well-reputed vintages - is en primeur. It would be more fair to compare the release prices of the Bordeaux wines while they were still in barrel.
I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I'd venture to say that 1961 Mouton or Lafite cost something like one hundreth of their present price when sold en primeur in 1962!!!
No one will agrue with the tremendous appreciation of the tip of the pyramid in Bordeaux as compared to their opposite numbers in the Douro Valley. It's just that wine lovers traditionally buy fine Bordeaux on a futures basis. This puts a very different slant on the present-day auction prices.
It also explains (along with French VAT and a couple of other phenomena) why you will probably pay more for great wines in a wine shop in Bordeaux than you will in New York or London.
Another question: I believe that Vintage Port is also sold on a futures basis. When did this start, because it was not always so?
As you point out, Bordeaux and Port serve different purposes. By that, I mean that the former can be served at table during the course of a meal, which Port cannot.
Bottom line: buy *both* Bordeaux *and* Port for 20 or 30 years from now
.
All the best,
Alex
As a Bordeaux resident and Bordeaux lover, I was obviously interested to read your post, which brings on a bunch of reactions.
First of all, a question: what percentage of Port is Vintage Port?
I understood it to be less than 5%. Do you have a better guestimate?
As for Bordeaux, all the great growths taken together account for much less than 5% of total production (Bordeaux and Bordeaux Supérieur alone, just 2 of 57 appellations, make up 55% of the total).
With regard to the first growths, you can imagine what sort of proportion we're talking about there!
Therefore, there is Port and Port, as there is Bordeaux and Bordeaux...
Not only first growths age well in Bordeaux, and consumers pay a very considerable premium for these, even compared to wines that are just one small notch down. For instance, when my son was born in 1985 I bought several cases of "super seconds" (hey, I'm not rich, you know!) and the futures price was quite reasonable. In other words, the only way to buy great Bordeaux - from well-reputed vintages - is en primeur. It would be more fair to compare the release prices of the Bordeaux wines while they were still in barrel.
I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I'd venture to say that 1961 Mouton or Lafite cost something like one hundreth of their present price when sold en primeur in 1962!!!
No one will agrue with the tremendous appreciation of the tip of the pyramid in Bordeaux as compared to their opposite numbers in the Douro Valley. It's just that wine lovers traditionally buy fine Bordeaux on a futures basis. This puts a very different slant on the present-day auction prices.
It also explains (along with French VAT and a couple of other phenomena) why you will probably pay more for great wines in a wine shop in Bordeaux than you will in New York or London.
Another question: I believe that Vintage Port is also sold on a futures basis. When did this start, because it was not always so?
As you point out, Bordeaux and Port serve different purposes. By that, I mean that the former can be served at table during the course of a meal, which Port cannot.
Bottom line: buy *both* Bordeaux *and* Port for 20 or 30 years from now
.All the best,
Alex
Based in Bordeaux, I also love Port.
-
Ray Queally
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:55 pm
- Location: London
Port by a mile
Port wins a qpr debate hands down.
Yah of course there are a few Ports that are incredibly expensive
but some exceptionally high quality wines are still affordable unlike many top Bdx Chateaux.
I would drink a lot more Port if it came in half bottles or even 50cl.
A top Claret is never going to remain unfinished round my place but it's too much to down a bottle of Port if there is only one or two people dining/drinking.
Though perhaps if it was more readily available in halves the price might not stay so affordable. There's an ageing question here as well though.
Yah of course there are a few Ports that are incredibly expensive
but some exceptionally high quality wines are still affordable unlike many top Bdx Chateaux.
I would drink a lot more Port if it came in half bottles or even 50cl.
A top Claret is never going to remain unfinished round my place but it's too much to down a bottle of Port if there is only one or two people dining/drinking.
Though perhaps if it was more readily available in halves the price might not stay so affordable. There's an ageing question here as well though.
Ray,
I get your point & it's a good one. However, comparing the best ports with "super seconds" isn't altogether fair. The recent 2000 vintage was excellent for both port and bordeaux. The prices for bordeaux were nuts - much higher relative to the previous vintage than they were for port.
There are many ways to slice the pie. For my money port is an excellent value, first growth bordeaux.... not so much. I DO love the super seconds, and I think THAT's where the real value lies in bordeaux.
The great thing is we can have the best of both worlds - bordeaux with dinner, port with dessert. 8)
I get your point & it's a good one. However, comparing the best ports with "super seconds" isn't altogether fair. The recent 2000 vintage was excellent for both port and bordeaux. The prices for bordeaux were nuts - much higher relative to the previous vintage than they were for port.
There are many ways to slice the pie. For my money port is an excellent value, first growth bordeaux.... not so much. I DO love the super seconds, and I think THAT's where the real value lies in bordeaux.
The great thing is we can have the best of both worlds - bordeaux with dinner, port with dessert. 8)
-
simon Lisle
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 am
- Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom - UK
-
Ray Queally
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:55 pm
- Location: London
Eddie, I think we are saying the same thing. Sorry if my post is confusing.
Alex, absolutely no idea on the particular prices you seek. Roy's original post gave one example. I'm sure it's possible to prove the contrary with another pro Bdx example. My point is based on much browsing in wine shops/internet which has led me to believe that you get a higher quality Port for your money than you would get Bdx for the same price.
You will see from my original post that I agree with you that they are quite different products and not really comparable.
This is in no way Bdx bashing I just wish I could afford more of the stuff but a combination of market forces and greed has prevented all but the very wealthy of sampling and enjoying the best Bordeaux has to offer.
best wishes
Ray
Alex, absolutely no idea on the particular prices you seek. Roy's original post gave one example. I'm sure it's possible to prove the contrary with another pro Bdx example. My point is based on much browsing in wine shops/internet which has led me to believe that you get a higher quality Port for your money than you would get Bdx for the same price.
You will see from my original post that I agree with you that they are quite different products and not really comparable.
This is in no way Bdx bashing I just wish I could afford more of the stuff but a combination of market forces and greed has prevented all but the very wealthy of sampling and enjoying the best Bordeaux has to offer.
best wishes
Ray
-
Jason Brandt Lewis
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:28 pm
- Location: Berkeley, California, United States of America - USA
Alex,AlexR wrote:Ray,
Could we please separate fact from fiction?
Could you answer my example of 61 First Growth claret.
What it cost then, what it costs now?
I think the answer is perhaps not quite as you imagined.
Best regards,
Alex R.
FACT: In California, most of the Left Bank 1961 Bordeaux First Growths were selling at initial release for $30/case of 12 (25.4 oz.) -- Châteaux Latour, Margaux, Haut-Brion (and Mouton, then still a 2me Cru). Château Lafite was expensive -- $36/case of 12.
1) I do not know what Pétrus, Cheval Blanc or Ausone were selling for.
2) These were NOT futures pricing, but the price from the wholesaler to the retailer when the wines were in their warehouse and ready for delivery.
3) Under California's Fair Trade laws in effect at the time, Château Lafite would have carried a retail price of $4.50/bottle; the others, $3.75.
Cheers,
Jason
Porto comes from only one place . . . no matter what the label says!
Ray,
You write:
My point is based on much browsing in wine shops/internet which has led me to believe that you get a higher quality Port for your money than you would get Bdx for the same price.
But in the next breath you write:
You will see from my original post that I agree with you that they are quite different products and not really comparable.
There's more than a little inconstency here. However, this is maybe just because the world of wine is inconsistent!
It could be said that Port is less expensive (in a way) than claret in the same way as Sauternes, because you drink less of it!
There are many ways of looking at this...
One important point is that the great growths taken all together account for a maximum of 5% of production in Bordeaux. Combined with the fact that there are 6,000 châteaux in the region, it takes a brave man indeed to make generalizations such as I have read in this thread...
This is in no way Bdx bashing I just wish I could afford more of the stuff but a combination of market forces and greed has prevented all but the very wealthy of sampling and enjoying the best Bordeaux has to offer.
I would contest that statement on the grounds that "the best that Bordeaux has to offer" is NOT just the darlings that get all the press (Pichon Lalande, Pavie, etc.).
You can find seriously good wine starting at 8 euros a bottle. And I tell you what, if you make it to the region, I'll be glad to prove my point!
All the best,
Alex R.
You write:
My point is based on much browsing in wine shops/internet which has led me to believe that you get a higher quality Port for your money than you would get Bdx for the same price.
But in the next breath you write:
You will see from my original post that I agree with you that they are quite different products and not really comparable.
There's more than a little inconstency here. However, this is maybe just because the world of wine is inconsistent!
It could be said that Port is less expensive (in a way) than claret in the same way as Sauternes, because you drink less of it!
There are many ways of looking at this...
One important point is that the great growths taken all together account for a maximum of 5% of production in Bordeaux. Combined with the fact that there are 6,000 châteaux in the region, it takes a brave man indeed to make generalizations such as I have read in this thread...
This is in no way Bdx bashing I just wish I could afford more of the stuff but a combination of market forces and greed has prevented all but the very wealthy of sampling and enjoying the best Bordeaux has to offer.
I would contest that statement on the grounds that "the best that Bordeaux has to offer" is NOT just the darlings that get all the press (Pichon Lalande, Pavie, etc.).
You can find seriously good wine starting at 8 euros a bottle. And I tell you what, if you make it to the region, I'll be glad to prove my point!
All the best,
Alex R.
Based in Bordeaux, I also love Port.
-
Ray Queally
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:55 pm
- Location: London
OK Alex,
Inconsistent ? Actually no. My OPINION (not fact just opinion) is that from what I see in a simple pound for pound/euro for euro you can buy better "quality" Port than Bordeaux. In other words you get "more" (better rated or whatever) for your money.
However, while they are similar products they are consumed differently and (by most people) in hugely different volumes. My point was that if more High quality Port was readily available in smaller sizes it would be consumed by more people. In countless dinner parties over the past 15 years I think I was offered Port at the end of a meal less than five times.
In what way are these points inconsistent ?
One is about value for money ...the other about how we consume the end products of crushed grapes.
And as to Bordeaux and value for money.
If I may be so bold as to suggest a certain slight of hand on your part.
I spoke of longing to be able to afford "the best Bdx had to offer"( And here I'm speaking of the likes of Palmer, Montrose, Bon Pasteur, Gazin
that I used to be able to afford with little forethought, not the really big boys you name) yet you counter with "seriously good wine"
The "best" and "seriously good" are not the same.
However Alex if I make it to the region (and I hope to) I look forward to
trying some of that "seriously good" 8€ Bordeaux :)
Of course if it gets some high points from certain critics it might not stay so affordable
best wishes
Ray
Inconsistent ? Actually no. My OPINION (not fact just opinion) is that from what I see in a simple pound for pound/euro for euro you can buy better "quality" Port than Bordeaux. In other words you get "more" (better rated or whatever) for your money.
However, while they are similar products they are consumed differently and (by most people) in hugely different volumes. My point was that if more High quality Port was readily available in smaller sizes it would be consumed by more people. In countless dinner parties over the past 15 years I think I was offered Port at the end of a meal less than five times.
In what way are these points inconsistent ?
One is about value for money ...the other about how we consume the end products of crushed grapes.
And as to Bordeaux and value for money.
If I may be so bold as to suggest a certain slight of hand on your part.
I spoke of longing to be able to afford "the best Bdx had to offer"( And here I'm speaking of the likes of Palmer, Montrose, Bon Pasteur, Gazin
that I used to be able to afford with little forethought, not the really big boys you name) yet you counter with "seriously good wine"
The "best" and "seriously good" are not the same.
However Alex if I make it to the region (and I hope to) I look forward to
trying some of that "seriously good" 8€ Bordeaux :)
Of course if it gets some high points from certain critics it might not stay so affordable
best wishes
Ray
-
Ray Queally
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:55 pm
- Location: London
Hi again Ray,
I won't go into the inconsistency issue again.
Suffice it to say that the products are too different to be able to compare the "bang for your buck".
Your point about half-bottles of Port is a very interesting one. This is quite common in Sauternes, as is 50 cl. bottles.
However, I don't believe I've ever seen half bottles of Port in my entire life!
I continue to question your premise about what constitutes the best of Bordeaux. You seem only to include that which, where one to transpose this to Port, would be in the vintage port category.
"Seriously good" vs. "the best"? I agree that this is a question of semantics, but I adamantly maintain that one cannot restrict either to just the great growths when it comes to Bordeaux.
All the best,
Alex R.
I won't go into the inconsistency issue again.
Suffice it to say that the products are too different to be able to compare the "bang for your buck".
Your point about half-bottles of Port is a very interesting one. This is quite common in Sauternes, as is 50 cl. bottles.
However, I don't believe I've ever seen half bottles of Port in my entire life!
I continue to question your premise about what constitutes the best of Bordeaux. You seem only to include that which, where one to transpose this to Port, would be in the vintage port category.
"Seriously good" vs. "the best"? I agree that this is a question of semantics, but I adamantly maintain that one cannot restrict either to just the great growths when it comes to Bordeaux.
All the best,
Alex R.
Based in Bordeaux, I also love Port.
-
Ray Queally
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:55 pm
- Location: London
Hi Alex,
we will have to discuss this over a bottle some time !
as to the "bang for your buck"...Roy's post asserts that you get more for your money with Port. I agree. 2 grape juice products one is more expensive in my view.
HOWEVER, they are different and the way we consume them is different
this leads to the difference in pricing. If Roy Hersh had the influence of Robert Parker and Port was available in smaller bottles (a la Sauternes)
we would not be having this discussion !
I think the best Bordeaux is expensive. There is no crap expensive wine. You are obviously a supporter of all the wines of Bdx and not just the darlings of the wine press. I applaud you and support you. However when asked a question about the "best" of each zone you have to compare the most sought after/highly rated.
Personally I don't buy these wines. I suspect (from your comments) you don't either. I would not pay the ridiculous sums now demanded. I agree with you about value for money being further down the chain but that was not the subject of the post.
If you know of cheaper wines that can compete with Palmer and Montrose please please tell me
best wishes
Ray
we will have to discuss this over a bottle some time !
as to the "bang for your buck"...Roy's post asserts that you get more for your money with Port. I agree. 2 grape juice products one is more expensive in my view.
HOWEVER, they are different and the way we consume them is different
this leads to the difference in pricing. If Roy Hersh had the influence of Robert Parker and Port was available in smaller bottles (a la Sauternes)
we would not be having this discussion !
I think the best Bordeaux is expensive. There is no crap expensive wine. You are obviously a supporter of all the wines of Bdx and not just the darlings of the wine press. I applaud you and support you. However when asked a question about the "best" of each zone you have to compare the most sought after/highly rated.
Personally I don't buy these wines. I suspect (from your comments) you don't either. I would not pay the ridiculous sums now demanded. I agree with you about value for money being further down the chain but that was not the subject of the post.
If you know of cheaper wines that can compete with Palmer and Montrose please please tell me
best wishes
Ray
Hi again Ray,
As Roy starts out by saying in his original post - and which you seem to disagree with:
I realize it is not a true comparison to compare a great Claret, the vin préfére of Robert Parker if not the world, and considered the "benchmark" if not barometer for wine in general to Vintage Port, which is only one of many, of the world's great dessert wines.
So Roy and I will just have to live with it!
We've been given an idea of the appreciation of great claret (the very tip of the pyramid), which people with money and intelligence buy on a futures basis. It certainly makes vintage port seem like a poor investment, doesn't it?
That is, unless you can give me contradictory figures for, let's say, a 63 Taylor's.
I suspect that it'll be the same exact thing for the much-heralded 2000 clarets (once again, in the restrictive sense which seems to be preferred in this thread). In other words, if one were to compare the en primeur cost of 2000 Château Margaux with the auction price in 2040, it will seem risible.
You write:
I think the best Bordeaux is expensive.
Perhaps it would help to define "best" and "expensive"!
Obviously, if you're thinking Lafite and Latour, no one's going to disagree!
Personally I don't buy these wines. I suspect (from your comments) you don't either. I would not pay the ridiculous sums now demanded. I agree with you about value for money being further down the chain but that was not the subject of the post.
I buy *some* of those wines, but not very many. One of the reasons is that, like vintage Port, they can take 20 or 30 years to come around! :twisted: And, for sure, I get more fun out of excellent little-known wines, or one of the biggies from the dreaded "off-vintages".
But "ridiculous sums" should be put into perspective. And the crux of the post that started this all off, is the appreciation factor.
I think the way to resolve the difference of opinion we have is to compare futures prices of famous wine châteaux in good vintages, and vintage Ports in a similar category.
In fact, Ray, I'm at ease with admitting that my knowledge of Port is rather limited. I may be wrong, you may be wrong - it would be interesting for us all to know the truth!
For a start, I don't even know to what extent vintage port is sold before it's bottled, nor when this practice became widespread.
If you know of cheaper wines that can compete with Palmer and Montrose please please tell me.
It has been known to happen. I think I could set up a blind tasting that would fox anyone (including me!).
Best regards,
Alex (seemingly argumentative, but not really
)
As Roy starts out by saying in his original post - and which you seem to disagree with:
I realize it is not a true comparison to compare a great Claret, the vin préfére of Robert Parker if not the world, and considered the "benchmark" if not barometer for wine in general to Vintage Port, which is only one of many, of the world's great dessert wines.
So Roy and I will just have to live with it!
We've been given an idea of the appreciation of great claret (the very tip of the pyramid), which people with money and intelligence buy on a futures basis. It certainly makes vintage port seem like a poor investment, doesn't it?
That is, unless you can give me contradictory figures for, let's say, a 63 Taylor's.
I suspect that it'll be the same exact thing for the much-heralded 2000 clarets (once again, in the restrictive sense which seems to be preferred in this thread). In other words, if one were to compare the en primeur cost of 2000 Château Margaux with the auction price in 2040, it will seem risible.
You write:
I think the best Bordeaux is expensive.
Perhaps it would help to define "best" and "expensive"!
Obviously, if you're thinking Lafite and Latour, no one's going to disagree!
Personally I don't buy these wines. I suspect (from your comments) you don't either. I would not pay the ridiculous sums now demanded. I agree with you about value for money being further down the chain but that was not the subject of the post.
I buy *some* of those wines, but not very many. One of the reasons is that, like vintage Port, they can take 20 or 30 years to come around! :twisted: And, for sure, I get more fun out of excellent little-known wines, or one of the biggies from the dreaded "off-vintages".
But "ridiculous sums" should be put into perspective. And the crux of the post that started this all off, is the appreciation factor.
I think the way to resolve the difference of opinion we have is to compare futures prices of famous wine châteaux in good vintages, and vintage Ports in a similar category.
In fact, Ray, I'm at ease with admitting that my knowledge of Port is rather limited. I may be wrong, you may be wrong - it would be interesting for us all to know the truth!
For a start, I don't even know to what extent vintage port is sold before it's bottled, nor when this practice became widespread.
If you know of cheaper wines that can compete with Palmer and Montrose please please tell me.
It has been known to happen
. I think I could set up a blind tasting that would fox anyone (including me!).Best regards,
Alex (seemingly argumentative, but not really
)Based in Bordeaux, I also love Port.
Anybody want to revisit this discussion?
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Andy Velebil
- Posts: 16644
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Sure, I'll bite.
First, thank goodness port is not as popular as a Bordeaux! As I'm sure you've all heard the hype over the 2005 Bordeaux by now and the insanely high prices the top wines command. IIRC, from what I've heard, the top's first growths will be in the $200 to $400 range per bottle. Compare that to a top VP prices of $50-$80 per bottle (OK, excluding Nacional).
Or for that matter, the current Yequim (sp?) which is selling for $200 for a half bottle!
As for consumption of reds and ports. How many times have you been to a dinner where there are huge amounts of dry wines and maybe 1-2 bottles of a dessert wine, like port. You can sit at a table and consume glass after glass of a dry wine and then your too drunk to enjoy a port.
Here is a novel idea, drink one or two less glasses of wine and leave room for a glass or two of port. I think everyone has a pre-concieved notion that that last drink of the night (i.e. port) gave them a hang over the next day...RUBBISH! One glass is not going to give you that hang over, those 7-8 glasses of wine before already took care of that.
Another point. I have noticed how many experts on wine, wine store employee's, and those in the wine industry are so clueless when it come to talking about port. I've been to many wine stores with knowledgeable employees, until you start in on ports. Then they look at you like you are speaking a language from outerspace. Look at threads on Mark Squirres forum. When a port question pops up, the same handful of people respond. Here is one of the biggest wine chat forums in the world and port topics elicit a handful of replies.
That leads me to what will be a controversial statement;
Wine connosuers (sp?) and those in the wine industry (and its human nature too) are afraid of what they don't know, and that includes their lack of knowledge on ports. Instead of taking the time to learn, they shun what they do not know.
If you are still reading, sorry for the log post, but Roy asked for takers
:twisted:
First, thank goodness port is not as popular as a Bordeaux! As I'm sure you've all heard the hype over the 2005 Bordeaux by now and the insanely high prices the top wines command. IIRC, from what I've heard, the top's first growths will be in the $200 to $400 range per bottle. Compare that to a top VP prices of $50-$80 per bottle (OK, excluding Nacional).
Or for that matter, the current Yequim (sp?) which is selling for $200 for a half bottle!
Look at a Taylor's 1994. It now sells for between $200-$270 per bottle. I wasn't buying port in 1994, but what was its original price at release, $20-$30, maybe $40?? If that is the case, it's price has sky-rocketed in 10 years. I would say that is one heck of an investment.We've been given an idea of the appreciation of great claret (the very tip of the pyramid), which people with money and intelligence buy on a futures basis. It certainly makes vintage port seem like a poor investment, doesn't it? That is, unless you can give me contradictory figures for, let's say, a 63 Taylor's.
As for consumption of reds and ports. How many times have you been to a dinner where there are huge amounts of dry wines and maybe 1-2 bottles of a dessert wine, like port. You can sit at a table and consume glass after glass of a dry wine and then your too drunk to enjoy a port.
Here is a novel idea, drink one or two less glasses of wine and leave room for a glass or two of port. I think everyone has a pre-concieved notion that that last drink of the night (i.e. port) gave them a hang over the next day...RUBBISH! One glass is not going to give you that hang over, those 7-8 glasses of wine before already took care of that.
Another point. I have noticed how many experts on wine, wine store employee's, and those in the wine industry are so clueless when it come to talking about port. I've been to many wine stores with knowledgeable employees, until you start in on ports. Then they look at you like you are speaking a language from outerspace. Look at threads on Mark Squirres forum. When a port question pops up, the same handful of people respond. Here is one of the biggest wine chat forums in the world and port topics elicit a handful of replies.
That leads me to what will be a controversial statement;
Wine connosuers (sp?) and those in the wine industry (and its human nature too) are afraid of what they don't know, and that includes their lack of knowledge on ports. Instead of taking the time to learn, they shun what they do not know.
If you are still reading, sorry for the log post, but Roy asked for takers
:twisted:
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Frederick Blais
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
- Location: Porto, Portugal
Andy, interesting facts that you mentions. For the Taylor and Fonseca 94, it is just that they have received a perfect 100 mark in WS.
I agree with you about experts overlooking Ports and not trying to learn more about it. But I have to agree that most of us are doing it. I have great knowledge in the Douro but I will pass most of the topics about the Rhone Valley, I just don't like the wines and I'm not interested to know about this region, I'd rather take that time to learn more on the regions I really like.
Since many drinks 10 bottles of wines for 1 bottles of Ports, it means that there is probably a ratio respected too in the time you put on learning about Port VS other regions.
True, ports and other wine of Portugal are neglected by the public. But I'd make too a statement here. I say that 85%+ of people who drinks wines on a regular basis are buying recommendation from magazine and wine writers or are advise by people reading it. According to that, it is funny to look at the market sales thrends or wine that sudenly becomes fashion. Guigal C9DP is just an ordinary negoce wine. But now it sells for more than great names like Pegau Réserve, Vieux Donjon that are for me what I find typical C9DP. Why, only because WS put it at #1. It double its price in one year. Just like Taylor and other ports, all they needed was a #1 spot to double their release price from 94 to 97.
In wine just as in music, there are those that listen to what we are telling them to listen, 85% of people listening to radio station, and there are those who listen to it for the passion they get through it. I see Port as a Rock star that is still kicking ass after 20 years even if the media is telling rock is dead. All that WS fashion talking is like these Britney Spears built to sell and get instant satisfaction. The first you'll adopt it for the rest of you're life, the other one, you'll trow it to the garbage once you're bored and then you'll move on to the next fashion thing pushed by them.
The problem with that is that we are stucked in a infinite loop. WS wants to talk about wine they like and Winemake wants to make wines that WS will put in its magazine so it can sell his wines. Now that with that everybody gets is money from that mutual help, why change a winning formula!?!?
About Portugal, well, just wait for WS to put one of their dry red wine in #1 spot and many Portuguese wines will be imported in the USA. It will probably never happens. Why? Because no great wines in Portugal is produced in sufficient quantity to satisfy the demand of a #1 wine in WS.
Am I crazy or realist?
Is my post too long too Andy :)
I agree with you about experts overlooking Ports and not trying to learn more about it. But I have to agree that most of us are doing it. I have great knowledge in the Douro but I will pass most of the topics about the Rhone Valley, I just don't like the wines and I'm not interested to know about this region, I'd rather take that time to learn more on the regions I really like.
Since many drinks 10 bottles of wines for 1 bottles of Ports, it means that there is probably a ratio respected too in the time you put on learning about Port VS other regions.
True, ports and other wine of Portugal are neglected by the public. But I'd make too a statement here. I say that 85%+ of people who drinks wines on a regular basis are buying recommendation from magazine and wine writers or are advise by people reading it. According to that, it is funny to look at the market sales thrends or wine that sudenly becomes fashion. Guigal C9DP is just an ordinary negoce wine. But now it sells for more than great names like Pegau Réserve, Vieux Donjon that are for me what I find typical C9DP. Why, only because WS put it at #1. It double its price in one year. Just like Taylor and other ports, all they needed was a #1 spot to double their release price from 94 to 97.
In wine just as in music, there are those that listen to what we are telling them to listen, 85% of people listening to radio station, and there are those who listen to it for the passion they get through it. I see Port as a Rock star that is still kicking ass after 20 years even if the media is telling rock is dead. All that WS fashion talking is like these Britney Spears built to sell and get instant satisfaction. The first you'll adopt it for the rest of you're life, the other one, you'll trow it to the garbage once you're bored and then you'll move on to the next fashion thing pushed by them.
The problem with that is that we are stucked in a infinite loop. WS wants to talk about wine they like and Winemake wants to make wines that WS will put in its magazine so it can sell his wines. Now that with that everybody gets is money from that mutual help, why change a winning formula!?!?
About Portugal, well, just wait for WS to put one of their dry red wine in #1 spot and many Portuguese wines will be imported in the USA. It will probably never happens. Why? Because no great wines in Portugal is produced in sufficient quantity to satisfy the demand of a #1 wine in WS.
Am I crazy or realist?
Is my post too long too Andy :)
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
-
Andy Velebil
- Posts: 16644
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Fred,
I remember the Old Jonsey port (Australian) last year and how Parker gave it a 93 pts (Oct 2004 issue #155). Everyone ran out to get some. Problem was by the time everyone figured it out they were on a new production run, which was nowhere near a 93 pt wine. Power of the press
I guess that makes us port affectionados rebels, not afraid the buck the trend. I knew I liked port for a reason and you just laid it out.
The Douro red issue, that one needs a thread of its own...
Thanks Fred,
P.S. Naw, the post is not too long
So right you are!According to that, it is funny to look at the market sales thrends or wine that sudenly becomes fashion.
I remember the Old Jonsey port (Australian) last year and how Parker gave it a 93 pts (Oct 2004 issue #155). Everyone ran out to get some. Problem was by the time everyone figured it out they were on a new production run, which was nowhere near a 93 pt wine. Power of the press
.In wine just as in music, there are those that listen to what we are telling them to listen, 85% of people listening to radio station, and there are those who listen to it for the passion they get through it
I guess that makes us port affectionados rebels, not afraid the buck the trend. I knew I liked port for a reason and you just laid it out.
The Douro red issue, that one needs a thread of its own...
Thanks Fred,
P.S. Naw, the post is not too long
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com