For The Love Of Port

While the Port trade has approved of these changes, the Portuguese government must ratify them in order for them to be implemented. But these are seemingly likely to both pass:

a. The new range for the alcohol content of Port will be lowered at the bottom end, to 18% abv. the top end of 21% remains as is.
Obviously the two Port houses that have the most sales in France, (you can figure that out, I hope) lobbied for this due to the taxation rates in France and that by producing Ports at 18% they will be taxed at the lower rate than Port and spirits are today. It is nearly impossible to come up with any other good reason for this. Remember I used this exact topic some years ago in AQFTPT and most said it would and could never happen. Yeah, sure!

b. Ever more controversial, the quantity of Port required to start up and become a Port company capable of receiving beneficio rights to produce Port will be lowered. The current minimum stock is 150,000 liters owned by a company, in order to become a Port producer. However, the new quantity, if ratified, will be only 75,000 liters -- which will be a game changer now, as well as in the future.

Again, these must go through governmental channels and will only become reality if approved. In fact checking this, a highly placed source at the IVDP believes they will go through later this year.

Roy Hersh wrote:While the Port trade has approved of these changes, the Portuguese government must ratify them in order for them to be implemented. But these are seemingly likely to both pass:

a. The new range for the alcohol content of Port will be lowered at the bottom end, to 18% abv. the top end of 21% remains as is.
Obviously the two Port houses that have the most sales in France, (you can figure that out, I hope) lobbied for this due to the taxation rates in France and that by producing Ports at 18% they will be taxed at the lower rate than Port and spirits are today. It is nearly impossible to come up with any other good reason for this. Remember I used this exact topic some years ago in AQFTPT and most said it would and could never happen. Yeah, sure!

b. Ever more controversial, the quantity of Port required to start up and become a Port company capable of receiving beneficio rights to produce Port will be lowered. The current minimum stock is 150,000 liters owned by a company, in order to become a Port producer. However, the new quantity, if ratified, will be only 75,000 liters -- which will be a game changer now, as well as in the future.

Again, these must go through governmental channels and will only become reality if approved. In fact checking this, a highly placed source at the IVDP believes they will go through later this year.

Regarding b. I guess it is only to be a Tawny producer as I know maybe Single Quintas hold much less than that and release Port. Maybe controversial, but I like it! Even though it could have been less in my opinion. Anyone who wants to start a tawny production must be crazy anyway. It is better to lower the minimum quantities to hold than to let that producer buying tons of cheap Port just to build stocks that will never be used.

Beside a few producers like Vieira de Sousa that had tons of reserve of old Ports waiting to be release, I can only think of Wine and Soul as a producer that built his stocks from scratch over the last 15 years before releasing his first tawny. Port market needs new blood.

Piling up pipas in Gaia is becoming something of the past, small family producers are becoming more and more interested in releasing their small single quinta projects. It might means that Tawny as we know it today will have competition, but if the quality and the diversity increase with this, all good with me. Anyway IVDP is still there to control the quality right!!!(ok maybe it is a bit sarcastic here)

I find a) much more concerning than b)

Making it easier for family owned quintas to do their own thing sounds great to me - although I fear the big players may be less sympathetic.

But the alcohol thing bothers me. I don't know the detail of the French alcohol limits and their duty structure, but was the 18% level set specifically to exclude port? - and would they drop it if port fell below the threshold?

And what of the medical lobby? - constantly blaming alcohol now for just about every medical condition, but with an appalling lack of good scientific evidence. Will they be bullying governments to drop alcohol duty thresholds to force down alcoholic content?

In isolation, dropping the alcoholic content of French grannies' paintstripper grade tawny by 1% doesn't seem much of a problem - but where is this leading?

And on the subject of future regulation changes, what would people's top wish list items be?

Mine would be:

1) Sort out the indication of age tawnies. Stop demanding a certain 'style' for each category and start demanding a properly documented minimum average age for each blend.

- Let the producers make their own styles and focus on an honest description.

2) Get a proper system worked out for showing levels of filtration. Some tawnies and colheitas bottle age well and some don't, it comes down largely to the degree of filtration, and the consumer is left guessing. LBVs are a nightmare in this regard - some age well but don't qualify as unfiltered, and some are filtered but given driven corks.

- Require producers to put a small symbol on bottle labels or back labels - maybe the letter F followed by a number in a circle. F0 = strained of flies and stalks but otherwise unfiltered through to F4 = most heavily filtered. Agree definitions with the producers for each level.

3) Move on from selos. They are not effective as a guarantee, and miserable for the smaller bottlers who can't afford the custom machinery to place them automatically. They also tend to get untidy as bottles age, spoiling their appearance.

- Use better technology for security and revenue collection.

Frederick Blais wrote:

Roy Hersh wrote:While the Port trade has approved of these changes, the Portuguese government must ratify them in order for them to be implemented. But these are seemingly likely to both pass:

a. The new range for the alcohol content of Port will be lowered at the bottom end, to 18% abv. the top end of 21% remains as is.
Obviously the two Port houses that have the most sales in France, (you can figure that out, I hope) lobbied for this due to the taxation rates in France and that by producing Ports at 18% they will be taxed at the lower rate than Port and spirits are today. It is nearly impossible to come up with any other good reason for this. Remember I used this exact topic some years ago in AQFTPT and most said it would and could never happen. Yeah, sure!

b. Ever more controversial, the quantity of Port required to start up and become a Port company capable of receiving beneficio rights to produce Port will be lowered. The current minimum stock is 150,000 liters owned by a company, in order to become a Port producer. However, the new quantity, if ratified, will be only 75,000 liters -- which will be a game changer now, as well as in the future.

Again, these must go through governmental channels and will only become reality if approved. In fact checking this, a highly placed source at the IVDP believes they will go through later this year.

Regarding b. I guess it is only to be a Tawny producer as I know maybe Single Quintas hold much less than that and release Port. Maybe controversial, but I like it! Even though it could have been less in my opinion. Anyone who wants to start a tawny production must be crazy anyway. It is better to lower the minimum quantities to hold than to let that producer buying tons of cheap Port just to build stocks that will never be used.

Beside a few producers like Vieira de Sousa that had tons of reserve of old Ports waiting to be release, I can only think of Wine and Soul as a producer that built his stocks from scratch over the last 15 years before releasing his first tawny. Port market needs new blood.

Piling up pipas in Gaia is becoming something of the past, small family producers are becoming more and more interested in releasing their small single quinta projects. It might means that Tawny as we know it today will have competition, but if the quality and the diversity increase with this, all good with me. Anyway IVDP is still there to control the quality right!!!(ok maybe it is a bit sarcastic here)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

don't see any reply there Roy...

I think the point b) is great news.... now how much is 75,000 liters of oak barrel....?

Tom Archer wrote: 3) Move on from selos. They are not effective as a guarantee, and miserable for the smaller bottlers who can't afford the custom machinery to place them automatically. They also tend to get untidy as bottles age, spoiling their appearance.
- Use better technology for security and revenue collection.

Of your issues Tom, this is the one that makes the most sense to me. Put a label on the bottle with a number. Add a laser engraving to the sticker if you want more, or etch the glass. And then have some easy way for the consumer to validate that a bottle is what it says it is. This last part sounds easy, but isn't so because you also need to insure that the validation system itself doesn't give away enough information so that the fraudsters themselves can use it to make fakes.

Although it's tempting to explain the failings of the selo system, this forum is not secure so we mustn't unwittingly aid and abet forgers.

For revenue collection, labels or back labels are the sensible way forward. Get the label printers to add the revenue to their printing charges, and have a simple system for refunding on unused labels (as the labels will all weigh the same, weighing the unused stash will quickly determine the number)

Security is indeed a little trickier, as it's important not to sign up to systems that would require the smaller bottlers to invest in grotesquely expensive equipment. Having a single security system might actually be bad idea - if producers were merely required to adopt an 'acceptable' security system, forgers would require an in depth knowledge of each producer's systems - systems that might change from year to year.

For small bottlers, it might be acceptable to rely on the revenue labels for standard and reserve ports, and to put RFID chips under the capsules of their premium products. Larger bottlers might use more complex systems, such as an algorithm derived code printed on the glass under the capsule that correlated with a serial number on the label.

The bottom line is that any person must be able to quickly check the authenticity of a bottle they are offered, especially at the top end of the spectrum.