Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

This forum is for discussing all things Port (as in from PORTugal) - vintages, recommendations, tasting notes, etc.

Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil

User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Derek T. »

Tom,

I think we are looking at this through different telescopes. In the mordern era I think that the major shippers, not just TFP and SFE, declare their premium blends when the wine is good enough and the timing is right. You seem to be coming from the angle that they should largely ignore the timing issue and declare every time they produce wines capable of meeting the grade. If classic Vintage Port had a marketplace that could stand that frequency of declaration I might agree with you, but I don't think it can at this point in time.

Derek
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Roy Hersh »

Exactly. Derek you've hit the nail on the head.

If there was a larger consumer base, of course the old 3 declarations per decade would go by the wayside OR the volume of VP in generally declared years would be ratcheted up. However, I believe there would just be more frequent declarations.


Tom wrote:
If the aversion to a two year intervals were lifted, the benchmark for a declarable year could be raised dramatically, so much so that the proportion of years that needed to be declarable would drop from 70% to near 40%. Yes, this would make the pattern of the declaration cycle a little less smooth, but it would avoid the embarassment of passing fine years that the independants declare, and also raise the quality bar for Vintage Port.
This seems like a "glass half empty" point of view. I don't think the Port trade sees it as an embarrassment when the quality of the 2nd labels and SQVPs is of a very high quality. After all, when that is the case, it provides even greater respectability for their VP. I think the best example of this was Christian Seely's explanation why Noval did not declare a 2007 Nacional. I realize the dynamic is not 100% the same, but certainly punctuates the point nonetheless.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Tom Archer
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Tom Archer »

I don't think the Port trade sees it as an embarrassment when the quality of the 2nd labels and SQVPs is of a very high quality. After all, when that is the case, it provides even greater respectability for their VP.
A respectability that will eventually go completely down the pan if the independent wines from undeclared years outgun the shippers wines from declared ones.

I can't be making my case very well here, because you and Derek are getting completely the wrong end of the stick.

The issue is not more declarations, but a less restricted approach to choosing them, so that the wines from declared years are rarely challenged.

Tom
User avatar
Glenn E.
Posts: 8161
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:49 am
Location: Sammamish, Washington, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Glenn E. »

I think I understand what Tom is saying.

Right now, the major shippers try to space out their declarations while simultaneously trying to pick the best years. They also seem to try to declare 3 times per calendar decade. What I'm hearing Tom say is that they should stop worrying about spacing out the declarations and the whole 3/10 thing and simply declare all of the best years, therefore assuring that their generally declared VP is always the best. As things stand right now given their current practice, it is possible (note that I'm not saying it has happened, just that it is possible) for one of the better years to get passed over simply because the major shippers seem to have an aversion to declaring back-to-back years. It is also possible for them to declare a merely "good" year (possible examples: 1980, 1991) simply because they feel that they need more product and the year is "good enough."

I see the point, if that is in fact the point.

I think that market demand might cause some other changes in the industry if this practice were adopted. More than anything else, Mother Nature determines the harvest. What are the producers to do if Mother Nature grants a bountiful AND excellent harvest several years in a row? I suppose that they could use only the best grapes for Vintage Port and turn the rest into table wine, but my understanding is that it isn't that easy. Quality table wine requires its own grapes, not just leftover Port grapes. So... what, produce more LBV and Ruby Reserve those years? What if they then can't sell it?

It seems like a fairly delicate balancing act to me since there isn't an unlimited demand for Port. They have to jump on the really good years when those come around, but they also have to keep product on the shelves during a somewhat "off" decade like the '80s. Demand doesn't accumulate, either, so if they hold back during the '80s and then declare '91, '92, '94 all in quick succession it results in a glut, not satiated pent-up demand.

I'm glad that all I have to do is enjoy the end product. :wink: [cheers.gif]
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Roy Hersh »

The issue is not more declarations, but a less restricted approach to choosing them, so that the wines from declared years are rarely challenged.
Besides the anomaly which was 1975, I'd be hard pressed to find another vintage since then (spanning 35 years), which was undeserving and moreso, one that was beaten by an adjacent year's product that was better across the board.

1980, 1983, 1985, 1991/1992 (split), 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007. Do you feel that any of those vintages could have been supplanted by a better year's harvest that came either the preceding year or subsequent harvest of any date that I've mentioned?

I am all for less restrictions, but you first have to show me where the Port trade made a bad call in what we see as "generally declared" vintages.

More declarations and less restrictions are a good thing ... we agree on that for sure. However, the proper "climate" for a declaration, sometimes means more than just weather. I dont' see anybody challenging any of the years above and saying that there was a better one just prior to or directly after. You called the 2008 vintage being declared over 2007, before the grapes were a month from even being harvested. As we know, weather is not the only predictor and using 3 weather stations to forecast what goes on in the micro-climates spanning a 100-mile growing region is at best, counter-intuitive. But we've been down that road b4, so I will stay on target.

Tom, to make your point more clear, would you please be specific as to which vintages you feel the SQVP was better than that year's generally declared Port? We would all like to understand exactly where you are coming from re: so that the wines from declared years are rarely challenged.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Roy Hersh »

Glenn wrote:
As things stand right now given their current practice, it is possible (note that I'm not saying it has happened, just that it is possible) for one of the better years to get passed over simply because the major shippers seem to have an aversion to declaring back-to-back years. It is also possible for them to declare a merely "good" year (possible examples: 1980, 1991) simply because they feel that they need more product and the year is "good enough."
I agree with Tom that less restrictions would be better. I am even pro-4x a decade if the quality is warranted, 5x if the marketplace will see some "pass through." However, in a niche market with declining sales of Port throughout the majority of the world (for nearly an entire decade), how does increasing the number of general declarations make any sense except "in theory?" Of course, the counter argument is ... get rid of general declarations altogether.

That is not a new idea or discussion on FTLOP. But let's just follow through for a moment. From 2010 let's take a hypothetical look for a moment:
2010, 2013, 2016 & 2019
wind up being declared. Obviously we have to take a momentary suspension of the fact that 2011 begins the next decade, but we can say over a 10 year period, the above 4 declarations are made by the majority of houses and are considered by the masses, as "generally declared." Would that have any negative affect on the trade? That all depends on how sales have been going. If 2003 and 2007 VPs are still on retailer's shelves, 4 declarations seems to make no sense and certainly a waste of Euros. However, if market conditions change and Asia gets on board the Port train, all of a sudden we could hear a loud sucking sound and that is not a vacuum sucking all of the Port out of the market, but hundreds of thousands of new mouths sucking Port out of their glasses. Then 4 general declarations looks like a stroke of genius. And Asia is just one possibility. Port may find a way to all of a sudden appeal to the next generation. Rose Port, White Port with an indication of age, improved quality for Ruby Reserve Ports, the IVDP spending their sustained war chest on education and promotion in both key traditional markets as well as expanding new ones. If some of those things start to generate significant panache for Port, then we may see those dynamics changing the face of declarations, with as much vigor as Douro wines have changed the face of the Douro region's grape emphasis.

I guess I am all for market driven and qualitative grape dynamics deciding whether there should be more or less VPs declared. Heck if there is a place to sell them, why not declare 5x in a decade, or certainly ... back-to-back vintages ... IF the above two qualifiers are sated. Great! [yahoo.gif] Conversely, if things get worse for Port sales on a global basis, what if only 2 declarations were to take place, and VP then resembles the rather bleak times, like in the 1950s? Remember which vintages were declared then?

If boom times are ahead, I would expect that there'd only be two major companies that would continue the age old tradition of 3x/decade, whilst the rest of the Port producers would make the best decisions for their own companies (as they do now) and declare at will.

Now quickly to Glenn's quote above:

1980 came three years after 1977 ( [shok.gif] ) and three years before 1983. Anyone who has tasted enough 1982 VPs, knows that the correct year was chosen and 1984 was even more modest than 1982 in terms of overall quality. 1985 was the next "great" year ... depending on your point of view. So there were literally 3 declarations in a six year spread ... or half the years were declared. That seemed to CLOG the shelves with VP, even though sales were seemingly robust and improving at the time. 1987 we all agree, should have been the 4th declaration of that decade; but it was passed over, due to how much Port was around. If it was me, I would have declared, made my 6,000 cases and released 1,500 for the world and held the rest for later releases when demand was stronger. But instead, with some significant Port companies in financial trouble ... the trade held off from 1985-1991, a rather long span indeed. 1991 was deemed very good when it came around and the only argument was ... would 1992 be even better. That same question remains to this day with supporters on both sides of the split. That's my historical take. YMMV.

There is one other consideration which must always be taken into account and that is the law of thirds (lei de terco, which I have written about in the newsletter and has been discussed here in the past on several occasions). It can not be ignored. Understanding how it works, is another intricate layer that is factored into everything a Port company decides. But this is just the enamel on the teeth of the discussion. However, it is certainly a (financial) factor when it comes time to make important decisions, as is the economic climate. But remember, 2007 could not have come at a worse time in that regard, and yet the trade felt the quality was definitive and beyond reproach.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Tom Archer
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Tom Archer »

In port time it is still early days, but would you argue that '83 is better than '87? - I wouldn't. The '05's will be barely mature when most of the '07's are falling apart, and now we have the '09's to consider; a very good year from the macroclimatic perspective in the Douro, and a vintage that is winning great adulation over in Bordeaux.

Even though it doesn't always follow that good Bordeaux years are also good for port, the release of a great claret vintage sets the stage for port sales from the same year.

So would it be wise for the traditional blends to pass the '09 vintage, just because it made the mistake of landing two years after the last declaration?

If the '10's are clearly better, the shippers will be spared the decision; although by the spring of '12, the buying frenzy that is currently gripping the en primeur market may well have subsided.

But if '10 doesn't deliver, and they pass '09; what then? If the likes of Crasto, Quevedo, Roriz and of course, Vesuvio; produce classic wines that are widely hailed, the reputation of the traditional blends will be impugned, especially if the climate is subsequently unhelpful as they seek the next declaration.

The change needed requires no great upheaval, no great angst, no embarassment - provided however, that they jump before they're pushed..

Tom
User avatar
Glenn E.
Posts: 8161
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:49 am
Location: Sammamish, Washington, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Glenn E. »

Roy Hersh wrote:1980 came three years after 1977 ( [shok.gif] ) and three years before 1983. Anyone who has tasted enough 1982 VPs, knows that the correct year was chosen and 1984 was even more modest than 1982 in terms of overall quality. 1985 was the next "great" year ... depending on your point of view.
Right... I wasn't commenting on the timing, just on the quality. 1980 in particular seems to be merely a good year, not a great one, and so may have been declared more to fill in a timing gap than because it was truly worthy of being generally declared. 1987, 1995, and 2005 all seem to be at least the equal of 1980 in quality to me, yet none of them were generally declared - all probably more for timing reasons than anything else, though 1995 may have also been for quality reasons on the heels of the 1991/1992 split and 1994.

Obviously, "generally declared" is not a sign of quality on an absolute scale but rather on a relative scale compared to a few years before and a year (or possibly two) after. My guess is that 1980 was generally declared more for market reasons than for quality reasons, thus its relatively lackluster showing compared to the other generally declared vintages of the time.

My interpretation of what Tom is saying is that he would rather see generally declared vintages be based purely on quality, and not on timing. If it is good enough, declare it. If it isn't good enough, don't. No more 1975s, 1980s, and 1987s. Is that a fair assessment, Tom?
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Roy Hersh »

In port time it is still early days, but would you argue that '83 is better than '87? - I wouldn't. The '05's will be barely mature when most of the '07's are falling apart, and now we have the '09's to consider; a very good year from the macroclimatic perspective in the Douro, and a vintage that is winning great adulation over in Bordeaux.
No I wouldn't say that 1983 was better overall than 1987. But that is all fine and good in hindsight. I also would say that 1977 was better than 1975, but what good would that do? I totally disagree with you that 2005 was better than 2007. I have had a slew of 2005s, as I am sure you know from my early forecast with several dozen tasted. A very good vintage, but with some mediocrity too and more of it, say, than 2007 which had a pretty high median quality level compared to 2005, imo. 2009, the jury is still out, however speaking to several winemakers/MD's and owners last month ... nobody was glorifying the 2009 VPs. In fact, most told me they preferred their 2008s to 2009 ... albeit with the requisite warning that it is still way too early to make any final prognostication until next February.
Even though it doesn't always follow that good Bordeaux years are also good for port, the release of a great claret vintage sets the stage for port sales from the same year.
Tom, I understand your point, but couldn't disagree more viscerally with it. I can only think of one recent year in which there was any synergy between Bordeaux and Vintage Port and that was in 2000. Coincidence? For those that follow Claret (which I do), let's have a look back at recent history:

1989 and 1990 were arguably two of the greatest back to back vintages of Bdx in modern times. Neither was a player in the world of Port. There was not a single good Bdx vintage between 1991 until 1995 which was the first good one, followed by 1996. Now you can say there were a few SQVPs in 1995 which were outstanding and I'd agree, but that had ZERO to do with anything happening in Bdx, especially given this was the epoch in which the USA first surpassed the UK in total VP sales as the economy and wine in general were on fire in the USA. 1998 was very very solid but only for the Right Bank properties in Bordeaux and again, fair at best except for five or six VPs that I can think of. 2000 = a great modern day vintage in which both were great. But can you please explain how the success in Bordeaux benefitted sales of VP's 2000 vintage and also any other single year where there was some push through of VP by Bdx? [shrug.gif] 2003 was good but fickle based on when people picked in Bdx with a baking France that summer (and most of Europe outside of the Douro), but imo, a remarkable year for VP ... again, no play there. 2005 was the "next great Vintage of the Century" in Bordeaux, with a half dozen really top notch VPs and the rest "also rans" ... I don't see any parallel whatsoever and truly have no clue where you came up with this bizarre theory. However, I give you extra points for "creativity."

The rest of the points expressed in the previous post were already mentioned and responded to earlier in the thread. I do appreciate your participation and look forward to sharing some fine bottles of Port with you later this year! :salute:
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Eric Menchen
Posts: 6329
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:48 pm
Location: Longmont, Colorado, United States of America - USA

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Eric Menchen »

Tom Archer wrote:Even though it doesn't always follow that good Bordeaux years are also good for port, the release of a great claret vintage sets the stage for port sales from the same year.
I don't really follow Bordeaux at all, and Roy has put out some real information to contradict Tom's postulate. Setting that aside, I can from my stingy microeconomic perspective see one reason for Tom's belief. If Bordeaux is great one year, the prices can go through the roof. So what then do I buy? Well, I look for something more affordable, and find this bargain VP. Viola!

Of course the timing doesn't exactly work out with Bordeaux. I'm getting offers now for 2009 Bordeaux, but 2008 VP, presuming it were to be declared, isn't available yet. VP seems to time more with CdP from my limited perspective. I recall seeing the 2007s of each of them around the same time.
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Derek T. »

When I posted the original question I expected two or three responses. It's great to see that it has stirred some great debates, albeit not exactly "on topic" :lol:

OK, Tom, I see where you are coming from that shippers should judge their wines in isolation each year and when the quality is above what they consider to be the bar for a particular house they should decalre regardless of other factors. From what little I know of how the ecology of the Douro works that would be extremely unlikely to happen more than two years in a row and probably never more than 4 or 5 years in 10 (provided the bar was kept high enough) so the likely outcome would be an occassional back to back and not many more declarations than we have now. But it would probably also result in some shippers going to the wall because they had either produced wines that the market didn't have a demand for or the gaps between decalrations could be too long and cash flow could be strangled.

I think the big boys have a very, very difficult balancing act here. Their history and tradition of excellence obliges them to stick to the old message of 3 in 10 and that those 3 all must be capable of being defined as "exceptional" in terms of quality. I really can't see how they can get away from that without a perception of dumbing down the quality of the product. Unfortunately life isn't simple and nature and the world economy conspire against the 3 in 10 model continuously. The economic reality demands that there is a reasonable spread of vintages over a 10 or 20 years period. Nature then gets in the way by being almost entirely random and unpredictable. That doesn't sound like an easy environment in which to plan a business model that will ensure (a) your product remains at the top of the tree and (b) you stay alive for the long term.

I think the reality is that when a truely outstanding year comes along it is declared. In this context I am talking about "outstanding" vintages such as 63, 66, 70, 94 and not 67, 77, 80, 83, 85, 97 (let's not start arguing about those two lists, I'm sure you get my point). I don't think anyone could name an outstanding vintage that hasn't been declared. I also believe, from discussions with people who understand such things, that two consecutive "outstanding" vintages just doesn't happen because the soil and the vines just can't cope with it. This means that back to back declarations would both be average at best or would have one that may be outstanding or very good and the other weaker. If you want to test this assertion just look at Vesuvio and Noval and point to two consecutive outstanding vintages from either house in the past 20 years.

I agree that the current approach will result in some general declarations that are below par (although I am quite sure we will never see another 1975) and some years that could have been average or good declarations being passed over, such as 2005. But I don't think it will ever result in an outstanding vintage being passed over. If all of that is the consequence of the major brands retaining their status and staying alive by applying sound commercial decision making then I can live with that scenario.

Incidentally, I think any debate about whether or not 2005 was better than 2007 is completely and utterly pointless from both angles as we will never, ever know what a blended Taylor, Graham, Fonseca, Dow, Croft or Warre would have been as they were not made and the same can be said of the SQVP equivalents in 2007. That said, put my name down for the 2005 v 2007 Off-line at the Crusting Pipe in 2047 when we can have a reasonable basis on which to compare how they have matured :wink:

Derek

PS: I have not heard a single producer talk up the 2009 vintage but have heard a few say that it isn't up to scratch. Time will tell but my money is on 2010 because current weather conditions in the Douro Superior and the rainfall in late 2009 suggest that regardless of what happens it will still end in a "0" [bye2.gif]
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Sammamish, WA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Roy Hersh »

Yep, just like in 1990. [1974_eating_popcorn.gif]

By the way, in the Douro right now it has been very wet and cold. It will still end in a "0" most likely. Look at the number of times a vintage ending in "7" was followed by a declaration ending in a "0" next. :scholar: It is nothing short of a remarkable coincidence. :Naughty:
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Andy Velebil
Posts: 16613
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Andy Velebil »

This has been a great read and it's great to see the diverse opinions, some I agree with, some I don't, and some I agree with a little. With that said the one thing I've yet to see anyone bring up that may very well have a large hand in things is basic Ports and their role in this whole thing.

For the major companies (SFE, TFP, Noval, Sandeman, etc) their main markets, and by that I mean what they sell the most of, are basic Ports. VP makes up a ultra tiny, yet arguably important, portion of their sales. These larger companies use the declaration system as a way of showcasing that ultra tiny super high-end product known as Vintage Port. These 2-3 declarations per decade, only in the best of the best years, gives them unparalleled recognition in the media. That translates into name recognition for all their products, and that is the other 97-98% of what they make. If I was an owner of a large company under the same circumstances, why in hell would I change my business model for declaring only the best of the best 2-3 times per year and risk getting lower scores that would possibly tarnish my image in the media and lead to lower overall sales?

Now if you look at smaller companies they rely more heavily on VP's declared in all but the worst years. Why? For one they don't have the market share of inexpensive ports the large companies do, they don't make as much Port overall, and they don't have the resources (actual and financial) to store all that excess Port for years until they are finally able to use it. And lets not forget the law of the third Roy already mentioned. Something that is even more important for a small company, as they typically lack the financial resources to buy large quantities of already aged Port from other growers/shippers if they need to sell more of their own product in a given year. So for a smaller company it makes fiscal sense to declare a VP in all but the worst years.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Andy Velebil
Posts: 16613
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Andy Velebil »

Tom Archer wrote:In port time it is still early days, but would you argue that '83 is better than '87? - I wouldn't. The '05's will be barely mature when most of the '07's are falling apart, and now we have the '09's to consider; a very good year from the macroclimatic perspective in the Douro, and a vintage that is winning great adulation over in Bordeaux.

Even though it doesn't always follow that good Bordeaux years are also good for port, the release of a great claret vintage sets the stage for port sales from the same year.

So would it be wise for the traditional blends to pass the '09 vintage, just because it made the mistake of landing two years after the last declaration?
Tom,
I've read your side you've presented and I can understand where you are coming from with some of your points. But comparing it to Bordeaux is so far out of left field it is just patently ludicrous. [dash1.gif]
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Andy Velebil
Posts: 16613
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Andy Velebil »

Tom Archer wrote:In port time it is still early days, but would you argue that '83 is better than '87? -
Tom
I agree I think 1987 would have been a better overall year than 1983...if a true blended VP was produced. By that I mean think of how good many of the SQVP's from 1987 are. Imagine if those were blended with the best grapes from other quinta's as what happens in a "declared Vintage". I'm sure we'd all be waxing poetically about how good 1987 was and that it was the right year to declare. But that didn't happen and it gives us a something to talk about :mrgreen:
So would it be wise for the traditional blends to pass the '09 vintage, just because it made the mistake of landing two years after the last declaration?
No, if that was the case, but by all accounts it wasn't. As we've discussed before by all accounts 2009 had some major growing issues depending on vineyard location, altitude, facing, etc. Sure there may be some good ones produced, albeit in very small quantities from higher elevation locations. But would it make fiscal sense for a major company to try and cobble together a product that may not be up to par AND that they wouldn't be able to make sufficient quantities of. Remember for a major company when they declare they have a world-wide network of distributors to supply VP to. Sometimes it does more harm than good to release too little product than too much.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Al B.
Posts: 6016
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:06 am
Location: Wokingham, United Kingdom - UK

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Al B. »

Andy Velebil wrote: Tom,
I've read your side you've presented and I can understand where you are coming from with some of your points. But comparing it to Bordeaux is so far out of left field it is just patently ludicrous. [dash1.gif]
I interpreted Tom's comments differently from you and Roy. I have a large number of claret drinking friends and I am forever depresses by their woeful lack of knowledge of port vintages. I have been in a restaurant with these friends and have had to work extremely hard to stop them buying a bottle of Croft '82 after dinner "since it must be a good bottle". It would not surprise me if this is a modestly widespread behaviour.

On the other hand, there is also the "feeding frenzy" phenomenon - which I confess I have sometimes fallen into. With this, the hype around a particular vintage fills the buyer with so much enthusiasm that they get carried away and end up buying more than they intended. A keen claret buyer who sets aside a
parcel of money for the 2009 vintage and gets less than he wanted might then look around and see what else there is - 2008 Port, anyone?

Incidentally, it occurred to me as I was reading the posts that we are ignoring the fact that sometimes producers take top quality port from an undeclared vintage and then stick it in a barrel or demijohn for 50 years before their own version of a declaration. Even the Symingtons do this with Warre.
User avatar
Tom Archer
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Tom Archer »

Roy, Andy..

If you're going to keep on on mis-representing what I've said, there's not much point in my saying any more.

I could de-bunk almost everything you've written, but I really can't be bothered now.

Tom
User avatar
Andy Velebil
Posts: 16613
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Re: Definition of a "Generally Declared Vintage"

Post by Andy Velebil »

Tom Archer wrote:Roy, Andy..

If you're going to keep on on mis-representing what I've said, there's not much point in my saying any more.

I could de-bunk almost everything you've written, but I really can't be bothered now.

Tom
Tom,
Please elaborate, because if I'm misunderstanding your point please do clarify. As sometimes happens, our thoughts don't always come across exactly as intended...I know I'm guilty of that a lot at times. As I said I think you've come up with some good points, but the bordeaux one just threw me for a loop. If the point you're trying to get across is what Alex mentions above, then I'd agree 100% with you. As I do know many wine buyers who use their "left over" wine buying budget to grab a few bottles of Port.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Post Reply