1997 Souza Vintage Port

[Andy Velebil]

A ruby red with some slight normal bricking. In the mouth red cherries, tobacco leaf, mocha, and spearmint dominate. The tannins are semi-resolved yet the good acidity is keeping this nicely balanced and fresh. The moderate finish has lots of chocolate and red cherries with a touch of tobacco remaining. This is drinking nicely at the moment and should easily hold here for several more years before it starts a very slow slide into old age.
89 Points

[Glenn E.]

Ah yes, cherries! I forgot that part... I'll need to edit my TN because that was definitely present on the palate. (I did my TN from memory... I didn't have a way to take notes at the time.)

[Roy Hersh]

In the past two years, I've consumed nearly a case so far, and to this point in time, I've never experienced spearmint in any of these 1997s. Hmmm.

Andy, have you found that character in other Souza 1997s you've consumed? In other words, was this a typical showing in terms of the minty character?

[Andy Velebil]

In the past two years, I've consumed nearly a case so far, and to this point in time, I've never experienced spearmint in any of these 1997s. Hmmm.

Andy, have you found that character in other Souza 1997s you've consumed? In other words, was this a typical showing in terms of the minty character?

My only other note on this I did not. I've only had a couple of these so far so will report back if I see it again or not when I've had more.

[Moses Botbol]

In the past two years, I've consumed nearly a case so far, and to this point in time, I've never experienced spearmint in any of these 1997s. Hmmm.

Nor have I

[Roy Hersh]

Thanks Andy. I'd be interested to know if that was an off bottle ... or actually not off, (although it didn't sound up to par with what Glenn and others have been writing about) but maybe bottle variation?

Please do report back the next time you have one!

[Andy Velebil]

Thanks Andy. I'd be interested to know if that was an off bottle ... or actually not off, (although it didn't sound up to par with what Glenn and others have been writing about) but maybe bottle variation?

Please do report back the next time you have one!

Glenn's and my scores tend to be a couple points off from each other, with him typically being on the higher end. So we're really a lot closer than what it appears. This bottle was a little better than the one previous I had. I think it's a very good VP for drinking in this mid-term, where most VP starts to mature. I don't agree with Glenn's assessment that this is still a baby of a VP. It's just about fully mature and should have a nice plateau before it starts a decline.

I think many people tend to forget that most VP's aren't going to make it to 100 years old, as most of us would like them to. The fact is most VP's are in their mature spot somewhere around the 15-30 year mark before they start their slow (or fast) downhill slide. The reality is there is only a small handful of the very top VP's that are still youthful as they reach their 30 or even 40 year mark. I for one am glad of these variations in times they mature, If they all matured several decades out we'd have far less to drink in the mean time.

And that brings me to the point of scores. Over the years I've seen a trend of a lot of wine drinkers shunning wines that don't get at least 90 points. I think this is very misguided thinking. For me this VP is a perfect example. There is no faults with it, it drinks well, and is enjoyable. I would gladly enjoy this VP any time it was offered to me. The fact I thought it was 89 points is in no way a negative, but for a VP it doesn't have the stuffing of a top end 1997 and thus the score. I wish people would understand that even well priced wines in the mid to high 80's are still very good wines and worth enjoying. Sure you may not take them to that special once-a-year high end tasting, but they make wonderful bottles you can open without thought on a weeknight or on the spur of the moment.

[Roy Hersh]

In this particular case, I would have to agree with Glenn's assessment and disagree with yours Andy. Except for the cellar defender nature of this Port that was mentioned in the buying op.

I have been drinking Souza Vintage Ports since 2003 and probably have been exposed to and have consumed more bottles of this shipper than anyone not in the Souza family. At the very least nearly 100 bottles, easily. I have had 1985. 1987, 1995 and 1997 at that initial tasting in Portugal, and have watched these all since my initial foray in May of '03 as mentioned. I have gone through cases of each one of those four vintages, even before FTLOP existed.

I have seen these Ports literally grow up. I know their aging curve pretty well at this point. The 1997 may not be in the upper tier of that vintage. That is granted. However, it is a very solid Port that as you mentioned at 89 points is still very good. I found it a little more enjoyable than that, having rated it between 90-91 points when I have bothered to write up notes. During an eight week period in late 2015, I opened six or seven bottles of this Port for different friends, relatives and groups in MI, NY, and Vancouver. While my ratings are between yours and Glenn's and I do not profess that this is a big scoring VP, it is absolutely NOT close to being mature yet. That being said, I have experienced some minor bottle variation, even within the same case. Some have shown the ability to age 8-10 year, others with more youthful fruit and bigger tannins 15+ years ahead and that was a fairly recent one.

The 1987 which is a decade older is a good example of what a Port with maturity exemplifies. But there are zero nuances or any similarities between those two bottlings beyond their house style and some tell tale mocha characteristics. The 1997 is still very much exhibits its primary characteristics. I know lots of people who are seriously into Port that agree with that. Given your comment on the minty character, it sounds like your bottle may not have been showing right and likely depicting some slight signs of oxidation. In that case, it would appear to have been more mature. I hope you soon get to try one that show perfectly and I am positive you will experience that same youthful quality that Moses, Glenn and I have all been experiencing, as well as my brother and friend Blair and Richard, all of whom you have met.

[Andy Velebil]

1 or 2 points difference is about as close as one can get and is pretty statistically insignificant, LOL. So far of the two bottles of this I've had I don't see this getting any better than where it's at now. The tannins are resolved, the fruit is no longer dark and dense, and it's moderate acidity and body don't lend itself to still being in what I consider a young phase still. Compare this to a Noval 1997 and you'll immediately see the difference in what a young, at 20 years old, VP is. I haven't, so far, seen the stuffing in this to continue to get better as time goes on. IMO, and from what I've tasted thus far, this has reached it's peak and will hold here for some time. Matter of fact I am not convinced this will make a great older VP given it's lack of tannins and acidity at this stage of it's life. However, as I mentioned this drinks absolutely wonderful at the moment and makes a fantastic "cellar defender".

As far as oxidation, I got no oxidation issues in this bottle. Matter of fact if I had there wouldn't be any spearmint/menthol/or eucalyptus type notes in it. As that isn't something which tends to stick around in Port when oxidation kicks in.

Luckily, I've got a few more bottles of this fine Port to sample from and see if anything changes

[Moses Botbol]

I haven't, so far, seen the stuffing in this to continue to get better as time goes on. IMO, and from what I've tasted thus far, this has reached it's peak and will hold here for some time.

For me, this is a casual port to drink without being an event. Not something to lay down for the years ahead. For the price paid; no complaints.

[Eric Menchen]

Compare this to a Noval 1997 ...

So that's what you wanted to compare to? I laughed a little to myself when I read that. Pick another 1997 and tell me what you think. I've had a bunch of the Niepoort (known issues with some bottles), and have a bunch of SW on the way. I like them, but I don't see 1997 in general as being a long-haul wine.

[Andy Velebil]

Compare this to a Noval 1997 ...

So that's what you wanted to compare to? I laughed a little to myself when I read that. Pick another 1997 and tell me what you think. I've had a bunch of the Niepoort (known issues with some bottles), and have a bunch of SW on the way. I like them, but I don't see 1997 in general as being a long-haul wine.

Ok, Lets compare this to a 1997 Graham's, Fonseca, Dow's, or even your 1997 Niepoort then. Those are still very youthful in the fruit, color, and flavor development compared to this one. Matter of fact, each of those listed makes this one look and taste old.

That all aside, as you mentioned this is a vintage that hasn't exactly won people over. There is a reason this vintage is rarely, if ever, put out by the industry for tastings. 1994's, 2000's, 2003's, etc all show up fairly regularly. 1997, almost never. I can't recall the last time I've seen a 1997 at an industry tasting. There are some fantastic 1997's, so don't get me wrong, but I think we can all read between the lines

That all said, I do hope this is a vintage that just needs a long amount to time to pull itself together and I hope one day I can say I'm wrong and that it has blossomed into a fantastic vintage overall.

[Glenn E.]

Ok, Lets compare this to a 1997 Graham's, Fonseca, Dow's, or even your 1997 Niepoort then. Those are still very youthful in the fruit, color, and flavor development compared to this one. Matter of fact, each of those listed makes this one look and taste old.

This point difference between Andy's score and mine is pretty normal. I'm generally 2-3 points above him in score. It's consistent enough that when we give the same score - unless we're talking 96+ points - we both doubt ourselves.

I don't have a lot of experience with 1997 (it's relatively "rare" for a generally declared year as alluded to here), but I do have some '97 Niepoort which I've liked so far. To me it's an apt comparison:

1997 Souza (92 pts)
"Palate: Good tannins, though they do not feel in-your-face powerful. They're strong but not overt. Rich flavor, with more of the black raspberry and black currant from the nose. Also cherries and some plum and faint cocoa. Good acidity to balance the sugars; this should be a long-lived Port. Will probably be better in another 5-10 years as the tannins continue to integrate."
1997 Souza (93 pts)
"Palate: Rich, with good tannins. Needs another 5 years, I think. Could use 10. Good solid fruits in the purple spectrum, with some bluer notes as well. Only one of the three (87, 95, 97) that gives the impression that it might be a 50-year Port."

1997 Niepoort (93 pts)
"Palate: Very smooth and again moderately juicy. There's a controlled power to the fruits like a big V-12 engine at idle. Niepoort has a classic and distinct profile to me, but I have a hard time describing it. It shows beneath the fruits here making the Port very recognizable as a Niepoort. Black raspberry, sweet black cherry, and some blackberry. It seems to be trying to display some red fruits, but they're just not showing through yet for me. Very nice tannins - plenty of structure, but they're smooth and grip evenly. Very good acidity as well."

I also have another '97 Niepoort note in the TNDB, but it's from 2009 so not as current as the above 3. Based on those notes (and knowing my own palate) it sounds like the Niepoort displays a slightly younger profile, but hardly enough for it to cause the Souza to "look and taste old" by comparison. I do think that the Niepoort will probably be a longer-lived Port, provided you have bottles that aren't riddled with VA, but again I don't think it's a dramatic difference. The two bottles of 1997 Souza that I've had recently both seemed like solidly 40-50 year Ports to me, though at a mid-tier quality level.

[Roy Hersh]

Compare this to a Noval 1997 and you'll immediately see the difference in what a young, at 20 years old, VP is.

Come on my friend, comparing a 3rd or 4th tier producer's 1997 to arguably the best VP of the 1997 vintage?

Anyway, I am having another bottle of this tonight and will pay close attention, especially to the acidity which I've always found ... substantial but well-integrated with the fruit. Some above seem to agree with that and I realize you don't.

It is not about the points at all. The real difference in our viewpoints is you feel it is mature and on a plateau where it won't improve, to my perspective which is that it is still predominantly primary fruited, yet very easy to drink now, but with "some" upside potential still intact.

Newbies to the forum are likely wondering what the heck we are "arguing" about. Of course, we know this is part of the fun here on the Forum to have discerning and differing opinions on Ports.

[Andy Velebil]

Compare this to a Noval 1997 and you'll immediately see the difference in what a young, at 20 years old, VP is.

Come on my friend, comparing a 3rd or 4th tier producer's 1997 to arguably the best VP of the 1997 vintage?

Anyway, I am having another bottle of this tonight and will pay close attention, especially to the acidity which I've always found ... substantial but well-integrated with the fruit. Some above seem to agree with that and I realize you don't.

It is not about the points at all. The real difference in our viewpoints is you feel it is mature and on a plateau where it won't improve, to my perspective which is that it is still predominantly primary fruited, yet very easy to drink now, but with "some" upside potential still intact.

Newbies to the forum are likely wondering what the heck we are "arguing" about. Of course, we know this is part of the fun here on the Forum to have discerning and differing opinions on Ports.

Well we gotta compare it to something And yes, the fun part is discussing things we don't totally agree on, like this Port.

I think I know what may be missing, as perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. Perhaps this may help. I see this VP as a "Peter Pan" Port; It's growing up without growing old. The problem I see with it is there isn't the complexity behind it for it to show well another decade or so down the road. As that fruit starts to dry out in time it will just become more and more linear. In that respect I say it's just about reached its peak in positive development. I don't think putting another decade of age on these will benefit it.

As far as comparing it to 1987. I am not a fan of comparing two vintages that are not the same. IMO, 1987 was a better vintage overall and has proven to have produced better VP's as well. The bummer part about 1987 was it was mostly SQVP's and the like. Imagine what would have been produced if it had been a fully declared year with producers using fruit from all their top sources instead of just from one Quinta.

[Roy Hersh]

The good news is that we'll both be around here in another decade and we can open this together and see how it has morphed, for the better or worse. And we can do one of the 1987s too. FTLOP'ers have all that remain of that '87 Port. I assume you own some and look forward to your thoughts on that one.

[Andy Velebil]

The good news is that we'll both be around here in another decade and we can open this together and see how it has morphed, for the better or worse. And we can do one of the 1987s too. FTLOP'ers have all that remain of that '87 Port. I assume you own some and look forward to your thoughts on that one.

Ah, now you're talking about the fun stuff....drinking older Ports

Yes, got a 1987 on death row as we speak. It may get opened this coming week, if not then next. Of course will report back when I do.

[Roy Hersh]

So I am now here to report back on the 1997 I had earlier this evening and last sips as I type this. Five hour decant, consumed after a nice bottle of Ramos Pinto 2007 with dinner.

I'll get right to the heart of the matter: While I agree that complexity is not at the heart of this wine, yet there is some ... more on the finish than in the midsection. Yet I disagree that the acidity is lacking or in any way too lean to provide balance or the ability for this Souza to continue to age and improve.

That is it in a nutshell. You don't need my descriptors.

[Eric Menchen]

I see this VP as a "Peter Pan" Port; It's growing up without growing old.

Ahhh, the dreaded PPP!

[Roy Hersh]

Only Andy could come up with that descriptor for this VP!