1992 Smith Woodhouse Vintage Port

Kurt Wieneke · Post by **Kurt Wieneke** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:33 pm

Cork was in good shape, and came out clean as a whistle with a corkscrew. Threw a small amount of sediment.

Decanter nose evolution (over 7 hours):
Slight VA
Gingerbread, dark toffee
Raisins
Earth/bark
Nutmeg
Graham crackers, slight anise

On the palate, there is a distinctive briary black pepper profile wrapped around dark plummy fruit. The finish is very long and drawn out. Lovely wine. I will have to go back and buy a few more of these at $30.

Sidenote: Something I do not fully grasp though is the declarations policy for Smith Woodhouse. I have purchased and drunk both a 1991 and 1992 'declared' vintage port from SWC. Not that I mind. Seems a little dodgy though.

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:53 am

This IS an odd one - I'd not spotted Smith Woodhouse's back to back declaration before, and it doesn't appear in any published listing that I know of.

- one more for the wish list!

Tom

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:14 am

I was unaware of SW declaring in 1992 also. But ahh, the 1991/1992 split declaration controversy. Kurt, That was a interesting span of time and had various producers declaring one or both years.

In 1991, 41 declarations were made (Symington's had the most)
In 1992: 21 mostly SQVP declarations made (however, a few very good VPs were produced this year).

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:38 am

Andy,

Do you have access to a full list of the declarations, or just the number declared?

Tom

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:09 pm

Tom I have access to a list of the declared house of 91/92 if you need it.

Richard Henderson · Post by **Richard Henderson** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:07 pm

I have collected many 1992 ports because it is number one son's birth year. I have 2 of the SW VP and 4 of their LBV. Thanks for the notes.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:40 pm

Richard,
No I don't a have list.

Fred,
Can you email me the list, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:56 am

If anyone has a complete listing of vintage ports declared to the IVdP that they can email, I'd be very grateful for a copy.

Every published listing that I know of is incomplete.

Tom

Kurt Wieneke · Post by **Kurt Wieneke** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:33 pm

Sorry, hit the wrong button. . . here was my follow up reports on the '92 Smith Woodhouse:

2nd night: Even better. Creamy dark cherry with hints of sassafras. It has a dark profile that I really like, and the finish is still there. Time for me to back up the truck on the other few bottles.

3rd night: Still hanging in there with plenty of stuffing and concentration. Nose has turned somewhat herbal now, but the palate is still creamy and singing. Nice finish is still there as well. A very fine medium term port.

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:30 pm

I'll put the list that I have in this forum. If you want the original one I can send you a high definition photo of the graphic in my book "L'Esprit Du Porto" by Alain Leygnier publish by Hachette published in 1998.

1991 :
A.A. Calem
Ferreira
Ramos Pinto
Afredo E. Calem
Barros
C. Da Silva
Kopke
Churchill
Cockburn
Croft
Delaforce
Feuerheerd
Fonseca
Gilberts
Cruz
Feist
Hutcheson
Burmester
Jaime Acacio Queiroz Cardoso
Pocas
Martinez
Morgan Brothers
Murcas
Niepoort
Osborne
Quarles Harris
Qta de la Rosa
qta infantado
Qta Castelinho
Qta do Noval
Rozes
Dows
Taylor
Smith Woodhouse
Qta Vesuvio
The Douro Wine & G Asso
Van Zeller & co
Veira de Sousa
Graham's
Warre's
Kronh

1992 :
A.A. Calem
Kopke
Churchill
Cockburn
Delaforce
Fonseca
Gilberts
Cruz
Burmester
Martinez
Niepoort
Osborne
Qta Rosa
Qta Infantado
Smith Woodhouse
Qta Romaneira
Vesuvio
Taylor
Dow's
Graham's
Warre's

Kurt Wieneke · Post by **Kurt Wieneke** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:10 pm

Alot of the houses that show as double releases on this list are SQVP versus a "declared" true VP. What I am saying is that Smith Woodhouse was one of the very few if not the only house to release "declared", non-SQVP ports in both years ('91 and '92). This is probably because the Symingtons had not yet decided to market the wine with the SQVP "Madalena" designation until 1995.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:29 pm

Fred,

Thanks that list is perfect. i just copied it to a word document :)

Kurt,

Don't forget about Taylors and Fonseca. As 1992 was the Tercentenarry anniversary of Taylor Fladgate (now there is some conjecture in that, as IIRC, they deny declaring 1992 for that reason, BUT.....)

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:14 am

Kurt Wieneke wrote:Alot of the houses that show as double releases on this list are SQVP versus a "declared" true VP. What I am saying is that Smith Woodhouse was one of the very few if not the only house to release "declared", non-SQVP ports in both years ('91 and '92). This is probably because the Symingtons had not yet decided to market the wine with the SQVP "Madalena" designation until 1995.

Kurt I think too that SW is a lesser house from the Symington group and the price asked for it is not comparable to Graham's so it has less impact on the market. It is not fair to say that Graham's could not get VP quality while SW did when all the best grapes goes for Graham's.

Andy, when you taste Taylor vargellas 91 side by side with Taylor's 92, the Vargellas does suffer a lot!!!! Now was it intentionnal or not, they still have a very good agument to convince you that 91 was just not good enough 8) It is even not a delicate subject to talk with them, they are so proud of their 92 that they are not ashame to talk about the matter.