Declared years - the whiff of mischief...

[Tom Archer]

Ask any Port producer - read almost any book - and the same mantra is repeated:

'Only the best years get a general declaration - on average, three times a decade'

And if you read the harvest reports in Broadbent or Mayson, you would conclude that only the best years DID get declared..

But then there's that little issue about the lack of back to back declarations - do good years never follow each other?

Then look a little closer, and you notice how rare it is for two year intervals to occur between general declarations...

...funny how that only occurs when the economies of the principal VP buying countries are booming at declaration time...

In fact, if you look at market conditions, you find a very close correlation with declared years..

So could it be that when the shippers NEED a declaration, they tend to gild the harvest reports..?

It is, statistically, extremely improbable that the weather has been so co-operative..!

So going on current market conditions, I predict that unless 2007 is a climatic disaster, or the economies of the UK and US go seriously pear shaped before the spring of '09..

...it will be widely declared year, and the harvest reports will justify the decision...

..Controversial?

..Me??

Tom

[Luc Gauthier]

I would agree with Rupert Symmington : quality of port and not economic conditions dictate whether or not there's a decleration . . .

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

Could it be both criteria?
• If the weather is poor, no declaration.
• If the customers are dirt poor (e.g., 1931), no declaration.
• Otherwise, declare!
Would that fit the data? (With maybe a little wiggle room about the weather to explain the 1975 declaration.)

[Alan C.]

Great Theory, and evidence based. Although 'strictly' circumstantial in the legal sense, that point about back to back years is surely beyond coincidence. I suppose the downside, is the feathers that will get ruffled. Maybe it should be only expressed amongst friends in cosy circumstances, because the ramifications are that the experts dont know what they are talking about when confirming the Industries verdict. See, its making me uncomfortable thinking down those lines.

[Andy Velebil]

Tom,

Stirring the pot again...are we going to have to put you on "super secret double probation"

[Frederick Blais]

I tend to aggree with Tom. Some declaration to me are noth worthy VP quality, from the qualitative definition I have. I mean, if the 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1991 got declared why not 1995, 2001 and 1987 on a wider range?

I think that today they found a nicer way to escape general declarations when quality is there but not the maket : Single Quinta! The price is cheaper so the market will likely be more receptive! Yes the quality is not the same, there is much less blending going on to do these Port, so less work from the port producers too which encourage the lower price.

[Luc Gauthier]

Summary : declared vintage every few years
single quinta every other year
Is this a watered down view or what ?

Luc

[Tom Archer]

As a small post-script, I would venture to suggest that if they wanted to, the major shippers could blend vintage-worthy wines on about seven years out of ten..

..but they don't want to..

..so they play a little game!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Tom,

Up until the serious early June hail storm in the Douro, you had pointed out on more than one occasion, the fact that if declarations were going to follow a pattern, 2006 was going to be declared. You rightfully pointed to 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003 as a pattern of declarations following every 3 years and asked if it was just a coincidence. That was not controversial.

So to now make the comment about 2007, with a totally different premise, is quite odd. It doesn't really seem controversial.

[Tom Archer]

Roy,

My only observation regarding the 'three year itch' was the fact that the shippers would realise that if they declared the '06, the expectation of further declarations at three year intervals would become difficult to defuse...

It does not surprise me in the least that there is no apparent clamour for a 2006 declaration, not least because there is evidence of ample stock in the system, with deals being offered on the 2000 vintage.

Declaring the 2007 will re-stock the VNG cellars in a timely fashion and also break the 3 year cycle - therefore my prediction!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Given the 7s:

1967, 1977, 1987, 1997 ... there could be a similar pattern brewing if 2007 is generally declared. Imagine the expectations of 2017?

[Andy Velebil]

Say it ain't so...conspiracy?...coincident?....when will it all end :!:

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

And the 100th anniversary of 1927!

[Andy Velebil]

1991 and 1992 ?????

[Alan C.]

Having thought the 'No Back to Back' Vintage Port years was remarkable and beyond coincidence, I was surprised at Andy's 1991/1992 Post. I checked on the Net and found the generally agreed vintage years are,

First recorderd vintages, 1756 and 1765. The top years of the nineteenth century are: 1847, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 63, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 90, 96 and 97. And of the twentieth century: 1900, 04, 08, 12, 27, 31, 34, 35, 45, 47, 48, 55, 63, 66, 70, 77, 83, 85, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 2000 and 2003.

And of course, within the new commercial age, where skulduggery is suspected, are those two years. So its back to giving the benefit of the doubt to the industry and its associated experts.

[Kurt Wieneke]

It seems to me that split, back-to-back declarations would be fairly commonplace given that Vintage Port (when bottled and designated as such on the label) represents the "best " (grapes, vineyard blocks, barrels, etc.) and that there is bound to be disagreements amongst the variety of VP producers on what is "best", certainly when it comes to tasting what's in barrels from two adjacent years.

[Tom Archer]

Alan,

1991 - 1992 was a split declaration, not a back to back.

The Taylor Fladgate camp went for 92 - possibly the better year of the two, and Taylor's tercentenary year.

The Symington camp went for 91 - they would say the better year, but then, they wouldn't have wanted to have been left in the shadows at Taylor's party..

- Corkscrews at dawn!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

This deserves a 2nd look as times are slowly changing and "tradition" is seeming to be challenged. Tom's topic is now back in focus. Thanks Tom!

Ask any Port producer - read almost any book - and the same mantra is repeated:

'Only the best years get a general declaration - on average, three times a decade'

And if you read the harvest reports in Broadbent or Mayson, you would conclude that only the best years DID get declared..

But then there's that little issue about the lack of back to back declarations - do good years never follow each other?

Then look a little closer, and you notice how rare it is for two year intervals to occur between general declarations...

...funny how that only occurs when the economies of the principal VP buying countries are booming at declaration time...

In fact, if you look at market conditions, you find a very close correlation with declared years..

So could it be that when the shippers NEED a declaration, they tend to gild the harvest reports..?

It is, statistically, extremely improbable that the weather has been so co-operative..!

So going on current market conditions, I predict that unless 2007 is a climatic disaster, or the economies of the UK and US go seriously pear shaped before the spring of '09..

...it will be widely declared year, and the harvest reports will justify the decision...

..Controversial?

..Me??

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

So going on current market conditions, I predict that unless 2007 is a climatic disaster, or the economies of the UK and US go seriously pear shaped before the spring of '09..

...it will be widely declared year, and the harvest reports will justify the decision...

Oddly enough, in the USA as then newly elected Pres. Obama took office, the world's economy was in the toilet, arguably in the absolute worst shape since the 1929 stock market crash (and decade long economic malaise the followed) ... yet 2007 was declared and released in the spring of 2009.

...funny how that only occurs when the economies of the principal VP buying countries are booming at declaration time...

In fact, if you look at market conditions, you find a very close correlation with declared years..

So could it be that when the shippers NEED a declaration, they tend to gild the harvest reports..?

Gild the harvest reports? I don't know that I've ever seen speculation or even questions raised re: the Port wine producers taking such liberties with the intent to mislead as suggested above.
IMO, Tom's former question is more apt (paraphrasing here): Does the economic situation at the time of a new declaration, play a significant part, or not?

It certainly did not stop what is considered one of the all-time greatest vintages ... 1927 ... from being declared by a majority of producers, at the worst possible economic time ever, to that point in history.


Now moving away from the above questions and just looking at some of the more recent vintages that have been bottled: While there's been a smattering of 2008s and more so declarations albeit small from 2009 and 2010, neither vintage widely considered "significant" ... 2011 was generally declared two years ago. Since then, 2012 was decent with no great Vintage Ports produced. 2013 seems considerably better from what I've tasted so far and it reminds me of 2005 a bit, but I still have another half dozen bottles to wade through. 2014 will be a wash out for VP's with very few exceptions, due to the heinous rain mid-harvest.

But 2015, will likely be a generally declared vintage for Port, as forecast by nearly every producer visited during a two week period towards the end of harvest. Even those not willing to make any bold proclamations at this time (to avoid the appearance of hyperbole at such an early stage or the low likelihood of an even greater 2016 happenstance), most left us with the distinct impression that the quality and quantity were as good as they had hoped and that the rain delay, did not have almost any effect on the outcome of the grapes picked afterwards. Some stated they had picked all of their grapes for Port, prior to that storm. Anyway, while I believe we'll see a broad declaration come spring 2017; we shall see. Seems like a no-brainer from my perspective, but there is still the 2016 season ahead ... one that would need to be near-perfect to change the realities as I see them today.

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

It could just be that great years are declared; un-declarable years are not; and the in-betweens depend on the state of the market. That would not be unreasonable.

It certainly did not stop what is considered one of the all-time greatest vintages ... 1927 ... from being declared by a majority of producers, at the worst possible economic time ever, to that point in history.

The stock-market crash was late October 1929. The declaration would have happened half a year before. So the example does not prove what you claim.