Quinta do Noval 1995 vintage port question

[Jasper A.]

I picked up a few cases of the 1995 noval vintage port. I can't find much about it.
What are your thoughts, drink of keep in cellar?

[Andy Velebil]

I last had it in 2007, as best I can tell. Back then it was advanced for its age and I gave it a window of 8-12 years for it's best. We're pretty much in that window so I'd use it as your daily "house VP" and not hold on to them long term.

IMO, most 1995's I've had are in this same camp. Reaching maturity or mature and drinking nicely right now.

[Glenn E.]

IMO, most 1995's I've had are in this same camp. Reaching maturity or mature and drinking nicely right now.

Have you had a 1995 Vesuvio recently? Just curious, as the last time I had one they didn't seem anywhere close to maturity. I have a 6-pack, so limited supply, and wouldn't want to drink one "before its time" if I don't need to.

[Andy Velebil]

IMO, most 1995's I've had are in this same camp. Reaching maturity or mature and drinking nicely right now.

Have you had a 1995 Vesuvio recently? Just curious, as the last time I had one they didn't seem anywhere close to maturity. I have a 6-pack, so limited supply, and wouldn't want to drink one "before its time" if I don't need to.

I said "Most" and yes "Most" are in their prime drinking window. Of course, there generally always will be at least one or more outliers hence the use of my term "Most". That said, I also think the Vesuvio from this vintage is also in a nice spot at the moment and should be here for at least another decade or so, but it won't make the super old bones that the 1994 or 2000 or some other vintages will. I do think the Vesuvio shows a tad younger than some 1995's, for what its worth.

[Glenn E.]

That said, I also think the Vesuvio from this vintage is also in a nice spot at the moment and should be here for at least another decade or so, but it won't make the super old bones that the 1994 or 2000 or some other vintages will. I do think the Vesuvio shows a tad younger than some 1995's, for what its worth.

Sweet. I'll leave 'em in my fridge for a while longer, then.

Which reminds me... I need to pick up 6-packs of the 2007 and 2011 for sure, and possibly also the 2003. I have 94, 95, 97, 00, and 05 already for sure, and possibly 03.

[Eric Menchen]

Which reminds me... I need to pick up 6-packs of the 2007 and 2011 for sure, and possibly also the 2003. I have 94, 95, 97, 00, and 05 already for sure, and possibly 03.

https://www.winebid.com/BuyWine/Item/53 ... do-Vesuvio
I have 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2011, so perhaps I should fill in 2007, but I bought a little more from other producers than I think I need. Maybe you can supply the 2007 when I next host a vertical.

[Moses Botbol]

How about Taylor Vargellas or Dow Quinta Bomfin '95? Anyone try either recently?

[Andy Velebil]

How about Taylor Vargellas or Dow Quinta Bomfin '95? Anyone try either recently?

For me Bomfim is like Cavadinha in that they generally do well in the 15-20 year range. Much beyond that they tend to get long in the tooth and don't have the complexity to support the reduction in fruit.

[John M.]

How about Taylor Vargellas or Dow Quinta Bomfin '95? Anyone try either recently?

Try this...

http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopfo ... 04#p122693

[Jasper A.]

Thanks for the info, i might try one this year. If i do, i will let you guys know.

[Mark Henderson]

Just noticed this post. I co-incidentally opened my only bottle of '95 Quinta do Noval on Monday. A nice VP but not one hitting the heights and it seemed fully mature to me. Lovely, mellow drinking.

[Tom Archer]

At twenty years, VP is usually on a roller-coaster when it comes to maturation that plays games with those trying to assess it. In the early eighties, the '60 vintage was widely dismissed as a lightweight that wouldn't stay the distance - yet for most shippers it now shows better than the '63..

I've two dozen N95s, still in their owcs - I've no plans to open any of them for the next five years and doubt I'll miss anything..

[Glenn E.]

yet for most shippers it (the '60) now shows better than the '63..

I've yet to see even a single example of this. We just had 8 bottles from 1960 this summer at the FTLOP 10th Anniversary Tasting, and while they were all pleasant (and in a couple of cases very good) not one could have passed for a '63. 6 of the 8 were clearly in decline, and the other 2 were simply at their plateau. The '63s that I've had have all been still on their plateau or in many cases still had obvious life left. (1963 Noval being the lone exception for known reasons.)

[Roy Hersh]

Glenn, I don't know how widely you've tasted 1963 Vintage Ports. Alex B. put on a blow away horizontal tasting in 2013 that was telling. In Feb. of this year, I was involved in another fairly deep horizontal of 1963s. I'll just say, that plenty of the bottlings at both tastings had seen better days ... like a decade ago.

[Glenn E.]

Glenn, I don't know how widely you've tasted 1963 Vintage Ports. Alex B. put on a blow away horizontal tasting in 2013 that was telling. In Feb. of this year, I was involved in another fairly deep horizontal of 1963s. I'll just say, that plenty of the bottlings at both tastings had seen better days ... like a decade ago.

I believe you. I wasn't at either of those tastings, so didn't get to experience that. You and I have discussed possible reasons for those showings in the past, too.

But I have to ask... for those producers whose bottles showed poorly at those tastings... have their 1960s actually showed better? It's one thing to say that 1963 seems to have suddenly dropped off a cliff. It's something completely different to say, as Tom did, that "for most shippers, it (the '60) now shows better than the '63."

(Based on my own experience, I find either statement difficult to believe. All of the 1963s I've had over the last 3-5 years have been pretty awesome, so I'm really not seeing a cliff there.)

I don't have any experience tasting '60 head to head with '63. But my independent experience with bottles from the two vintages says that in no way is 1960 showing better than 1963. In my relatively meager experience, the 1963s from Croft, Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Sandeman, and Taylor out-class their respective 1960s. 1963 Warre is at worst comparable to 1960 Warre. 1963 Noval is a special case that has nothing to do with the vintage itself. Ferreira is arguable, but I can see how people might prefer the 1960.

Tom's statement makes it sound like 1963 is worse than 1960. For the Ports that most people are likely to be buying and drinking - the top tier producers - that simply isn't true. Might it be technically true across the 2nd and 3rd tier labels? Maybe... I don't know. But more importantly, I don't really care and I doubt anyone else really does either. Those Ports really only show up at horizontals and I don't feel that they should be used to form an opinion about the entire vintage. They're 2nd and 3rd tier for a reason.

I find Tom's statement misleading. If someone were to read it and go buy a 1960 Fonseca or Graham instead of the 1963 version, I believe they would be disappointed.

[Tom Archer]

Glenn,

I noted which way the wind was blowing on these two vintages a couple of years back and organised a blind playoff. The night was slightly confused by an esteemed major player in the trade who had enjoyed an excellent lunch that day and who, upon helping us with the decanting, managed to jumble four bottles; but aside from that, the result was a victory for the '60 vintage against the '63.

My most recent encounters with these vintages are a superb Taylor '60 decanted on Oct 31st which may well be be my wine of the year for home quaffing; and a Cockburn '63 which I decanted (also at home) on Nov 3rd which was a sound but rather dull player..

[Andy Velebil]

Glenn, I don't know how widely you've tasted 1963 Vintage Ports. Alex B. put on a blow away horizontal tasting in 2013 that was telling. In Feb. of this year, I was involved in another fairly deep horizontal of 1963s. I'll just say, that plenty of the bottlings at both tastings had seen better days ... like a decade ago.

I was at this tasting and while very educational (thanks Alex), it really highlighted something for me. MOST VP's will not make really old bones. Most tend to be at their best in that 20-30 year range. Past that the majority are on the decline at varies rates. When you think about how many different VP's are produced in a classically declared years it's a lot. What makes it to the top tier that lasts many many decades tends to only be about a half dozen or so. That's a small overall percentage.

So IMO 1995, being a non-classic declaration where most were Single Quinta VP's, are right on par with where they should be. Which is, in that perfect maturity window where most either already have or will shortly be starting their decline. Again that decline will be at various rates.

As for the 60/63 issue. I don't see all that much difference between the two. There are a handful of both that are still doing very well, with the majority now past their best. Some are really past their best and should be consumed in short order.

[Glenn E.]

My most recent encounters with these vintages are a superb Taylor '60 decanted on Oct 31st which may well be be my wine of the year for home quaffing; and a Cockburn '63 which I decanted (also at home) on Nov 3rd which was a sound but rather dull player..

Well then, anecdotally, my most recent encounters:

Code: Select all

Port     1960 1963
Croft     88   90
Dow       89   94
Ferreira  88   92
Fonseca   93   96
Graham    xx   96
Sandeman  88   90
Taylor    00   93
Warre     90   95

Turns out I haven't had a 1960 Graham recently... I thought I had. Even so, I doubt it could top the 96-pt 1963 that I had last fall. I must also caveat those scores with the fact that the 1960 Ferreira on that list didn't seem like a top-notch bottle to me. I couldn't identify anything specific wrong with it, but it underperformed compared to past examples which I've had in the 91-92 range. I didn't include Noval on the list because it isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison.

I don't have a horse in this race, really. I've never bought into the whole "OMG 1963 RULZ!" hype. I've found it to be an excellent year in general, but I think 1970 is better. Furthermore, I've always thought 1960 to be better than expected. My first two encounters with the year were a fabulous Croft and a truly eye-opening Ferreira (which followed a similarly eye-opening 1980 Ferreira). So my opinion on this matter is not biased by "vintage label" because if so, it would likely be the reverse of what you'd expect. For me, '63 underperforms the hype while '60 overperforms the hype. But in absolute terms, '63 is still superior to '60.

So as I said, I have yet to encounter even one producer that over multiple bottles backs up your claim that 1960 is better than 1963. Not even one. I can find individual bottles over my mere 10 years of drinking Port where one extra-good 1960 scored higher than one lacking 1963, but I have to basically pick the best '60 vs the worst '63 for that to happen. On average, '63 consistently beats '60.