What is the greatest year for Vintage Port of these?

[Roy Hersh]

Choose any two that you either like the most from what you've tasted, or what you've read.

Sorry, the polling option limits me, so I am cutting out a few less than INCREDIBLE vintages.

[Gerwin de Graaf]

I took my pick from the vintages I have had the chance to drink/taste myself (hence, 1900, 1912, 1927, 1931 are not an option to choose from for me (so far ... ))

[Moses Botbol]

No 1948?

[Eric Menchen]

No 1948?

I've had some great ones from that year. I haven't tasted several of the earlier years.

[Roy Hersh]

Moses,

How many 1948 Ports have you tried?

How many 1948's do you think were produced?

[Andy Velebil]

Moses,

.....

How many 1948's do you think were produced?

I'll have to look, but probably about twice as many as 1931.

[Moses Botbol]

Moses,

How many 1948 Ports have you tried?

How many 1948's do you think were produced?

More than '31 as Andy says... Have tried at least once Fonseca, Taylor, Graham, Sandeman, probably Croft. Maybe one or two odd balls I can't remember?

[LOUISSS J]

I can't submit my vote because i only drank 1994 and 1970 in the list but each time (except maybe one time with a Graham 1970 that was just great) it was awesome or better.
For the rest i don't know.

[Al B.]

I voted for 1927 and then agonised between 1970 and 1945. 1912 came into the debate for a while.

1927 got my clear vote because of just how good these wines still are today. Last year we took the opportunity of these wines celebrating their 90th birthday by opening quite a few bottles. Where the wine wasn't damaged by bad storage (light damage, weevil damage) they were amazing. So similar in colour and power to the 1977's that we also drank a lot of last year yet with the extra complexity that 50 years in the bottle will give to a good wine.

1970 and 1945 were much closer. 1970 is so consistent, was such a big vintage and is so delicious to drink today but also seems to have the structure to realistically expect these bottles to be drinking well in another 40 years. I've drunk lots of port from 1970 and rarely get disappointed — it's certainly the greatest year for Vintage Port for affordable drinking at peak in my lifetime. I've drunk too little 1945 port to be able to get the same breadth of view of those as I have of 1970, but the ports from 1945 that I have experienced are powerful and deep. I was once in the right place at the right time to discover a couple of bottles of Quinta do Noval 1945 for a reasonable price on a restaurant wine list. They didn't stay on the list for very long and both were exquisite. 1945 is another of those vintages where I don't really care who the producer is; if it's 1945 vintage port I'll happily buy it and drink it.

[Shawn Denkler]

I voted for 1927 and then agonised between 1970 and 1945. 1912 came into the debate for a while.

I certainly agree with Al. I voted for 1927 because so many are still great. Then I voted for 1945 for the same reason. These vintages got my vote for still being unbelievably good and for standing the test of time. Each vintage still has many ports showing well. Part of being a great vintage is to have many top wines. The best 1970s are great but how many will stand the test of time?

1912 has a great reputation but only two have come my way. At this point in time probably only the Cockburn is still showing well. It is so hard to find well cellared bottles that it also puts the vintage out of contention.

1931 has only one great wine, the Quinta do Noval. Or two if you include the Noval Nacional. I've had three others and for each the 1927 was better. For Quinta do Noval the 1927 is great too. I've been trying to find a bottle for years so I can include it in tasting of the 1927s.

1948 has some great ports holding well and is probably equal to the 1945s. But 1945 has more really great ports.

Younger vintages are still young and almost everybody would prefer to drink a port from one of the wonderful older vintages if price was not an issue.

[Tom Archer]

I was going to go for 1955 - a vintage with a fantastic array of superb wines.

- But it wasn't there..

[Roy Hersh]

That was because of the '55 at 55 tasting we did in London where we had great depth in the lineup and then almost nothing showed well or typically except the magnum of Pichon Baron that Mr. Seely brought. The Ports, meh. Ok, I doth protest too much, but that was quite the downer overall; with very few exceptions.

[Tom Archer]

The most recent '55 tasting showed a flawless lineup of perfectly mature wines - Cockburn being the only weak player.

The 2010 '55 @ '55 event was held in the basement room of the RAF club - a room that for some strange reason has resulted in a slew of poor tasting events, and we avoid using now. Note that the superb Pichon was served upstairs when we dined, and not in the basement.

[Andy Velebil]

The most recent '55 tasting showed a flawless lineup of perfectly mature wines - Cockburn being the only weak player.

The 2010 '55 @ '55 event was held in the basement room of the RAF club - a room that for some strange reason has resulted in a slew of poor tasting events, and we avoid using now. Note that the superb Pichon was served upstairs when we dined, and not in the basement.

It the use of those stupid coffee filters to decant with.

There was a long discussion on WineBerserkers about this and it was interesting to get serious coffee lovers experience with them. The short version was, even hard core coffee drinkers don't use paper coffee filters because of how they change/affect the flavor of the coffee. So why would you use them for wine.

[Tom Archer]

It the use of those stupid coffee filters to decant with.

I don't use them and IIRC I was involved in the setup of that event.

We first thought the culprit was the glasses, then when that was ruled out we thought we might just have been unlucky at that venue. I'm now pretty much convinced it's somehow atmospheric but we have never pinpointed it, and don't really want to risk another event probing further.

Possible culprits are the cleaning materials used in that room, the air conditioning system and I recall AHB speculating that it might be the varnish used on the wood panelling. Bottom line is that something of a non-spiritual nature resides in that room that is ruinous to wine tastings!

[Andy Velebil]

It the use of those stupid coffee filters to decant with.

I don't use them and IIRC I was involved in the setup of that event.

We first thought the culprit was the glasses, then when that was ruled out we thought we might just have been unlucky at that venue. I'm now pretty much convinced it's somehow atmospheric but we have never pinpointed it, and don't really want to risk another event probing further.

Possible culprits are the cleaning materials used in that room, the air conditioning system and I recall AHB speculating that it might be the varnish used on the wood panelling. Bottom line is that something of a non-spiritual nature resides in that room that is ruinous to wine tastings!

So you're saying you need an exorcism of a Port hating entity. That could make a good TV show, lets do it! All joking aside, those paper filters have resulted in some not good tastings regardless of where they took place. I hope you guy aren't still using them.

[Tom Archer]

So you're saying you need an exorcism of a Port hating entity. That could make a good TV show, lets do it! All joking aside, those paper filters have resulted in some not good tastings regardless of where they took place. I hope you guy aren't still using them.

Err. No.. When I said 'non-spiritual' I wasn't thinking of whisky...

[Eric Menchen]

Err. No.. When I said 'non-spiritual' I wasn't thinking of whisky...

Wouldn't varnish qualify as spirited?

[Tom Archer]

Wouldn't varnish qualify as spirited?

Only when it's in solution in the can. Whether it emits anything long after it's dried, I really don't know - it was AHB's hypothesis.

This was a basement room with a ventilation system - that's my biggest suspect.

[Andy Velebil]

Wouldn't varnish qualify as spirited?

Only when it's in solution in the can. Whether it emits anything long after it's dried, I really don't know - it was AHB's hypothesis.

This was a basement room with a ventilation system - that's my biggest suspect.

Given how humid it can get there and if an old ventilation system they have not had regularly cleaned out, mold in the ventilation system could very well be the issue.