Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
![[help.gif]](./images/smilies/help.gif "Help!"){kind=small}
![[cheers.gif]](./images/smilies/cheers.gif "Toast"){kind=small}
That sounds very promising. Thanks for the thorough reply, Glenn.Glenn E. wrote:I don't have the pulse of the Douro the same way that many others here do, but based on what I heard while I was in Portugal during the harvest this year there are probably going to be a lot of very good Ports declared for 2017. Much of the talk revolved around how those who declared 2016 are in a pickle because of tradition, while those who declared 2015 can now easily declare 2017 without breaking tradition. (Those who already declared both 2015 and 2016 have already broken tradition, so weren't relevant to this particular topic.)
There was also a lot of speculation as to whether or not one of the big houses would break tradition and declare back-to-back (2016 and 2017), and if one of them did so, how far would that go towards banishing this particular tradition forever.
So... I think you'll have a nice selection to choose from regardless, and there's still a decent chance that 2017 will be a general declaration.
Thank you for your insights, Tom.Tom Archer wrote:The phrase 'very good but very different' (to 2016) is one that crops up with regard to 2017.
I've only had a couple of cask samples so far, but they were both very dark and intense wines, with a lot of promise.
I can see some producers being fearful of a back to back declaration, simply because it would be breaking new ground, but the acknowledgement that great years sometimes follow each other would surprise no-one and generate very little negative sentiment in the market place.
It might have been a better idea though to have overcome the evident aversion to a two year interval between declarations, before going headlong into a back to back. 2013 was probably a declarable year, but I didn't hear the possibility being discussed once.
Incidentally, if the 'unlucky 13' thing came into play that year, one should bear in mind that 17 is also held to be unlucky in some countries. In Roman numerals it is an anagram of the word VIXI which means 'I lived' - past tense - in Latin. It is held to be an unlucky number in Italy, and in Germany, Lufthansa's planes have no row 17 (or 13 for that matter)
Tom! 2013 is an horrible year! no chance to have a general declaration when more than half the harvest was done under rainy and cold condition. The rot was getting so bad that people had no choice but to harvest under rainy condition. What was harvested before the raid was of good quality, but producers kept on waiting and not fearing a couple days of rain that eventually lasted for 2 weeks. That's why there was not a word about it. But everything was really perfect before the rain arrived and spoil everything.2013 was probably a declarable year, but I didn't hear the possibility being discussed once.
To refresh memories related to 2013. Read here.... 2013 HARVEST RECAPFrederick Blais wrote:Tom! 2013 is an horrible year! no chance to have a general declaration when more than half the harvest was done under rainy and cold condition. The rot was getting so bad that people had no choice but to harvest under rainy condition. What was harvested before the raid was of good quality, but producers kept on waiting and not fearing a couple days of rain that eventually lasted for 2 weeks. That's why there was not a word about it. But everything was really perfect before the rain arrived and spoil everything.2013 was probably a declarable year, but I didn't hear the possibility being discussed once.
I have the feeling 2017 have amazing potential. A lot of vineyards got hydric stress dammage but what came out alive was extremely good for Port. Small, concentrated and intense berries, can't ask for more when you deal with Port.
In the end it will go down about the market and tradition. If the 2016 are selling quick and market ask for more, I'm sure it will be declared. One thing that is also changing, beside Symington's and Taylor's it seems that high quality players are not afraid to break with tradition of 2-3 declaration per decade but mostly focus on quality! That is for me the essence of Vintage Port. If the quality is good enough, which is easier nowadays as we have a better understanding of many factors(viticulture, weather, winemaking, technology) lets declare a few more times per decades.
Well.. every '13 I've tried to date has been a well rounded wine - even Axel P's Unidade project passed muster as Vintage2013 is an horrible year!
Thanks for the input Frederick.Frederick Blais wrote:I have the feeling 2017 have amazing potential. A lot of vineyards got hydric stress dammage but what came out alive was extremely good for Port. Small, concentrated and intense berries, can't ask for more when you deal with Port.2013 was probably a declarable year, but I didn't hear the possibility being discussed once.
2015 was not an 'official' declaration..When you say that a declaration of 2017 would be breaking new ground, is that because it would be third in a row?
It wasn't a general declaration. Anyone who properly registers their Port can make an "official" declaration, regardless of what their peers do.Tom Archer wrote:2015 was not an 'official' declaration..When you say that a declaration of 2017 would be breaking new ground, is that because it would be third in a row?
Very informative - thanksGlenn E. wrote:It wasn't a general declaration. Anyone who properly registers their Port can make an "official" declaration, regardless of what their peers do.Tom Archer wrote:2015 was not an 'official' declaration..When you say that a declaration of 2017 would be breaking new ground, is that because it would be third in a row?
But yes, Andreas, that's the reason for "breaking new ground." As far as I know, there has never been a back-to-back general declaration. 1991-1992 may have come closest, but that's usually referred to as a split declaration with SFE declaring 1991 and TFP declaring 1992.
1966-1967 also probably could have been, as every 1967 that I've tasted has been on par with the 1966s.
I've also heard that 1934-1935 could have both been declared, but the Great Depression was on so I'm not even going to blame that one on the no back-to-back declarations tradition.
The oddities of tradition impact in other ways, too. 1987 probably could have been a generally declared year, but because there had already been 1980, 1983, and 1985 during that decade there was resistance and it wasn't generally declared. (The "3 per decade" rule of thumb rears its ugly head.) That rule of thumb likely also impacted the decision not to declare 1967 (preceded by 1960, 1963, and 1966).
TFP felt that 2009 was strong enough to declare, but SFE did not. Coincidence? Or was it because 2000, 2003, and 2007 had already been declared?
But not without some agonising over it. Quite by chance I was in Gaia when the decision was made. Some of the stocks they had to blend the Taylor with were the darkest wines they had ever made, which drove the decision. For my part I merely told them to 'go for it' if the wines made the grade, and not to worry about having four declarations in a decade.TFP felt that 2009 was strong enough to declare
The only major house to declare both '34 and '35 was Sandeman. It's generally regarded as a split declaration, rather than a back to back.Wasn't there a back to back in the 30's? 1934/1935? So the tradition is relative new.
The Classic Declaration as we know it today is, largely, a post WW2 creation. Prior to that producers declared whenever they had a good product. Which, for many reasons, wasn’t as often as today.Tom Archer wrote:The only major house to declare both '34 and '35 was Sandeman. It's generally regarded as a split declaration, rather than a back to back.Wasn't there a back to back in the 30's? 1934/1935? So the tradition is relative new.
I would argue that the modern era of vintage declarations started in 1896. The pattern was pretty consistent between then and 1960, if you allow for the cancellation of the 1937 declaration due to the outbreak of WWII, and 1942 being poorly attended for the same reason. After 1960 the pace of declarations increased from around one every four years or so to the three times a decade we see today.The Classic Declaration as we know it today is, largely, a post WW2 creation.
So like I said, largely after WW2.Tom Archer wrote:I would argue that the modern era of vintage declarations started in 1896. The pattern was pretty consistent between then and 1960, if you allow for the cancellation of the 1937 declaration due to the outbreak of WWII, and 1942 being poorly attended for the same reason. After 1960 the pace of declarations increased from around one every four years or so to the three times a decade we see today.The Classic Declaration as we know it today is, largely, a post WW2 creation.
Remember the requirement to bottle between the second and third year after harvest didn't come about until the late 1940's. If you search on here there is a thread where Paul Symington talks about when his father was on the committee that came up with that new rule. Producers bottled/declared when they saw fit, and for some that could be a number of years later than others. There is more misinformation about LBV than just about any Port category, with some wild claims made to say the least. The real story is that for centuries the actual bottling time for Vintage Port was not defined. The producer would decide when he wanted to bottle, sometimes aftet two years in cask, sometimes after 4 or even 5 years. When the IVDP decided, shortly after the II World War, that the bottling times should be defined, some producers pushed for two years but some pushed for longer. My father, Michael, just back from the war, was working with his father Maurice and his uncles as a Port producer in our company in 1948, and he was actually on the committee that decided this (called the Gremio at the time, now the AEVP) with the IVDP. The compromise solution found was that Vintage Port would be bottled in its 2nd year and that a new category would be formed, called, very logically; Late Bottled Vintage Port. I believe that the first such wine was Ramos Pinto (who would certainly have had older wines that could use this new designation as they historically bottled their Vintage Ports later). My friend Joao Nicolao de Almeida from Ramos Pinto can certainly confirm this for you. Obviously the wine was supposed to be bottled un-filtered and un-fined, just like Vintage Port. We ourselves still have bottles in our cellar of Dow's 1964 LBV and Warre wines from the 1950's made in this way and duly registered with the IVDP. At a later stage Cockburns decided to launch a filtered LBV, in an attempt to widen the Port market that was very very difficult at that time, but the outcry from all the major Port houses was such that they rapidly withdrew the wine. Peter Cobb, retired Director of Cockburn's, can confirm this fact for you. Later Taylor's introduced a filtered LBV that became a considerable commercial success in the UK and credit to them for having done so. We later introduced a Graham LBV and so have many others. These wines have become one of the mainstays of the Port trade (and of course for the Douro) and are essential to its survival. Incidently, with our Warre's LBV we have always stuck to the original intention: 4 year bottling, no fining or filtration, driven cork and above all, we mature it in bottle for at least 3 years before release. A different (and inevitably more expensive) LBV. But both styles of LBV have a rightful place in any Port lovers cellar, they are both excellent wines.
