1991 vintage port

Monique Heinemans. · Post by **Monique Heinemans.** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:54 pm

Last week I drank a bottle of 1991 Taylor Vargellas VP.
The first days it showed well, I liked it best on day two, but after the third day I didn't enjoy it that much anymore, it fell somewhat apart. I also didn't like it as much as f.i. the Taylor 1995 and 1997 which I had this summer also.
That got me thinking about the 1991 vintage as awhole. I've had the Niepoort 1991 VP and the Noval 1991 VP a few times also and I didn't like them as much as other vintages from the same house either.
Was the 1991 vintage maybe just not that good as expected? At least not to my taste?
I don't want to generalize, but was 1992 the better year?

Post by **Glenn E.** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:30 pm

If you believe the producers, 1991 was a better year for the Symington brands while 1992 was a better year for the Fladgate Partnership brands. That's why it was ultimately a "split" declaration - SFE declared 1991 and TFP declared 1992.

I have had several bottles of the different SFE declarations from 1991 and I like them. Vesuvio was in transition - the 1991 can vary quite a bit and often has a lot of Douro bake - but the others are all superb. They're nowhere near the 1994s, but they're fully worthy declarations.

Oddly, the few Symington Ports that I've had from 1992 have also been very good. The TFP 1992s are generally fantastic, but their 1991s are pretty clearly inferior (to their 1992s). So I think TFP made the right decision, but I wonder if it was only aversion to back-to-back declarations that prevented SFE from declaring 1992 as well?

So... taken as a whole it does seem to me that 1992 was the better year, but that's not true for all producers. There are a lot of really good 1991s out there.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:08 am

To generalize, based on what I’ve tasted over the years 1992 has turned out to be the better year as time has gone on.

Eric Menchen · Post by **Eric Menchen** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:05 am

Certainly one producer can make a standout wine in a year in which others don't. But the fact that 1991/2 was a split declaration I think hints that these aren't going to be the greatest wines out there.

Personally, I had a 1991 Taylor Vargellas a number of years ago and though it was quite good, for a Single Quinta Vintage Port. It is usually priced lower than the 1992 and 1997 Taylor, and well lower than the 1994.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:27 am

Eric Menchen wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:05 am Certainly one producer can make a standout wine in a year in which others don't. But the fact that 1991/2 was a split declaration I think hints that these aren't going to be the greatest wines out there.

I think the 1992 Taylor's/Fonseca are fantastic wines but they aren't talked about much these days. 1994 really took the spotlight and hasn't let it go. It seems 1994 is all people talk about and everything else from that decade has been forgotten about.

Monique Heinemans. · Post by **Monique Heinemans.** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:41 pm

I realize I have never had a 1992 VP .. must try one soon.

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:22 pm

If you believe the producers, 1991 was a better year for the Symington brands while 1992 was a better year for the Fladgate Partnership brands

For the record, but I won't name names, a decade ago one of the Symington's directors admitted at a function that they called the wrong year.

I found that candour quite refreshing, and respected him for it..

Al B. · Post by **Al B.** » Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:08 pm

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:27 am
Eric Menchen wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:05 am Certainly one producer can make a standout wine in a year in which others don't. But the fact that 1991/2 was a split declaration I think hints that these aren't going to be the greatest wines out there.

I think the 1992 Taylor's/Fonseca are fantastic wines but they aren't talked about much these days. 1994 really took the spotlight and hasn't let it go. It seems 1994 is all people talk about and everything else from that decade has been forgotten about.

We’ve had 1991 and 1992 horizontals in the last few months. The view of those attending both was that 1992 is the better of the two vintages. Taylor was tight, closed and surly. Fonseca was drinking beautifully but Graham Malvedos and Dow Bomfim were very promising wines.

Eric Menchen · Post by **Eric Menchen** » Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:39 pm

Al B. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:08 pm
Andy Velebil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:27 am I think the 1992 Taylor's/Fonseca are fantastic wines but they aren't talked about much these days. 1994 really took the spotlight and hasn't let it go. It seems 1994 is all people talk about and everything else from that decade has been forgotten about.
We’ve had 1991 and 1992 horizontals in the last few months. The view of those attending both was that 1992 is the better of the two vintages. Taylor was tight, closed and surly. Fonseca was drinking beautifully but Graham Malvedos and Dow Bomfim were very promising wines.

I opened a half bottle of 1992 Fonseca recently and it was wonderful. It would be interesting to taste some of these 1992s blind against 1994. Maybe throw in a 1997 as well?

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Fri Sep 02, 2022 6:14 pm

Eric M. wrote:
Personally, I had a 1991 Taylor Vargellas a number of years ago and though it was quite good, for a Single Quinta Vintage Port. It is usually priced lower than the 1992 and 1997 Taylor, and well lower than the 1994.

Well yeah, that's because nearly all SQVP's are less expensive than their corresponding full on VP's. So I always expect to pay less for Vargellas, (except rare occasions with Vinha Velha versions of VP) compared to Taylor's.

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Fri Sep 02, 2022 6:17 pm

1991 Vargellas and especially Croft are standouts for TFP in the vintage. Of course TFP did not own Croft back then, but they do now.

1992 Fonseca is spectacular for a youngster nowadays. The 1992 Taylor is possibly every bit as good as the 1994, maybe just not as long lasting, but in terms of flavor, it is pretty much on a par.

Mike J. W. · Post by **Mike J. W.** » Sun Sep 04, 2022 6:39 am

I think the 1992 Taylor's is fantastic and right now, in my opinion it is better than the '94 version. I don't know if that's due to the burliness of the '94 and it not being fully mature yet or if the '92 is just that good. But I do know that today, the '92 is my choice.

Thomas V · Post by **Thomas V** » Sun Sep 04, 2022 12:47 pm

Mike J. W. wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 6:39 am I think the 1992 Taylor's is fantastic and right now, in my opinion it is better than the '94 version. I don't know if that's due to the burliness of the '94 and it not being fully mature yet or if the '92 is just that good. But I do know that today, the '92 is my choice.

I second that. It is a stellar bottle and it has so much umpfhh and just delicious dark fruit, liquorish and everything a top notch VP should posses. If I only had a case.

Also as others have mentioned the 92' Fonseca is quite the gem. From 91' my fondest memory is of the Vesuvio which was still very lush and vibrant. Drank it last 4 years ago if I recall correctly.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:38 pm

Thomas V wrote:
Mike J. W. wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 6:39 am I think the 1992 Taylor's is fantastic and right now, in my opinion it is better than the '94 version. I don't know if that's due to the burliness of the '94 and it not being fully mature yet or if the '92 is just that good. But I do know that today, the '92 is my choice.
I second that. It is a stellar bottle and it has so much umpfhh and just delicious dark fruit, liquorish and everything a top notch VP should posses. If I only had a case.

Also as others have mentioned the 92' Fonseca is quite the gem. From 91' my fondest memory is of the Vesuvio which was still very lush and vibrant. Drank it last 4 years ago if I recall correctly.

Last I had 1991 Vesuvio was in April this year from magnum and ex-cellars, it has now reached a good plateau to drink. Didn’t see a lot of up side left, but a great spot to drink the coming half dozen or so years, with a slow decline after. The ‘89-91 trio suffered a bit of Douro bake because it was stored at the Quinta after bottling. But that also makes them unique to experience something modern cooling facilities prevent…and generally not seen anymore.

Thomas V · Post by **Thomas V** » Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:01 am

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:38 pm
Thomas V wrote:
Mike J. W. wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 6:39 am I think the 1992 Taylor's is fantastic and right now, in my opinion it is better than the '94 version. I don't know if that's due to the burliness of the '94 and it not being fully mature yet or if the '92 is just that good. But I do know that today, the '92 is my choice.
I second that. It is a stellar bottle and it has so much umpfhh and just delicious dark fruit, liquorish and everything a top notch VP should posses. If I only had a case.

Also as others have mentioned the 92' Fonseca is quite the gem. From 91' my fondest memory is of the Vesuvio which was still very lush and vibrant. Drank it last 4 years ago if I recall correctly.
Last I had 1991 Vesuvio was in April this year from magnum and ex-cellars, it has now reached a good plateau to drink. Didn’t see a lot of up side left, but a great spot to drink the coming half dozen or so years, with a slow decline after. The ‘89-91 trio suffered a bit of Douro bake because it was stored at the Quinta after bottling. But that also makes them unique to experience something modern cooling facilities prevent…and generally not seen anymore.

I agree on that the earlier vintages from Vesuvio had quite a bit of Douro bake on them and often times the wine itself would be a bit murky in colour. It is especially pronounced on the 89' (The first Vesuvio from The Symingtons). On the 91' I did not find it too pronounced myself.

On the 94 it isn't noticeable or even present. It is also such a strong vintage.

The 97 and 03 I find the murkyness again. Can't recall if they had some bake or not. Don't know when the Symingtons started storing the bottles elsewhere with AC.

______________

Also you raise a interesting question here: Does a single estate VP mature faster than a classic VP? (We have had the debate before inhere if a house such as Quinta do Vesuvio is a VP or SQVP). Cause in terms of VPs 31 years of age really isn't much. Of course some is attributed to the conditions in 1991 and apply to all the houses that decide to make a VP or SQVP. My tasting experience with the V91 wasn't that it was at its plateau yet and that was a regular bottle and of dubious provenance. So we differ on that observation.

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:37 am

The 97 and 03 I find the murkyness again

There is an unpleasant trait I first noticed over a decade ago on the Noval '91 and have since also noted on other '91s and also on an N97, which alarmed me because I'd never noted it on older vintages. This was a murky nature and a very 'earthy' palate, and seems to be mainly part of the bottle variation spectrum rather than a batch issue. Some N91s were really quite unpleasant.

The good news is that it appears to be a phase, and the 91s now seem to be growing out of it. A recently opened N91 was not a superstar but entirely agreeable.

Cause? I can only speculate, but 91 was the first declared year when the clonal TN grapes were a major component. I've clocked on a number of occasions producers expressing unease about the consequences of the dash to plant this variety, but without being too forthcoming as to why.

For The Love Of Port