1982 / 1983... is it really a split declaration?

[Glenn E.]

Most of us have probably heard it stated as fact that 1982 / 1983 was a split declaration, similar to 1991 / 1992. I've never thought it true, though, mostly because I only rarely ever see 1982 VPs for sale but see 1983 all the time.

Today I had the opportunity to take a closer look, though, and it's interesting. If you haven't checked out Vintageport.se, that's the resource I was browsing this morning.

More houses declared in 1982 than in 1983 (39 vs 36 per IVDP statistics), and those houses declared more brands in 1982 than in 1983 (84 vs 62).

But... and it's a really big but... the biggest names did not declare 1982, or only declared a secondary brand or SQVP.

The biggest names that did a full declaration in 1982 are Cockburn, Croft, Niepoort, Noval, Noval Nacional, Ramos Pinto, Sandeman, and Smith Woodhouse. There's no Fonseca (only Guimaraens), no Taylor (only Vargellas), no Dow at all, no Graham (only Malvedos), and no Warre. Those 5 all declared 1983 instead. And only Croft, Noval, and Sandeman declared 1982 but not 1983. I don't think that trio carries the same weight as the 5 who declared the opposite direction. Which leaves 5 of the 8 from that list - Cockburn, Niepoort, Noval Nacional, Ramos Pinto, and Smith Woodhouse - as having declared both vintages so they didn't side with either vintage.

So is it really a split vintage, or is 1982 more of a partial or not-quite-complete vintage while 1983 is a normal, fully-declared vintage?

[Eric Menchen]

I wouldn't consider Noval Nacional in any discussion of a general declaration. But it is interesting that the regular Noval was declared for 1982 and not 1983.

[John M.]

Definitely see a lot more 1983's in the market than 1982's.

[Andy Velebil]

1982’s are pretty hard to come by, at least in the States.

I forgot that Noval declared a regular VP in ‘82. However, they did make a 1983 Quinta do Marco and Quinta do Silval (both, last I had them a long time ago, were past their prime). Both of those are sub-vineyards attached to the main Quinta.

I would include it as a “split year” as much as 91/92 is. Just because two owners didn’t produce their main VP in 1982 shows how idiotic the “declaration year” is.

IMO, a “declared year” should be any year in which a majority of producers make their “main-label” VP (not sure what term should be used for that but main-label sounds good).

The real question is, given how rare they are theses days, where did all those bottles of 1982 VP disappear to?

[Eric Ifune]

I never considered it a split declaration. I did have a case of 82 Noval at one time. Drank up long ago. A decent, medium weight Port.

[Glenn E.]

I would include it as a “split year” as much as 91/92 is. Just because two owners didn’t produce their main VP in 1982 shows how idiotic the “declaration year” is.

I didn't say it in my first post because I didn't want to plant that seed just yet... but rather than a "split" year which doesn't really seem correct to me, was 1982-1983 really a back-to-back general declaration?

Sure, 1982 turned out to be not so great compared to 1983, but there were as many producers and brands in each year as at least some other fully declared years.

And again, while most of the biggest brands did not declare back-to-back in 1982-1983, there were a lot of producers who did. So maybe 2016-2017 wasn't actually that big of a deal after all?

[Roy Hersh]

Glenn wrote:

So is it really a split vintage, or is 1982 more of a partial or not-quite-complete vintage while 1983 is a normal, fully-declared vintage?

Split vintage? No.

Split declaration? Yes.

I know that journalists like Richard Mayson and Neil Martin have written as such, and plenty of members of the Port trade do consider it a split declaration. 1982 more prolific in terms of sheer bandwidth. But for me, I've always been more of a fan of 1983 VPs. Having both years side-by-side, as I've had with Ramos Pinto (several times), Niepoort, and Quinta do Noval, in all 3 cases, I preferred the 1983.

[Glenn E.]

I would include it as a “split year” as much as 91/92 is. Just because two owners didn’t produce their main VP in 1982 shows how idiotic the “declaration year” is.

So then does that make 2015/2016 a split declaration, too?

Or should 2015 be considered a declared year despite neither TFP nor SFE declaring all of their main brands? And if that's the case, then should 1982 and 1983 both be considered declared years? (Which then begs the same question for 1991/1992...)

IMO, a “declared year” should be any year in which a majority of producers make their “main-label” VP (not sure what term should be used for that but main-label sounds good).

I don't disagree, but the industry feels otherwise and I do understand that view as well. If a simple majority is sufficient, then there are probably a lot of "declared years" that no one thinks about, or at minimum there will be soon. Consider all of the small producers who don't have secondary labels (or SQVPs)... they either declare or they don't. They vastly outnumber the bigger, better known producers who do make that distinction.

Perhaps it should be a majority of producers who have/use a secondary label or SQVP?

Glenn wrote:

So is it really a split vintage, or is 1982 more of a partial or not-quite-complete vintage while 1983 is a normal, fully-declared vintage?

Split vintage? No.

Split declaration? Yes.

You knew what I meant.

And yes, I know what the industry folks say. What I'm wondering if is that's just clinging to silly traditions about not declaring back-to-back years and all that.

It doesn't really seem like a split to me. It seems like 1982 got breadth (i.e. more brands) while 1983 got quality.

Maybe if I have the time and energy I'll do a brand-by-brand comparison of the data on Vintageport.se to see how many brands were declared in both years, and how many actually served to "split" the declaration (either by only declaring one year, or by making a full declaration one year and only a secondary brand or SQVP the other).

[Andy Velebil]

Glenn,
You said 1982 got breadth and 1983 got quality. I don’t think 1983 got quality. Sure a few producers did well. Most, at best, were average and not anywhere near what they were normally capable of then.

The 1980’s “lost decade of port” as I’ve called it, has that reputation for a reason. So you can’t say quality is a requirement to a “declaration”.

[Glenn E.]

Glenn,
You said 1982 got breadth and 1983 got quality. I don’t think 1983 got quality. Sure a few producers did well. Most, at best, were average and not anywhere near what they were normally capable of then.

The 1980’s “lost decade of port” as I’ve called it, has that reputation for a reason. So you can’t say quality is a requirement to a “declaration”.

I didn't say that quality is a requirement for a declaration.

We're comparing 1982 and 1983. 1982 had a couple more producers and significantly more brands that were declared. Ergo, 1982 got breadth.

And compared to 1982, 1983 most definitely got quality. We're not talking about the entire decade here, just the 2 vintages that are often referred to as a split declaration. 1983 is a significantly better vintage, quality-wise.

[Roy Hersh]

You know my feelings on 1982 vs. 1983 and I do agree with the Port trade that this pair was a fine example of a "split declaration" regardless of what TFP and SFE did.

At an event on Monday with local Somms, we had a big discussion about these two years.

Coincidentally, I just bought a few more Krohn 1982 Colheitas, which I consider the best of all wood-aged Ports that year. YMMV.

[Randy Katz]

You know my feelings on 1982 vs. 1983 and I do agree with the Port trade that this pair was a fine example of a "split declaration" regardless of what TFP and SFE did.

At an event on Monday with local Somms, we had a big discussion about these two years.

Coincidentally, I just bought a few more Krohn 1982 Colheitas, which I consider the best of all wood-aged Ports that year. YMMV.

Just had some that was opened 6 months ago, 1/3 left in the fridge. Still quite nice!

[Frederick Blais]

The first vintage I bought was an 1982 Offley Boa Vista. I drank a lot of those! Around 20-25 years of age, many 1982 were at peak and very enjoyable to drink! Ramos Pinto, Ferreira and Offley were my favorite, but today I would not pay big money for those as I feel they have past their peak while the best 1983 are still worth seeking.

[Moses Botbol]

'83 is in another league compared to '82.

[Mike J. W.]

The first vintage I bought was an 1982 Offley Boa Vista. I drank a lot of those! Around 20-25 years of age, many 1982 were at peak and very enjoyable to drink! Ramos Pinto, Ferreira and Offley were my favorite, but today I would not pay big money for those as I feel they have past their peak while the best 1983 are still worth seeking.

While I would agree in general, Frederick, the 1982 Ramos Pinto is still drinking at peak.

[Al B.]

That was the wine I was thinking of too. When I had a glass in June at their lodge, it was singing.