Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
...
Well my friend, actually I miss this type of discussion which has been sorely missing for some time now.Now that I have answered the question I will, of course, disagree with the opening statement that generally declared classic vintage is "worth more" than SQVP's. I'm sure you would expect nothing less from me, Roy
I did say "worth more" not better, which is a huge contextual difference in this case. I do believe that there is greater value in all sense of that word, in owning classic VPs rather than SQVPs. That said, I am speaking of a "classic" like a 1992 Taylor vs. a 1995 Vargellas. I know which I'd rather own (Vinha Velha aside).Add to this that many SQVP's are very much better than many "Classic" VP's and I think this idea that classic years are always best just does not stand up to scrutiny.
I guess that it also depends on how you define worth. Is a bottle of Mouton Rothschild 2005 worth £400 a bottle? Absolutely, that is what some people are paying today for this wine. Would I pay it? No way!Roy Hersh wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that the generally declared "classic" Vintage Ports are worth more than the off vintage Single Quinta VPs and second label or even single vineyard VPs. Now that we've all agreed to that
I look for a price for the second label or single quinta wine to be in the £10-15 mark. At that level I am comfortable buying a bottle or two and experimenting to see if I like it. I rarely will buy a bottle of Vargellas these days as it is priced at over £22 at UK retail and that is too much for my taste where the wine is (a) too young to be enjoyable and (b) often of lower quality than some of its competitors. I compare the prices of the port that I buy to table wine that I might be tempted to buy as an alternative and £15 a bottle is about right, for my pocket.In whatever currency you'd like to discuss this in: how much do you think the vintage Ports from "off vintages" like 2004 and 2005 should cost? How much more should a well-known name like Quinta do Bomfim cost versus a name like Quinta do Ventozelo (just as an example)?
All well and good Alex, solid points for sure. But I guarantee if I were to evaluate your cellar of all VPs prior to 1994 (no reason to debate semantics, so I will even go back to 1985 if you'd like) that your collection would be reversed with an 80:20 ratio in favor of the classics. The reason I am pretty certain of that? Obviously the SQVP "movement" did not gain momentum and had little effect prior to that. So your (or anyone's) purchasing of VPs up until the past 5 (or so) generally declared vintages WAS "classic" by nature.So, I've come to the conclusion that I can really only comment on my perceived worth of classic ports compared to second label ports. And that perceived worth is against other relevant benchmarks.
While I like to have a handful of the big names from the big vintages in my cellar, I am being put off by the prices that I am being asked to pay for these. But is it worth more to me than second label port? Perhaps, but not by as much as the current price differential. Based purely on quality and drinking enjoyment (either now or in a decade or two) I probably split my money 80:20 in favour of the second label wines. I find better personal worth in these and get almost as much enjoyment from them, choosing to keep the big names that I have for special occasions.
Roy - you are absolutely right. If you look back at what I was buying a decade ago, it was all the classic names from the classic declarations with a handful of single quintas thrown in. These days, I will buy occasional bottles of the big names from mature vintages but new or recent releases are almost all single quinta or second label. But, you've made me think, perhaps this is also because we haven't had a major declaration since 2003.Roy Hersh wrote:All well and good Alex, solid points for sure. But I guarantee if I were to evaluate your cellar of all VPs prior to 1994 (no reason to debate semantics, so I will even go back to 1985 if you'd like) that your collection would be reversed with an 80:20 ratio in favor of the classics. The reason I am pretty certain of that? Obviously the SQVP "movement" did not gain momentum and had little effect prior to that. So your (or anyone's) purchasing of VPs up until the past 5 (or so) generally declared vintages WAS "classic" by nature.
If in the meanwhile you have now changed your buying habits to turn that ratio upside down due to your aforementioned reasons, I can absolutely understand and respect your choice. Whether looking at worth as value for money or the other definitions you used above, your choice and reasons for buying whatever Vintage Ports you do, is a very personal decision.
I can't argue with this idea at all! If you define worth as resale value then I would wholeheartedly agree that the classic names in the classic vintages are likely to sell for a higher price per bottle than the single quinta / second label wines. This may change over a number of years as some single quintas start to develop their own reputations for quality and longevity (Noval comes to mind as a single quinta that has achieved this), but not today.Well if "worth" can also be defined by the value of our VPs if we were to resell them, (because that is also a sound measure of their worth ... or value, in a very real monetary sense) then hypothetically, the "classics" which most often sell for a significant premium above SQVPs, would be well worth buying and collecting. That could be true even if one's goal was hedonistic consumption and not the consideration of purchasing with resale in mind. THIS was how I considered "worth" when I used the word in my post a few days ago to start out this thread.
I agree with this as well !!Most assuredly, even if you disagree with all the rest of my premises in this thread, we do agree that the prices of recent vintages (especially the classic VPs!) are no longer looking like the bargains that many of the recent past vintages (1990s) were. That is just one reason I encourage folks to look at the SQVPs in years like 2004 and 2005 to name the most obvious and recent examples (through a long and painstaking process) in order to share with the consumer, what I perceive to be great values in Port today. After all, not everyone started buying Vintage Ports when you and I did.
That said, compared to the fine wine market pricing, I still feel virtually all Vintage Port represents solid value for money. We can quibble on that point over a great bottle or two, but when I see where 2005 Burgundy, Bordeaux and even German Riesling prices stand today, it is hard for me to believe that I have paid too dearly for the Ports in my cellar (and I include 2000 and 2003s). Of course, if they were $5-15 lower per bottle, I'd like it even better, but I don't want to see more consolidation within the Port trade.
Let us both pray that the wine investors continue to glom onto Bdx, Burg, Rhones, Champagne et al while ignoring for the most part, Vintage Port. My mission with FTLOP is to share my passion and opinion about Port and help educate consumers. In doing so and providing information on non-generally-declared vintages, I aim to provide reasonably priced alternatives to those looking to afford Vintage Ports. They deserve shelf space for all levels of Port collector and by that I mean, novice and expert, as well as those folks of limited budgets and rich people alike.But I do have a suspicion that what we might see develop is a generation of port drinkers (as opposed to wine investors) who turn to the single quinta and second label ports because of the price of the classic ports.
This is actually a very good question - one which I obviously cannot provide answer to as my own status as amateur portophile who has just recently (in the big scheme of time) started trying a lot of the different vintages, and some of the relatively few SQVPs that are available in my market.Adam F wrote:Fascinating thread.
One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages? Other than Vesuvio I've not really tried that many and on that basis I find Vesuvio pretty consistent with a few standout years. How does this compare with other SQVP? Clearly I will need to try more...shame!
This is precisely how things seem to be leading for me right now. As mentioned in my last post in this thread, my financial situation at the moment is not exactly conducive to spending huge dollars on Vintage Port, from a leading producer or otherwise. Leaving the prices here in Edmonton out of it for a minute (which can be nothing short of ludicrous, even taking into account the artificially inflated prices by the gov't of Canada's silliness in taxing fine wine,) the leading producers still seem to be sitting on the shelves at a 10-20% premium to all other brands. Sometimes as much as 35-40%. Take the 2003 Vintage, which would make most of you cry: the prices for a typical bottle of VP from 2003 is roughly $100. That is really all the "lesser tier" producers. Noval and Vesuvio are $110. (10% inflated)Al B. wrote:But I do have a suspicion that what we might see develop is a generation of port drinkers (as opposed to wine investors) who turn to the single quinta and second label ports because of the price of the classic ports.
As Alex indicates, if many of the SQVPs and even 2nd-labels/lesser known producers are indeed producing such good juice, it is going to turn into a no-brainer as to whim my Port dollars are directed in the future.Al B. wrote:I also believe from my personal experience that the single quinta and second label ports are, in general, such good ports that they will easily hold for 30-50 years in good vintages and will be rivals for the dollar in your pocket that you might otherwise choose to spend on a classic vintage.
Yes, one of my favorites in a long time. I wish that Derek had returned to add to his earlier post but so be it. I think some of the most educational threads on this Forum have come from posts where debate is civil and backed by strong opinions/facts.Fascinating thread.
Have a look at the 2003, 2004 & 2005 Vintage Forecasts in the article archives and you can do the math. Of course these are just my opinions, but regardless of my actual scores for the wines ... my range is quite consistent and you can at least judge by that. I think that the SQVP quality continues to improve. This is due to changes in the growing of the grapes, the education of the new generation of young Portmakers in the Douro and some new techniques employed in the actual winemaking. All of this leads to better Port and far more consistency.One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages? Other than Vesuvio I've not really tried that many and on that basis I find Vesuvio pretty consistent with a few standout years. How does this compare with other SQVP? Clearly I will need to try more...shame!
I've tried the Malvedos and Vargellas from quite a few different years going back as far as the 1967 Vargellas. I would summarise my experience by saying that I see no difference in the variability of these ports from year to year as I see in the variability between the declared vintages. You get some vintages which are better than others - from both types of port - but you probably get more weaker SQ ports than classic ports simply because they are made more often!Adam F wrote:One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages?
That being said, i have 2 cases of Quinta do Noval 2004 and i am confused now. I think we all consider Noval as a traditional Port producer. However, their biggest product is, and please correct me if i am wrong, a SQVP, the Quinta do Noval. They considered 2004 to be worthy enough to produce a VP instead of their 2nd brand the Quinta do Silval. Only 1000 cases were produced and that is one of the reasons i bought 2 cases with an option on a third one.Therefore, since neither 2004 or 2005 was generally declared and the traditional Port producers only released their SQVPs and 2nd label VPs, I would consider both "off vintages." That doesn't mean they are bad vintages or are unworthy as I mentioned in my most recent post in this thread.
Erik,Erik Wiechers wrote:That being said, i have 2 cases of Quinta do Noval 2004 and i am confused now. I think we all consider Noval as a traditional Port producer. However, their biggest product is, and please correct me if i am wrong, a SQVP, the Quinta do Noval. They considered 2004 to be worthy enough to produce a VP instead of their 2nd brand the Quinta do Silval. Only 1000 cases were produced and that is one of the reasons i bought 2 cases with an option on a third one.
So the term 'off vintage' has a negative meaning to me, like ok, it is a vintage but not a 'real' vintage. My point is, if a big and famous producer like Noval releases their premier brand onto the market it can't be a wrong buy simply because they can't afford to do that.
Same goes for the Niepoort 2005 by the way. Luckily both vintages were proven worthy by some well known wine critics
