Are VPs better made today than they were in the past?

[Roy Hersh]

Some people like 'em young, others fully mature. Whatever your personal preference ... it is all good!

There are some or even many FTLOP participants here who enjoy both too. I certainly no longer shy away from enjoying a young VP on occasion, although my personal preference has always been for drinking older VPs. Palate preferences and circumstances typically evolve over time.

With an eye towards historic vintages of Port, do you feel that the innate quality is better today ... or do you believe it was better way back when? That "way back when" might only be the 1980s for some, while others might think of the 1890s or first half of the 20th century. Regardless, do you feel the Port today is BETTER made than it used to be? Please explain your answer.

2nd question:

With that in mind, do you believe that today's vintage Ports are as sturdy in terms of their long term cellaring prospects, or were VPs from yesteryear, typically more age worthy?

I realize this will cause respondents to speculate on the age-worthiness of young vintages, but I think these questions will make for interesting discussion points and fine reading, (with a glass in hand, of course) for current and future participants.

Cheers!

[Moses Botbol]

That's tough for me to answer. I wish I could've had '55, '63, '70, and '77's when they were only 5 years after bottling, so it's difficult to assess how more recent vintages will be in the long haul.

I would assume with improvements to wine production should yield in better vintage port, but that is an assumption. Does preferring 70 Graham to 55 Graham makes me have a preference for younger port? Both are old enough... Maybe the producers are able to yield more balanced harvests now and we won't see such variance in vintages moving forward?

That leaves me with more questions than answers on this one.

[Todd Pettinger]

Almost an impossible question for ME to answer, seeing as how 80% of my consumption of 'old' Ports consist of bottles from the one tasting with you at deVines Roy!

I'd tend to agree with Moses that one would assume that better vinification techniques, along with an increasing knowledge of the winemakers in the Douro, would lead to better wine that would keep for longer.

Perhaps though, it was through the magic of ignorance that the older vintages have been able to keep for so long.

Mind you, economics being what they are and corporations being profit-driven first and foremost (they sort of HAVE to be if they want to stay in business) can lead to changes that may not be the best of the long-term aging of the Port, but in short-term financial gains instead. (I'm not saying this is the case, but COULD be.)

With better technology though, perhaps it is right to expect increased quality.

People though, are more educated about Port and with the prevalance of the Internet and wonderful sites like FTLOP and people like Roy who are educating the masses, we have more information than we ever did before... so perhaps there will be a tendency to expect more out of the younger vintages - there is the risk that the expectations can never be lived up to.

Talk about sitting on a fence!!!

Obviously a lot can be said about this, I do have my own convoluted thoughts about the topic, but also like Moses, I am left with more questions than answers. My experience with older Vintages is woefully inadequate to make any sort of valid argument for or against one or the other, but I will say that my crystal ball is in the repair shop, so not even I can see what the future of young vintages is (or older ones for that matter!)

Todd

[Al B.]

My opinion - some wines are made better than they were in the past and some are not.

I think that all port producers go through phases where they are really on form and are producing superb ports that drink really well and will age beautifully...but they will also go through phases where their ports are not up to the same type of standard.

By way of example, consider Royal Oporto. Old vintages of Royal Oporto wines are drinking really well today and, I assume, had a good reputation in years past but today they are considered to be producing weak examples of vintage port.

Even Taylor have had vintages where their ports are not considered vintages to chase after in the market. Taylor 1980 and 1985 are not great ports when compared to their 1963 or '94.

Today, I think that Noval is on a real high and is consistently producing ports which are amongst the best of each vintage. There has been a big improvement in the quality of Noval's wines since the '60s and '70s and so, to my mind, they are an example of a port which is better-made now than in the past.

Some of today's ports will age well - I believe that most of the ports produced today will do so as it is unusual not to have good balance between fruit, tannin and acidity - and some will age less well. Most of all, I look forward to experiencing this aging and drinking plenty of them over the next few decades.

Alex

[Luc Gauthier]

The way It looks to me , the Port world is cyclical . That's what I can say with certainty .
Another certainty : Whether or not the Port is good or bad , the SAQ's pricing scheme hurts BIG time !!!
Taylor '85 ( not their greatest year $237.00 CDN )
Fonseca '85 $ 217.00 CDN . . . figure that one out ...