Roriz - one to watch?

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 6:06 am

James Suckling's reviews in Wine Spectator put Roriz '03 second only to Nacional, and with a very similar description.

Reading up on this quinta, I wonder what the long term strategy is.

Although I think it is still owned by the van Zeller's, it is clear that this is very much in the care of the Symingtons now, and gets mentioned in the same breath as Vesuvio.

For the Sym's, Noval's outrageously profitable Nacional must be a source of some envy, so I wonder if they are grooming Roriz as a challenger?

Vesuvio has been very well presented as a serious VP that also drinks well young.

Is Roriz their heavyweight for the long haul?

Tom

Al B. · Post by **Al B.** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 3:24 pm

I guess that Taylors have their Vigna Velha from Vargellas (apologies for the spelling) so it would make sense for the Symingtons to look for an ultra expensive, ultra collectible wine to offer.

Alex

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:21 pm

Taylor's seem to have a bit of a problem with Vinha Velha - they've been accused of compromising their regular VP by saving the best grapes for it, and are not producing a VV for '03 - presumably because they need the good juice to shore up the regular blend.

Roriz, on the other hand, appears to have had little (if any) influence on the Sym's main blends, leaving them a clear field to build a reputation.

The good news with Roriz is that despite critical acclaim, it's quite reasonably priced by comparison - at £24/bottle from Berry's, it's the least expensive brand they offer.

David Baghdassarian · Post by **David Baghdassarian** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:25 pm

I'd like to hear more opinions on this as I have an opportunity to purchase it locally for US$ 50 each.

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:35 pm

Roriz, on the other hand, appears to have had little (if any) influence on the Sym's main blends, leaving them a clear field to build a reputation.

Absolutly Tom, because the grapes from Roriz where going into Noval Port before Axa took over. I don't think the Roriz grapes ever came into the Symington blends. It is owned by the Van Zeller and they are doing a joint venture with the Symington for the red wines and Port.

I'd like to know the composition of the vineyards, the yields and the average age of the grapes before saying it is going to challenge Vinha Velha and Nacional.

Do not forget that the wines are very young and its hard to tell how they are going to evolve. We will probably know in 20-30 years if the comparaison was fair or not!

I have not taste any of the Roriz Port yet, the red wines are very good and I'm very curious to taste Roriz soon to withness the quality. I'll probably do it, I have some corked bottles to get refund :o

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:25 am

I'd like to know the composition of the vineyards, the yields and the average age of the grapes before saying it is going to challenge Vinha Velha and Nacional.

Tinta Roriz 13%
Touriga Nacional 23%
Tinta Barroca 12%
Touriga Francesa 10%
Tinta Francisca 6%
Tinta Cão 3%
Sousão 3%
Tinta Amarela 3%
Mixed Planting 9%
Old Vines 18%

From http://www.quintaderoriz.com/index-en.htm

Tom

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:20 am

Tom,

You seem to be touting Roriz so highly. Any reason beyond your affection for the 2003, or just curiosity?

I think that it is most fortunate that the Symingtons have partnered with João van Zeller as without their marketing savvy, his Douro red never would have gained #55 status on this year's WS Top 100 list. You do realize that this Quinta has been around for 190 years and was highly regarded in the 19th century.

As far as whether this will wind up topping Graham's, Dow and Quinta do Vesuvio ... I have my strong doubts about that. I can't see the Symington's let anything top their regard for Graham's within their own stable. Even as a SQVP, I believe their diamond in the rough is the increidble jewel known as Vesuvio. It has the land mass, the location, proper facings, old vines, new plantings, superior Quinta and guest house and is one of the finest properties in the Douro.

Can Roriz compete with Nacional? Well, it will be well into my daughter's lifetime before Roriz can establish that kind of panache and cult following. Even Vinha Velha by Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas, can not really compare head to head with Nacional, although maybe in a decade it could. I am not saying that Roriz is not good or even very good, but that it will take quite awhile to gain a loyal following, develop a solid track record and then gain world wide acceptance. Those things take lots of money (which is a given) and more importantly, time. Just my 2 cents.

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:29 am

Roy,

I have no vested interest in Roriz, but a good measure of curiosity.

I'm a little concerned that too much VP is being "softened" for the benefit of those who are impatient, and want to drink young wine.

I am hoping that Roriz is the antidote to this - a tough "blackstrap" that will blossom for the next generation, yet is affordable today.

I suspect the Sym's will keep their options open with regard to brand dominance - they only have to look at the Scots Whisky industry to see how mighty brands can fall from grace through no fault of their own.

However, I would not be surprised if they raised the profile of Bomfim and Malvedos, and started bottling it on major years as well as minor ones - the era of the "quinta" as an "also ran" seems to be over.

Tom

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:23 am

I'm a little concerned that too much VP is being "softened" for the benefit of those who are impatient, and want to drink young wine.

I believe this is a myth. From my discussions in Portugal, nobody admits that there has been ANY change to make the wines more approachable or make them so that they won't age as long. To do so requires altering crush techniques and manipulating the tannins of Port. This is not being done. The Port producers and Shippers are very invested in "tradition." Please do share specific examples so that we can better understand.

Unless you are alluding to specific new Ports like the following, I have no idea what you are alluding to and hope you'll clarify this for us:
* Sandeman Vau Vintage
* Quinta do Portal Plus (or II)
* Niepoort Secundum

Is this what you meant?

I suspect the Sym's will keep their options open with regard to brand dominance -

Can you support why you suspect this? I'd be very surprised if they'd even consider allowing any "brand" to take over the "positioning" of Graham's (for example). The money and effort and time involved in building and becoming a "grand cru" Port producer with a sterling name like Graham's is immeasurable.

However, I would not be surprised if they raised the profile of Bomfim and Malvedos, and started bottling it on major years as well as minor ones - the era of the "quinta" as an "also ran" seems to be over.

I very much respect your opinion! But given the tradition of this particular family, I would be amazed if they'd even consider having the SQVPs that you mentioned above, declare in "classic" vintages. That is why SQVPs were created, that is why Quinta do Vesuvio declares virtually every possible vintage. That is why their big guns Graham/Dow/Warre ONLY declare 2-4x per decade.

Can you please elaborate WHY it is that you believe the era of the "quinta" as an also ran seems to be over? I am all for being controversial and going out on a limb, heck I like to do that myself from time to time. But, please do support these types of statements with your opinion as to the why, so at least we can discuss them with you and understand your reasoning. Thanks for a very interesting perspective here.

Respectfully,,

Roy

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:24 am

Wow! your guns are blazing today Roy!

OK - the softening issue is referred to by several respected commentators. The shippers have to listen to the market, and the market listens to the journalists of the day.

Parker is currently the most influential hack, and you don't have to read much of his work to appreciate his contempt for the virtues of laying down fine wines.

He judges wines by their ability to give immediate gratification, rarely acknowledging their ability to improve over time.

The shippers know what the Parker camp likes and dislikes, and they know they have to take note (even if they won't admit it!).

Does playing to this audience compromise the keeping qualities? - time will tell, but the recent observation that the earliest Vesuvio vintage was "in decline" rang alarm bells in this camp.

>>

I think the Sym's will keep their options open simply because they're not stupid!

Old profitable family firms have a habit of becoming lazy and complacent - it's very hard to lay that charge at the Symingtons door. If the market changes tack, then will so will they (- at a measured pace!)

25 years ago, whisky brands like Teachers, Bells and Johnny Walker had colossal brand value. The most profitable brands today were unknown south of the border in those days.

>>

The competing roles of quinta vs. blend has had an interesting evolution. Where it will go in the future is a matter of opinion - I get the impression that the punters interpret the phrase "single quinta" as a mark of quality - much as they do the phrase "single malt".

Things may change, but for now the single quintas seem to be gradually catching up on the blends, and might even command higher prices in the future.

We shall see!

Tom

Steven Kooij · Post by **Steven Kooij** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:25 am

uncle tom wrote: Parker is currently the most influential hack, and you don't have to read much of his work to appreciate his contempt for the virtues of laying down fine wines.

He judges wines by their ability to give immediate gratification, rarely acknowledging their ability to improve over time.

No offence Tom, but what a ridiculous statement. Have you actually read anything by Parker?

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:17 am

No offence Tom, but what a ridiculous statement. Have you actually read anything by Parker?

Yes! - try pages 9-10 of his wine buyers guide vol 1 where he all but dismisses the notion of maturation, or lookup the ports in vol 2, pages 1172-5 (just four pages coverage out of a total of over 1500).

He doesn't mention a single bottle earlier than 1994, and his idea of maturity is ridiculously near-term.

Tom

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:49 am

On the softening issue, I agree with Tom that Parker has lots of influence but I don't think he has any over Vintage Port production. Just taste the 2003 and you'll see that you don't get instant gratification drinking them right now except the one that you know you have to wait 20+ years for great pleasure!

DavidL · Post by **DavidL** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:52 am

Yes! - try pages 9-10 of his wine buyers guide vol 1 where he all but dismisses the notion of maturation, or lookup the ports in vol 2, pages 1172-5 (just four pages coverage out of a total of over 1500).

He doesn't mention a single bottle earlier than 1994

Tom,

I'm afraid you've lost me:

There is nothing on pp. 9-10 of Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide (v. 1, 1988) about maturation and v.2 (1989) only has 800 pages. The Port section of that, pp. 497-512, covers the vintages from 1963 to 1985 and includes a brief note contrasting his preference for drinking at around 10 years of age with the "accepted guidelines of 15-20 years."

Perhaps you have different editions?

Tom Archer · Post by **Tom Archer** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 pm

Mine is 6th edition 2002

Tom

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:40 pm

Tom,

No guns, no blazing at all.

Parker has not touched Vintage Port since the 2000 Vintage which is ancient history in context of this discussion. Pierre Rovani did his first review ever, of Vintage Port. James Suckling may or may not be someone you agree with, but at least he (and I) have numerous vintages under our belts of doing reviews on cask samples. Parker used to wait until the Port was in bottle, just about to release, FWIW, but that is now a moot point with Rovani doing Port.

You still have not really explained why you believe what you do. Leave Whiskey out of the equation as the analogy is stale.

Sorry if my last post sounded harsh, but it was not meant that wasy whatsoever. I was just asking for you to explain some mighty bold statements that had no correlating explanations or corroborating evidence. How can we discuss these issues with you without really understanding your thought process or if these are just off the cuff remarks.

Edited to fix a spelling error.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:47 pm

uncle tom wrote:Wow! your guns are blazing today Roy!

Parker is currently the most influential hack, and you don't have to read much of his work to appreciate his contempt for the virtues of laying down fine wines.

He judges wines by their ability to give immediate gratification, rarely acknowledging their ability to improve over time.

The shippers know what the Parker camp likes and dislikes, and they know they have to take note (even if they won't admit it!).

Tom

Here is my $0.02 worth: Yes, I would agree that Parker is a very influential wine critic. However, I don't think Parker is all that influential with ports. I've read lots of reviews by Parker and overall I will say, IMO, that he is not the best at rating ports. He does tend to give an earlier start drinking date, but that also includes a large window to drink within. As a critic you have to be able to give a range that meets most of your readers drinking window. As we have seen here some people like their port (or any wine for that matter) more on the younger side and some more on the older side. Parker is just filling that nitch for those who want to drink thier wines younger.

Parkers new assitant, Pierre Rovani, reviewed all the 2003 ports. from what I've seen so far with the 2003's VP's, Pierre is much better at criticing port. THis includes a more tradional "Wait 20-30 years before you touch these babies" reviews.

THis is only a guess on my part, but based on how traditional the port industry is, I would venture to guess that they would never change how they do business to make one critic happy.

Steven Kooij · Post by **Steven Kooij** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:00 pm

Tom, I don't have the 6th edition here; perhaps you can posts some quotes?

I do agree 100% with Andy - who wrote what I'm thinking better than I could have done: thanks Andy! :)

(This discussion of Qta. d. Roriz HAS taken an interesting turn, hasn't it?)

DavidL · Post by **DavidL** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:17 pm

Tom,

Ah, that accounts for it. I haven't bothered with the recent ones since so much content is now online.

But the original (1988), new (1989), third (1993) and fourth (1996) are still useful!

simon Lisle · Post by **simon Lisle** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:28 pm

Tom you raise some interesting questions which I think are true in part but remember that port is a buisness and not a hobby