First Post! Let's discuss 1963 Quinta do Noval

[Chris Doty]

Roy told me that this forum is a great place to get answers from experienced port enthusiasts. Since Roy is rarely wrong, I have come in search of wisdom.

Specifically, I'd like some insight into what factors explain the massive disparity between the 1963 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port and the 1963 Quinta do Noval Nacional?

From what I understand, the Nacional is a benchmark for port in the 20th century, where as the 'regular' 1963 vintage port seems to just be a good bottle. Is that correct?

This seems a bit counterintuitive, no?

TIA
_______________

As a word of introduction -- Hi! I am a 25 year-old NYC native, currently living in London. I got interested in vintage port about 18 months ago, and have been building a little cellar. I quite enjoy the 85 Fonseca and the 2003 Niepoort (though it is PAINFULLY young).

If there is anyone else from the board in London, I would be happy to meet up to pop some corks.

- Chris

[Glenn E.]

Hi Chris,

Christian Seely explained this in a recent blog post. He was discussing why there is no 2007 Noval Nacional even though the 2007 vintage as a whole is quite exceptional, but the explanation works for your question as well.

In short, Nacional is a separate vineyard within Quinta do Noval. It is not just a premium blend of the best grapes from the entire Quinta. So even though the Nacional vineyard is smack in the middle of Quinta do Noval, it is its own beast and can be temperamental in its own way. Some years (like 1963) it vastly out-produces the rest of the vineyard on quality, while other years (like 2007) it does not.

Here's a link to the blog post - Roy linked earlier in a thread regarding the lack of a Nacional bottling for 2007.

http://www.christianseely.com/2009/12/08/nacional-2007/

[Chris Doty]

Thanks.

I actually read this just prior to posting, but the difference to me I guess is that 2007 hasn't yet been hailed as an epic/monumental event, like the 63 Nacional has been.

That the Nacional is from a specific parcel only tells part of the story. I would have thought these wines would be more like the Doisy Daene Extravagant vs. the regular Doisy Daene. How grapes so close to eachother, picked at the same time, and fermented in the same way could perform so vastly differently is still a bit of a mystery to me.

[Roy Hersh]

Roy told me that this forum is a great place to get answers from experienced port enthusiasts. Since Roy is rarely wrong, I have come in search of wisdom.

Actually, I am wrong often ... when relying on my less than great memory. At one time it was unbelievably sharp and I could tell you the exact wines I had at a dinner, even two years prior. Now, I can't remember what I had for breakfast so I can only imagine the fireworks if my wife read that quote ... she'd be flying back to NYC and hunting Chris down, going door-to-door checking out every Doty she could find. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


Hi Chris and to . Shocking to see you in here with the rest of us Port-nerds.

Let me do some 'splainin' to ya the difference.

Quinta do Noval has been around since 1715. For many years their Nacional bottles incorrectly stated on their labels: "Produced from Pre-Phylloxera Vines" (e.g. the 1963/1966/1967 and even as recently as 1994 ... so after the purchase of Noval by AXA insurance company where Christian Seely is now in charge of Noval (and all AXA wine holdings) but also stated as: "Produced from Pre-Phylloxera Grapes" as on the 1970 Nacional label.

Years ago, I brought this up to the previous owner of Noval Cristiano van Zeller, the man whose family owned it for well over a century -- and later, to Christian Seely shortly after we first made contact. Both of those statements were incorrect and absolutely factually inaccurate. I had done exhaustive study on the Nacional vineyard and was able to prove why this was wrong. I believe that the label was changed with the 1996 Nacional and this is a very little known fact, and the reason why I wanted you to come over here, because I am willing to put in the time explaining this in greater detail HERE but not over on Squires, although you know I have about 13,000 posts there over the years ... the vast majority on Port, Douro and Madeira wines as you know. Nonetheless, and for the record, let me be clear that my pointing out the label issue and explaining my rationale ... had NOTHING to do with the eventual label changes that finally took place. I was just glad that after decades of incorrect info on the labels, they were finally changed and made right.

Now back to some good old fashioned fact checking and answering your question.

Cristiano VZ's ancestor was A.J. da Silva and he owned the property since the early part of the 19th century (1813?) and before that Rebello Valente owned it and before that ... the good old Marques de Pombal's empire. Long after Pombal though, Phylloxera came to the Douro in the final third of the 19th century and Noval was nearly destroyed, along with many other properties. The Nacional vineyard was actually replanted (from my research) in 1925. The vines chosen were not pre-phylloxera, but are better known today as "ungrafted" (grafting onto American rootstock was done to deter the reoccurence of the root louse). Sadly, company records were destroyed in the Noval Lodge fire in Gaia in 1981, so it is now hard to prove this except from old books that I've poured over 15-25 years ago, when I still had a sharp mind and memory for all things Port. Anyway, the infamous 1931 Quinta do Noval Nacional bottling, the most expensive Port ever sold, was made with SIX YEAR OLD VINES. This disproves so many claims that in order to have great Ports, you need old vine vineyards. Obviously not the case and the 1931 is the greatest living example of this and one I've lectured on. Therefore, with a certainty I can state that the labels were wrong on those Nacional bottles as mentioned. Now we're getting close to your answer.

In 1963, Cristiano's uncle Fernando who returned to the family business at the request of his grandfather, ran the Quinta (and later was the cause of the Quinta being sold to AXA). Fernando's brother Luiz was the viticulturist and tried a new fertilizer in 1963 which did not destroy the crops, but did cause them to greatly overproduce and the grapes although plentiful, lacked any serious concentration. The 1963 Noval has matured way too early due to this faux pas and I've never been a fan of that pleasant almost tawny-like Port. I have heard friends mention having "great bottles" but I've NEVER been a party to one that has shown better than average at best. It is believed that the Nacional vineyard did not receive the fertilizer treatment that year, ergo its greatness, like many other Quintas' vineyards during that amazing year. There are "rumors" that can not be proved today ... that the Nacional vineyard did receive the fertilizer treatment the following year and supposedly, that is why the 1964 Nacional was also dilute and lacked the depth it showed in 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967 and 1970 ... for just a few examples during that great stretch of vintages.

At no point in Christian Seely's blog did he allude to the 1963 vintage, or the regular bottling of Noval being different because of the terroir or natural differences which occur in that small parcel, which he mentioned specifically regarding the difference with 2007's.

As an aside, it was in Andy V.'s birth year, 1973, that the name changed from A.J. Da Silva to Quinta do Noval on not only the company masthead but on all subsequent labels, as noted on 1974 Quinta do Noval Colheita labels. However, Nacional labels were called Quinta do Noval Nacional going way back decades and even some earlier bottlings of Noval (I have regular bottles of Noval 1931 and 1945 to prove that to naysayers who used to challenge me on this point, long before I dreamed of FTLOP).

I hope this once and for all explains why there is such a difference in the 1963s, not because of the segregated six and a quarter acre vineyard named Nacional. That said, Christian's remarks about the 2007 are very believable. He and I discussed this long before his blog post and the quality of the juice was in question for quite awhile and although "waiting on the decision" and hoping to see certain organoleptic changes going to take place by leaving the wine sit longer, with the outside chance of a late declaration (within the parameters of the IVDP regulations, of course) ... but those hoped for metamorphic changed never did materialize in the juice itself. I kept close to that story as I had been requesting samples all along, of the 2007 Nacional and was given very specific answers upon request. That, as they say ... is the rest of the story.

[Marc J.]

Roy, thanks for the explanation! I really found it fascinating.

Marc

[Al B.]

There are "rumors" that can not be proved today ... that the Nacional vineyard did receive the fertilizer treatment the following year and supposedly, that is why the 1964 Nacional was also dilute and lacked the depth it showed in 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967 and 1970 ... for just a few examples during that great stretch of vintages.

Hmm.

I read this post with great interest. As Roy knows, I love my Noval and Nacional vintages and am a great fan of them other than through their "dark" period in the second half of the 1970s and first half of the 1980s.

I can't argue with Roy that the 1963, 1966, 1967 and 1970 Nacionals are wonderful, powerful and dark wines - but I'm not sure that I agree that the 1962 is dilute and lacking in depth. I've had this a few times and have found a little bit of bottle variation but have otherwise consistetently scored this wine in the 94-95 range. Admittedly, I like my wines with finesse and elegance, rather than big and powerful but I have never considered the 1964 Nacional to be dilute. I would compare it rather to the 1947, which was I also found to be an elegant wine rather than a blockbuster like the 1963 or the 1967.

But coming back to the original question, I have no idea why the Noval 1963 is so much less impressive than the Nacional. I can speculate, but that would be wrong.

Alex

[Roy Hersh]

Alex,

If you read my post again, I think you will find that I made NO qualitative judgments about the 1960's vintages of Nacional ... except the 1963 and 1964. Never mentioned Nacional 1962/66/67/70 as far as their quality goes, only in relation to the labeling issue.

I like the 1962 too, far less the 1964.

I also happen to really enjoy the 1947 Nacional as well and don't consider it a masculine powerful wine at all and appreciated its elegance as you will read from my TN:

1947 Quinta do Noval Nacional Vintage Port
I have never had a Petrus from '47, so this first taste of Nacional '47 will have to suffice for now. The color depicted a Port that was going to be lively as the light ruby color showed only slight tawny elements on the rim which I found impressive in a VP with nearly 6 decades of bottle age. Scents of spice, vanilla extract and grenadine syrup provided all the pleasure necessary on the nose. There was a harmony in this wine that I loved and although only medium-bodied, it showed great delineation and finesse which really excited me. The finish is simply amazing. I don't see this getting any better, but I have little doubt that this can hang on this level for another 10+ years and drink well thereafter.

95 Points

[Chris Doty]

Incredible info Roy -- many thanks. Frankly, I was hoping that you were fond of the regular '63 bottling, because it seems like it is available over here in the UK for just a little over $100, but is sounds like its relatively low price for the vintage is most well deserved, and still likely overstates the wine's quality.

It is shocking to learn that the '31 Nacional was made from 6 year old vines. Blows my mind. Of couse, I haven't had the '31, but I'll take it on other peoples' word that it is an earth-shattering experience.

Again, many thanks for the info. Port Authority could hardly be more appropriate.

[Daniel R.]

Cristiano VZ's ancestor was A.J. da Silva and he owned the property since the early part of the 19th century (1813?) and before that Rebello Valente owned it and before that ... the good old Marques de Pombal's empire. Long after Pombal though, Phylloxera came to the Douro in the final third of the 19th century and Noval was nearly destroyed, along with many other properties. The Nacional vineyard was actually replanted (from my research) in 1925. The vines chosen were not pre-phylloxera, but are better known today as "ungrafted" (grafting onto American rootstock was done to deter the reoccurence of the root louse). Sadly, company records were destroyed in the Noval Lodge fire in Gaia in 1981, so it is now hard to prove this except from old books that I've poured over 15-25 years ago, when I still had a sharp mind and memory for all things Port. Anyway, the infamous 1931 Quinta do Noval Nacional bottling, the most expensive Port ever sold, was made with SIX YEAR OLD VINES. This disproves so many claims that in order to have great Ports, you need old vine vineyards. Obviously not the case and the 1931 is the greatest living example of this and one I've lectured on. Therefore, with a certainty I can state that the labels were wrong on those Nacional bottles as mentioned. Now we're getting close to your answer.

In 1963, Cristiano's uncle Fernando who returned to the family business at the request of his grandfather, ran the Quinta (and later was the cause of the Quinta being sold to AXA). Fernando's brother Luiz was the viticulturist and tried a new fertilizer in 1963 which did not destroy the crops, but did cause them to greatly overproduce and the grapes although plentiful, lacked any serious concentration. The 1963 Noval has matured way too early due to this faux pas and I've never been a fan of that pleasant almost tawny-like Port. I have heard friends mention having "great bottles" but I've NEVER been a party to one that has shown better than average at best. It is believed that the Nacional vineyard did not receive the fertilizer treatment that year, ergo its greatness, like many other Quintas' vineyards during that amazing year. There are "rumors" that can not be proved today ... that the Nacional vineyard did receive the fertilizer treatment the following year and supposedly, that is why the 1964 Nacional was also dilute and lacked the depth it showed in 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967 and 1970 ... for just a few examples during that great stretch of vintages.

Roy,

Fascinating: I did not know this about the fertilizer used in 1963.

I read somewhere that there are ungrafted vines in other areas of Quinta do Noval (not only in the Nacional vineyard). Does the Nacional wine only use grapes from the Nacional vineyard or does it also include grapes from ungrafted vines planted in other areas of Quinta do Noval?

Do you know how these vines are protected from phylloxera? The other ungrafted vines I know about in Portugal (for example, vineyard used for Quinta do Ribeirinho Pé Franco - a wine from the Beiras region - and many in the region of Colares) are planted in sandy soil (where I think phylloxera does not propagate).

Thx!

[Roy Hersh]

Chris, I would not go out of my way to purchase one even at that price, unless you want to do them side-by-side which would be like David and Goliath.


Daniel,

Although Phylloxera can find vines ... even in sandy soil ... it does hate the sand and finds it almost impossible to travel from one vine to the next and that is why I've never understood why viticulturists who see the very early signs of the root louse, don't bring in dump trucks worth of sand to put into their vineyards. I know it is expensive, but nowhere near the cost of digging up and replanting diseased vines.

Anyway, Nacional juice comes solely from the Nacional 2.5 hectare vineyard's vines. Their average age today is about 35 years old.

[Symon B]

hi roy great reading i have had a bottle of 1960 national cost me 130 pounds at auction 3 years ago my only time i had qnn had a nice taste and a powerful backbone a silkness about it rich prunes sweet nice from memory about 9.4 level in neck no seapage similar to the kopke 1970 and i realy like that a good btl slightly more power and better ballanced than the kopke
how can you tell the diference between a 1931 qnn and the normal qn 1931 because i believe they are labled same and out of interest at the end of the day do you rate them equal in there drinking powers
if you could have a bottle of either bottle on your desert isle and can only go home with one to drink which would it be symonb

[Roy Hersh]

I know one individual who several years ago had 10 bottles of REAL and verified 1931 Nacional bottles in his cellar. I couldn't get him to budge at selling me one for a vertical.

I have had the 1931 Nacional only once and it was very good, but the 1931 Noval regular bottling I had with it, was even better. As mentioned, I've had the regular bottling enough times to have seen what it can achieve with regularity and it is a phenomenal Port. Bottle variation seems to be an issue the the 1931 Nacional as a Port friend of mine in the UK held a tasting a couple of years ago and that bottle was also disappointing. So, for the money ... I see no reason to spend nearly $10k (the last one sold was just under that price) to take my chance.