Most Dissapointing Vintage

[jon bricken]

It seems that we always talk about the best of this and that, but I was wondering what is the most dissapointing declared vintage inthe last 10 or so that you have tasted and purchased. Are their vintages which you have purchased that you might trade for another now that you can look back.

It is always stated that the port producers ONLY declare 3 out of every 10 vintages. Should there be that many every decade? It seems to me that once in a while there should be fewer than three and sometimes more than three.

Anyway IMHO I believe that the 1997 vintage is one which had disapointed me. I realize that the wines are still extremely young but the 5-6 vintage ports ( Fonseca, Taylor, Noval, Neiport, Grahams & Smith Woodhouse) which I have tried just don't have that special something which will make them memorable in the future. I guess to me that means the power and defination which I associate with wines that will evolve, over time, into something very special.

I would love to hear what others think.

[Marc J.]

To answer the first part of your question 1975 for the most part was a pretty disappointing vintage and I'd say that 1982 has been a bit of a let down as well. As far as the 97's go, I would give them a bit more time to come around. The 1997's aren't as fruit forward as say '94 and may seem tannic & lean, but I do believe that over time the '97's are going to mature into some very nice wines.

Marc

[Glenn E.]

1975 is the easy answer, but since that was a deliberate decision to save the industry I'll ignore it and choose another.

Dow aside, 1980 hasn't seemed all that spectacular for a generally declared year in the few Ports that I have tasted. But my expectations were low to start with for 1980, so I can't really say that it disappointed me. In fact, the 1980 Fonseca that I tried was surprisingly good given its generally poor reputation.

So for me, the most disappointing generally declared vintage out of the last 10 or so has to be 1983. I haven't had many, but had high hopes for each and was disappointed with all. I haven't had the 1983 Graham yet, though, and have been told that it is quite good, so maybe there's still hope.

[Marc J.]

Glenn, good point about the 1975 vintage. It wasn't just about the grapes being good enough, but a myriad of other factors that went into that particular decision.

Marc

[Tom Archer]

1975 is the easy answer, but since that was a deliberate decision to save the industry

That's not quite the story. It was more of a thanksgiving for deliverance from the dire threats posed during the revolution. A little too much relief and euphoria at declaration time, possibly too little segregation at vintage, and certainly too little selection at blending; resulted in some big names producing poor wines. However, there are also several that are really quite decent.

I actually suspect that the 1950 vintage, overall, may have been slightly worse. The 1950 declaration appears to have been prompted by the collective guilt that follows a split declaration (1947/48), with little evidence to suggest that the vintage itself was worthy.

In many ways, the circumstances that led to the '75 declaration are understandable and forgiveable. It is much harder to forgive the '50's..

Tom

[Kurt Wieneke]

I think there was some general information about declarations given by David Guimaraens in the Guest Corner Forum awhile back. I'm with Marc, the '97's need more time before a final write-off.

[Andy Velebil]

1975 is the easy answer, but since that was a deliberate decision to save the industry

That's not quite the story. It was more of a thanksgiving for deliverance from the dire threats posed during the revolution. A little too much relief and euphoria at declaration time, possibly too little segregation at vintage, and certainly too little selection at blending; resulted in some big names producing poor wines. However, there are also several that are really quite decent.

In many ways, the circumstances that led to the '75 declaration are understandable and forgiveable. It is much harder to forgive the '50's..

Tom

To set the record straight, and since Tom was in the room when a producer explained this yet he still seems to go with his own theory, was exactly what Glenn mentioned...in short, it was done to save the industry, specifically all the small growers in the Douro from going belly up. Which they were on the brink of doing at the time. That is the super short version, and which has been discussed many times here already. But as Tom correctly points out under the circumstances it's "understandable and forgiveable."

[Andy Velebil]

I'd have to go with 1983. While there are some nice ones in the bunch, most are below par for such a generally declared vintage.

[Eric Menchen]

Andy and Glenn, if you guys make it my way we'll have to open a 1983 Smith Woodhouse; and I'll hope it is as good as the first one I had. Tasty. I've got a number of other 1983s we can compare it too

[David Spriggs]

I'd have to go with 1983. While there are some nice ones in the bunch, most are below par for such a generally declared vintage.

Wow! I like 1983! I'd certainly go with 1975 as a poor vintage.

[Glenn E.]

I'd have to go with 1983. While there are some nice ones in the bunch, most are below par for such a generally declared vintage.

Wow! I like 1983! I'd certainly go with 1975 as a poor vintage.

Thus the difference between "most disappointing" and "worst" vintage.

1983 has received a lot of praise, but my few experiences with it have all been disappointing.

1980 has mostly been panned as a generally declared year, but my few experiences with it have all been quite good.

Thus an allegedly excellent vintage can be the most disappointing while an allegedly poor vintage can be quite satisfying.

[Tom Archer]

in short, it was done to save the industry, specifically all the small growers in the Douro from going belly up.

The problem with that explanation is that the small growers in the Douro get little financial benefit from a declaration.

The deal has always been that the shippers would buy their grapes, even when the vintage was dire; in return for the shippers netting the lion's share of the jackpot when there was a declaration.

It could be that the shippers found it necessary to give the growers a financial lifeline by paying over the odds at some point, but there is a disconnect between that and the declaration of the vintage.

So while it may be the romantic version of events, I don't think it is very accurate.

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

I'd have to go with 1983. While there are some nice ones in the bunch, most are below par for such a generally declared vintage.

Wow! I like 1983! I'd certainly go with 1975 as a poor vintage.

Thus the difference between "most disappointing" and "worst" vintage.

1983 has received a lot of praise, but my few experiences with it have all been disappointing.

1980 has mostly been panned as a generally declared year, but my few experiences with it have all been quite good.

Thus an allegedly excellent vintage can be the most disappointing while an allegedly poor vintage can be quite satisfying.

Glenn did a good job answering this for me. This is about a disappointing vintage, and as such I've had some very nice '83s but my overall assessment is a bit of a disappointment for such a major declared year.

[Andy Velebil]

in short, it was done to save the industry, specifically all the small growers in the Douro from going belly up.

The problem with that explanation is that the small growers in the Douro get little financial benefit from a declaration.

The deal has always been that the shippers would buy their grapes, even when the vintage was dire; in return for the shippers netting the lion's share of the jackpot when there was a declaration.

It could be that the shippers found it necessary to give the growers a financial lifeline by paying over the odds at some point, but there is a disconnect between that and the declaration of the vintage.

So while it may be the romantic version of events, I don't think it is very accurate.

Tom

Not the romantic version at all, but it is the short version of what is a long explaination. 1975 was declared, and three times as much VP produced than any other year, for specific reasons. It had nothing to do with poor grape sorting, poor blending, etc. The producers knew what they bought and made and it was done intentionally. I don't want to hijack this thread on the '75 topic, but it's important that suppositions aren't stated as fact.

[David M. Bueker]

Declarations like 1975 aside, there's real place for the lesser years. Unless one is blessed with a cellar bequeathed by a late relative, or has boundless faith in the provenance of wines in the secondary market, the minor vintages offer an opportunity to enjoy a good drink sooner. I would actually hope that the 1997s never turn the corner into "great" wines (whatever that really means), as I'm already waiting on the 1994s & 2000s. The few 1980s I have opened have been very enjoyable to drink, and I am thankful for that. Have any of them been among my Port epiphanies? No they have not, but that does not happen every night. In fact it has only happened twice in my life: 1945 Taylor and 1970 Dow.

[jon bricken]

I guess that I was not clear enough in my question.
I was trying to ask which vintage was the most dissapointing that you purchased en primer.

[Eric Menchen]

As to the above interpretation, I guess I'm lucky with the 1983s. I tasted 1985 first and was led to believe that the 1983s were a distinctly lesser vintage. I had low expectations when I tried them, reinforced by the low prices I paid for them, Smith Woodhouse for $40 and Graham's for $30 in the last year or so. I was not at all disappointed when I tasted them.

I guess that I was not clear enough in my question.
I was trying to ask which vintage was the most dissapointing that you purchased en primer.

Well, the jury is still out on that one. Since the only vintage I've bought en premier is 2007, and I haven't even tasted any of the bottles I actually bought en premier, I can't really say.