Discussion of 2007 VP scores by WS

[Roy Hersh]

Here is Suckling's recent evaluation, which is certainly fodder for a great discussion: (sent by a friend in Denmark). For those that have not seen the whole article, it also has a full TN and also includes a drinking window. As I don't feel it is fair to make negative comments about fellow wine critics/journos rating the same group of wines, I will only say that it seems odd that after mentioning a specific bottling's very tannic finish the 2007 released now ... was then mentioned with a drinking window of 2015. I mean, even a cheap ruby Port will drinkk well for 5 more years once bottled. I'm done, before I get started.


Dow Vintage Port
2007
100


Quinta do Vesuvio Vintage Port A Capela
2007
98


Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha
2007
97

Graham Vintage Port
2007
96


Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port
2007
96

Niepoort Vintage Port
2007
95


Warre Vintage Port
2007
95


Fonseca Vintage Port
2007
94


Quinta do Vesuvio Vintage Port
2007
94


Churchill Vintage Port Quinta da Gricha
2007
93


Quinta do Noval Vintage Port
2007
93


Croft Vintage Port
2007
92


Gould Campbell Vintage Port
2007
92


Martinez Vintage Port
2007
92



Niepoort Vintage Port Vinha da Pisca
2007
92


Poças Junior Vintage Port
2007
92


Quinta de Roriz Vintage Port
2007
92


Quinta do Vale Dona Maria Vintage Port
2007
92


Quinta do Vale Meão Vintage Port
2007
92


Offley Vintage Port Boa Vista
2007
91


Quinta da Rosa Vintage Port
2007
91



Sandeman Vintage Port
2007
91



Broadbent Vintage Port
2007
90


Cockburn Vintage Port
2007
90



Ferreira Vintage Port
2007
90

[Glenn E.]

I've said this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating here too.

What I find odd is not that he's rated various Ports differently than I did - it would be far stranger if they were the same - but that his ratings have changed so much since last year. I could swear that some of his top rated Ports have gone up by as much as 4-5 points, and that just doesn't seem reasonable to me. At least not for a professional critic... an amateur, sure, because an amateur doesn't know what to expect from a cask sample. But critics like JS and Roy have been doing this long enough that I expect them to be fully capable of tasting a cask sample and being able to get closer than 5 points.

I also find it vaguely suspicious that the top 11 only contains a single underdog - the Churchill - and that the two "premium" labels are both in the top 3. "But of course," you might say, "the big producers are the most consistent and their premium Ports would rightly be at the top." Hogwash. Yes, the big producers are typically the most consistent, but no one else was able to crack the top 10? There's always an outlier who overproduces. Finding that outlier and stocking up is part of what makes loving Port great!

Where is Duorum? Where is Magalhaes? And those are just off the top of my head.

Quinta do Vale Meao is only good for 19th??? Yeah, okay, I'll nit-pick that one score. The Vale Meao is my favorite of the vintage and he's got it at 92?

The fact that WS gave an award to a non-existent restaurant 18-ish months ago only adds to my skepticism. I know that WS claims that all of their ratings are done blind, but to me this list stinks of label bias.

[Andy Velebil]

I respect J.S. a lot but Glenn is spot on with his comment that any professional wine critic should be able to constantly score a wine closer than 5 points of previous bottles (only talking about recently released and cask sample wines without flaws tasted relatively close together). If a score goes up or down that much in such a short time it does, on the surface, appear that some type of label biased came into play. Of course a little change is always expected, say 2 maybe 3 points. But 5 points is an awfully large jump in less than a year for any wine or Port. And as Glenn pointed out it is odd that 2 out of 3 top VP's are all "exclusive" low production Ports. I know a lot of serious Port lovers, and while those three Ports are good, I don't know anyone who's put scores that big on those same ones....and I love all three.

What I'd like to know was in what manor these were tasted? Blind, non-blind, over how long, etc? I've not seen the article, did it state?

[Roy Hersh]

I don't believe any of them were tasted in a manor.

[Michael M.]

Perhaps in his manor in Tuscany but in what manner?

[Andy Velebil]

Perhaps in his manor in Tuscany but in what manner?

Thank you Michael...his manor in Italy, the US, or doesn't he have one in Cuba as well. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

[Andy Velebil]

Back on track. I started looking at his TN's on these. Many have "Best after" dates on them of 5-10 years. No offense, but that is probably the worst time to drink these. IME many top end VP's start shutting down after about 6-7 years. Most 2000's are still closed up and most 2003's started shutting down about a year or so ago. So why would someone recommend to start drinking a wine at about the same time period as they typically close down?

And I found an oddity in his TN's. Quinta do Passadouro he originally states "tasted twice with consistent results". Then on his re-taste, his TN says the exact same thing. Same thing with the Cockburn. And the Croft. It seems every VP he originally "tasted twice with consistent results" he re-tasted twice as well. Yet no other TN from him shows a tasted twice comment. It seems very weird that in this second go-around he would ONLY re-taste those bottles that he originally re-tasted. Does this seems strange to anyone else??

[Glenn E.]

Does this seems strange to anyone else??

Yes.

It implies to me that the second tasting was not blind, and that he copied the notes from the first tasting to be used (presumably with minor editing) for the second tasting. /sigh

As for the "best after..." dates, I think that's a holdover from wine tasting and that it simply doesn't apply to Port. Yet most critics still try to use it.

Some people like their Ports young. Some like them fully mature. Some like them as rowdy teenagers. "Best after..." means very little for Port drinkers. What we really need to know for Port is an expected maturity date, because from that information I can figure out when I'm going to like it best.

But either way, I agree with you completely that a "best after" date 5-10 years after the vintage is simply dumb, just like the Port could very well be at that time.

[Symon B]

out of interest did suckling taste bliend ore not and what have other wine afitionardos given dow 2007 symonb

[Derek T.]

out of interest did suckling taste bliend ore not and what have other wine afitionardos given dow 2007 symonb

Some say it's better than T48.

[Andy Velebil]

out of interest did suckling taste bliend ore not and what have other wine afitionardos given dow 2007 symonb

Some say it's better than T48.

Only time will tell if that's the case, but Dow's is an excellent wine even this young.

Symon,
There are many posts here that discuss the 2007 Dow's as well as the scores related to it. To sum up those discussions, It's always a matter of personal taste with the majority of people liking it...some more than others. As with any young Port I always recommend you get a bottle, try it yourself, and see if you like it enough to buy more of it.

[Ronald Wortel]

Ok, let's see if the barrel tasting scores really differ that much from the final result, as Glenn says.

(Barrel tasting ranges are given between brackets)
DOW: 100 (94-97)
VESUVIO CAPELA: 98 (93-96)
VARGELLAS VV: 97 (97-100)
GRAHAM: 96 (96-99)
TAYLOR: 96 (94-97)
NIEPOORT: 95 (93-96)
WARRE: 95 (95-98)
FONSECA: 94 (92-95)
VESUVIO: 94 (92-95)
CHURCHILL GRICHA: 93 (92-95)
NOVAL: 93 (94-97)
CROFT: 92 (89-92)
GOULD CAMPBELL: 92 (92-95)
MARTINEZ: 92: (90-93)
NIEPOORT PISCA: 92 (92-95)
POCAS: 92 (91-94)
RORIZ: 92 (86-89)
VALE D. MARIA: 92 (92-95)
VALE MEAO: 92 (93-96)
OFFLEY BOA VISTA: 91 (89-92)
DE LA ROSA: 91 (89-92)
SANDEMAN: 91 (93-96)
BROADBENT: 90 (88-91)
COCKBURN: 90 (86-89)
FERREIRA: 90 (90-93)
INFANTADO: 90 (86-89)
NOVAL SILVAL: 90 (90-93)
QUARLES HARRIS: 90 (91-94)
VENTOZELO: 90 (87-90)
CHURCHILL: 89 (88-91)
COCKBURN CANAIS: 89 (90-93)
CRASTO: 89 (86-89)
DELAFORCE: 89 (87-90)
PASSADOURO: 89 (85-88)
SMITH WOODHOUSE: 89 (89-92)
TEDO: 89 (90-93)
TEDO SAVEDRA: 89 (91-94)
PINTAS: 89 (86-89)
PORTAL: 88 (88-91)
ROMANEIRA: 88 (89-92)
ROMARIZ: 88
ROYAL OPORTO: 88 (88-91)
ROZES GRIFO: 88
BORGES: 87
NIEPOORT CALCADA: 87
RAMOS PINTO: 87 (88-91)
ROZES: 87 (88-91)
BARROS: (86-89)
BURMESTER: (89-92)
CALEM: (88-91)
KOPKE: 89-92
RAMOS PINTO ERVAMOIRA: (84-87)
SANTA BARBARA: (84-87)
SKEFFINGTON: (89-92)

It seems that there are three ports that showed significantly better than during the barrel tasting: Dow, Vesuvio Capela and Roriz. And there are two producers that will be disappointed after seeing the final score: Noval and Vale Meao. For the rest it's all very much within the BT range or very close to it. So Glenn, what's your problem? Is it the actual score range or your recollection of them? I guess it's the latter.

Another matter is if you agree with Suckling's scores. But that's with every tasting and every taster.

I agree though that the given drinking windows are plain silly, as with those of the Wine Advocate. But where you can blame it on WA's ignorance towards port, Suckling definitely should know better.

A last thing that strikes me after seeing the list is that neither of the Sogevinus ports was tasted from bottle. It seems that Sogevinus either didn't succeed to submit their final product in time or that they couln't be bothered. Knowing the Portuguese and their planning skills, I have my guess ready...

[Glenn E.]

It seems that there are three ports that showed significantly better than during the barrel tasting: Dow, Vesuvio Capela and Roriz. And there are two producers that will be disappointed after seeing the final score: Noval and Vale Meao. For the rest it's all very much within the BT range or very close to it. So Glenn, what's your problem? Is it the actual score range or your recollection of them? I guess it's the latter.

Hmm... it must be my recollection. These don't look like what I was remembering (as if my memory was actually that specific, ha!). It's also possible that I'm confusing his scores with someone else's. Regardless, mea culpa on that point.

Honestly, though, the final published list still looks biased to me. Some of that is probably mild disagreement with some of his ratings compared to mine, but some of it is just based on the fact that there really aren't any surprises in his list. His top 11 consists of 5 SFE (itself a great accomplishment), 3 TFP, Noval, Niepoort (hardly an underdog), and the only real underdog of the group Churchill's Quinta da Gricha scraping its way onto the list tied for 10th.

Now this is the first time I've ever seen full vintage lists for Port as they're being published, so it's entirely possible that Port ratings ALWAYS look like this. It's entirely possible that the big producers simply are that much better than everyone else across the board, which prevents any of the smaller guys from having a great year and getting top 10 publicity. It's possible, but it doesn't seem likely. Still... any data set that appears to contain no outliers - whether accurate or not - is going to look suspicious to me.

BTW Ronald - thanks for looking this up and generating the list!

[Symon B]

hi how can anyone compare dow 2007 with t48 its only 3 ys old symonb

[Symon B]

anyhow good luck to all that buy 2007 because if i had some i would not wish to drink it for a minimum 10 years and yes sucklings window on some is off the map and in my opinion for fortified wine downright stupid and misinformed i v v v rarely drink out of choice port younger than 10 to15 ys old
i feel its like getting some strip loin steak only hung for 5 days when realy the 21 28 day hung steak is a diferent beast tender mature etc etc etc
id rarther buy into the 85 at near the silly prices of 2007 and enjoy mature port drinking from proven tasting notes for value for money 2007 is terible and part is the inflation costs to make the stuff it represents poor value for money its 650 pounds in uk for qn for 12 bottles and its only 3 ys old
you can buy a whole case of ware 70 at auction for that symonb

[Rob C.]

Symon - personally I think you make an excellent point - the Fonseca '85 is, for instance, available at the same price as the Noval 2007 (and many other '07s). Similarly you can pick up a Graham '80 or '85 for that price, and I presume many other great '80s ports that are coming into their drinking window.For '90s ports - apart from '94 Taylor/Fonseca or 97 Noval - the world is your oyster at that price, and they already have 10+ years of bottle age.

I have been mulling over 2007 purchases for a while now. Finally I took a decision last week and, as an experiment, purchased a 6-pack of Noval 2007 (£280 all in). On the same day i segregated the same amount (£280) in a bond fund within my annual ISA (tax free investment) allowance. The aim is to see, when I come to purchase the second half of the case in 15 yrs time, whether the proceeds of the bond fund will (at least theoretically) cover costs. I hope circumstances do not force me to realise the bond fund investment before then, because I think it should be interesting. Ditto for the Bordeaux '09 investment I intend to make, which I will pro-rate over a 5-year period as a separate comparator.

[Glenn E.]

Buy old or buy new is always an interesting discussion.

I tend to fall into the buy old category because I'd rather have something that I can drink soon (or hold... it is Port after all) than something that won't be fully mature for 30, 40, or 50 years. If the choice is a 1985 Graham or 1985 Fonseca vs a 2007 Dow or 2007 Noval... most of the time I'll pick one of the '85s. To a very great extent this preference is because my cellar isn't already full of older, mature (or nearly mature) Port. I still need to backfill to give me something to drink for the next 30+ years while I'm waiting for those 2007s to mature.

The flip side of the coin, as Roy has explained many times, is provenance. You don't buy a 2007 Dow on release because it's a steal of a deal... you buy it so that you're the only person who has ever owned it and cared for it. When it is finally fully mature (about the time you're on your deathbead, in all likelihood ), you'll know exactly how it was stored for its entire life and can (probably) rest assured that the bottle is not damaged in any way. Those 1985s that you buy might have been stored upright on the top shelf in some store for 12 years... but you won't find out until you open them, and by then there won't be anything you can do about it.

[Rob C.]

Glenn, very good points - I suppose I am spoiled from the fact that in London you can (at least for '80s ports) find cases that have been properly stored in bonded warehouses since bottling.

That said (and within reason), buying port is about more than pure financials - though i suppose you already have to be in a reasonably comfortable position to take that attitude. I am looking forward to drinking these '07s over the next 10-15 yrs, seeing the development (even if they may not be at what is considered prime drinking age) and knowing that these are bottles that i have owned from within the first few months of delivery to London. It is an experience.

[Tim Swaback]

I'm not sure where this can be viewed, but just out of curiosity, where did the Quarles Harris VP end up on his list...if at all?

[Glenn E.]

I suppose I am spoiled from the fact that in London you can (at least for '80s ports) find cases that have been properly stored in bonded warehouses since bottling.

Yes, we over here in the US are very jealous of your (relatively) easy access to well-stored older vintages of Port!

I am looking forward to drinking these '07s over the next 10-15 yrs, seeing the development (even if they may not be at what is considered prime drinking age) and knowing that these are bottles that i have owned from within the first few months of delivery to London. It is an experience.

I did buy a few 2007s (two 6-packs) and will open them slowly over the next couple of decades just to experience this very evolution. Hopefully I'll be able to save half of them until maturity, but I do want to watch them evolve on their way there.

By the next general declaration I'll hopefully have a sufficiently full cellar that I'll be in "replacement" purchasing mode, meaning that I'll be purchasing to drink in 30 years because my cellar will (hopefully) keep me sufficiently fortified until then. I'm just not there yet, so most of my purchasing is still being done to backfill and give me bottles to drink during those next 30 years.