What is the greatest decade for Vintage Port between 1940-2010?

[Roy Hersh]

Which of the seven decades do you feel put forth the most great Vintage Ports?

[Moses Botbol]

My first thought was the 40's. 1945 and 1948 are both epic vintages, but I have had maybe a dozen bottles from that decade, so not enough to really talk about that decade. Upon further thought, "1960's has had several good vintages"....

I am going with 1960's. Even the "off years" during the 60's produced many lovely ports.

[Glenn E.]

That's tough to say, in no small part because the 90s and 00s really aren't mature enough to judge yet. Will they ultimately live up to their early ratings, or will they fade too quickly and end up being relegated?

If we assume that current ratings are correct, then to me it's between the 1990s and 2000s. There were 6 potentially declarable years in the 1990s ('91, '92, '94, '95, '97, and arguably '99) but only one of those years ('94) is generally acclaimed as a potential classic. The 2000 may only have 4 years of note (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007) but two of those are classics and one is generally considered to be excellent.

I think I have to go with volume. When you look at it dispassionately and consider that '91 and '92 could stand alone in any other decade, it's tough to look past that amazing streak of years. So for me, the greatest decade for Vintage Port since 1940 is the 1990s.

[David Spriggs]

I like the case that Glenn put forward. So many great wines were made in the 1990's.

[Roy Hersh]

I hope we get a broad spectrum of views on this topic, because I know that I could make salient points in support of several decades within that time span.

[Eric Menchen]

I really can't comment on the 40s and 50s, and can't say I've tasted enough to really know how the late decades will fare in the future. But I can say that I've really enjoyed a lot of bottles from the 70s lately, some wonderful 1970s and 1977s. I've had some good bottles from the 1960s, but I wasn't impressed with many. I've had some good 1980s, but not outstanding bottles. I think 1994 makes a strong case for the 90s, but I haven't had some of the key 1992s and I don't know how the 1997s will hold up. 2000s? Too early to call for me.

[Russ K]

not that I have tasted the 2000's yet (I am a stickler for at leat ten years of aging), judging by everyones reviews, there may be a case that 1997 through 2007 could be the best ten ( or I guess 11) year span...but for me the 90's are the decade to beat, because I have only had the opportunity for 70's 80's and 90's tasting...2000's seem look darn good though!

[Al B.]

So what are the decades we could choose from? (And here I am conveniently ignoring any debates about what is the first and last year in a decade.)

1940s - vintages include 1941 (a very impressive Constantino), 1942 (an acceptable Hooper), 1945 (I've yet to have a poor one and some are breathtaking), 1947 (I love the Cockburn!), 1948 (many as good as the 1945s). Could be a strong candidate.

1950s - disappointing for me; 1950s are decent wines but not spectacular, 1952 is rarely seen and the Warre I drank was weak, 1955 is a blockbuster vintage but for me it lags behind some of the vintages from the previous decade, 1957 Malvedos is sweet and lovely, 1958 is solid and unspectacular. Not the winning decade in my mind.

1960s - 1960 is drinking very nicely at the moment but is not a blockbuster, 1962 could have been declared by a couple of shippers but was passed in favour of the next vintage, 1963 has a handful of spectacular wines but many of them are starting to fade, 1964 is drinking well but unspectacular, 1965 is the same, 1966 is a standout vintage of the same level of quality as 1945 or 1948 and 1967 is pretty darned close in terms of quality, 1968 and 1969 are rarely seen. Some good vintages in this decade. A possible candidate.

1970s - 1970 itself is a superb vintage at its peak at the moment and one which I believe will continue to evolve in the same way as the best from the '40s, 1971 had nothing, 1972 are not great wines, 1973 had nothing, 1974 had nothing, 1975 are weak, 1976 are great wines in small volumes, 1977 comes with a great reputation and a handful of great wines but I believe the wines don't match the hype, 1978 is decent, 1979 is OK. Much as I love the 1970s, I don't think there is enough from the other years to make this a candidate for best decade.

1980s - 1980 is an odd vintage with the Symingtons producing great wines and most others weak wines, 1981 has nothing, 1982 is starting to fade, 1983 is reliable but unspectacular, 1984 is weak, 1985 has some great wines but is marred by VA, 1986 is drinking well, 1987 could have (should have) been a full declaration, 1988 has surprising quality, 1989 is a solid vintage. Another possible candidate for "greatest decade".

1990s - 1990 is weak, 1991 and 1992 are not yet really showing what they can deliver, 1993 is non-existent, 1994 has a great reputation and deserves it, 1995 is a lovely easy vintage, 1996 is a strong vintage, 1997 is a great classic vintage that might develop the way that 1966 has, 1998 is underestimated, 1999 is decent second tier drinking. With two classic vintages this could be a candidate, but I'm not convinced.

2000s - 2000 is a restrained classic in the making, 2001 is a modest vintage, 2002 very limited in production volume, 2003 is a full on fruity vintage in the mould of 1963 and 1977, 2004 has a handful of great wines but in limited quantities, 2005 made good solid second tier wines, 2006 wines are adequate, 2007 is spectacular and fruity, 2008 has some lovely wines likely to mature early, 2009 has a bit of a buzz to it, 2010 is struggling to produce weather that might lead to a good vintage. The effect of improved wine-making techniques and knowledge are really paying dividends.

Having thought through each of the decades like this, I come down to a decision that we are looking to choose from 1940s, 1960s, 1980s or 2000s. While I'm tempted to choose the 2000s, I think I need to wait another 50 years before I can see whether these wines have proven themselves over the long run. My vote goes to the 40s but with the right to change my mind in 50 years time.

[Alan Gardner]

So what are the decades we could choose from? (And here I am conveniently ignoring any debates about what is the first and last year in a decade.)

1940s - vintages include 1941 (a very impressive Constantino), 1942 (an acceptable Hooper), 1945 (I've yet to have a poor one and some are breathtaking), 1947 (I love the Cockburn!), 1948 (many as good as the 1945s). Could be a strong candidate.

In case you need some support Al, you omitted 1943 - I know the war years were difficult, but, in my experience, 1943 was one of the better years. I'm almost through a case of the 43 Eira Velha, and every bottle has been excellent, sometimes superb, although my tasting notes show great variability between bottles.

And I stayed out of the debate as I also wanted to avoid the question of which decade should include 2000 (and 1970).

[Glenn E.]

And I stayed out of the debate as I also wanted to avoid the question of which decade should include 2000 (and 1970).

[hijack]

Don't believe Prince. If you partied like it was 1999 then you were off by 1 year. The only logically proper answer is that each decade ends with the year that ends in 0. The 20th century (or the 200th decade, if you prefer) ends with, and includes, 2000. Consider the 1st decade if you don't believe me - the first decade is the years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. To not include year 10 in the 1st decade would be to have a decade that does not contain 10 years. 0 isn't a year - the concept of 0 as a countable number did not exist at that time.

HOWEVER... "the 1960s" begins with 1960 and ends with 1969.

So it really depends on how you phrase the question. The 1960s is not properly a decade. It is a span of 10 years. The 197th decade includes most of those years - 1961-1969 - but includes 1970 instead of 1960.
[/hijack]

Of course, this means that I answered Roy's question improperly, but that's common usage for ya. Logically it just makes my case stronger - the 200th decade includes 2000 but not 1990, lending strength to my argument that it is the best decade for Vintage Port.

[Eric Menchen]

I understand your point Glenn, but technically correct and common usage are not the same thing. And what about the rule of only declaring three times per decade? This would seem to follow the common usage definition not the technical one if we look at the period from 1991-2000, with the split declaration of 1991/2, 1994, 1997, and 2000, for four declarations. It works out o.k. if you consider 1990-1999.

[Glenn E.]

technically correct and common usage are not the same thing.

Oh I know. Just file this as my equivalent to Julian's obsessing over apostrophes.

[SEAN C.]

I would say 1940-49 would be the best and maybe 1960-69 second.
I've had excellent '45's and '48's (better than anything from the 60's), a great 1947, and I own but have not yet tried a 1940 Taylor and a 1942 Graham. The 1940 Niepoort Garrafeira is also excellent although I don't know if you can count that as "vintage"
The 60's were good too though ..some of the 1960 vintage Ports such as Taylor are wonderful, the '63 Taylor, Fonseca, and Graham are good and the 1966's are even better!

[goncalo devesas]

1990s - 1990 is weak, 1991 and 1992 are not yet really showing what they can deliver, 1993 is non-existent, 1994 has a great reputation and deserves it, 1995 is a lovely easy vintage, 1996 is a strong vintage, 1997 is a great classic vintage that might develop the way that 1966 has, 1998 is underestimated, 1999 is decent second tier drinking. With two classic vintages this could be a candidate, but I'm not convinced.

AL, I must say that there was a VP declared in 1993,a single one (QUINTA DAS LICEIRAS).

For me the greatest was the last one...with amazing vintages like 2000 VAL de FIGUEIRA and São Pedro das Águias; 2003 Quinta do Noval; 2005 Quinta do VESUVIO; 2007 Quinta do Noval; Capela and Vale de MEÃO.