A 'dumb" question about vintage declarations

[Eric Menchen]

I expect we'll start seeing 2009s this fall, if memory serves from the 2007s.

[Guimaraens]

[quote="Jay Hack"]I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Portuguese wine fascists (as opposed to the French wine fascists) have imposed a rule that a producer cannot declare more than three vintages per decade. Maybe I dreamt that rule, but maybe not.


Having completed 20 years in the Port trade, the evaluation of each year regarding Vintage Port makes our industry one of the most interesting in the wine world.

I have the priveledge of being part of a Port family that has been dedicated to making Vintage Port for several generations, and an even greater priveledge of having an integral role in the the production of these truly world class wines over the last couple of decades. Much speculation is made regarding the decision of a declaration, however I am sorry to dissilusion the sceptics, but it is as simple as evaluating the Port that is in the glass in front of you.

This "simple" decision is about evaluating both the quality and harmony of the Ports from a particular year, but also the capacity we believe it has to develop in the bottle in the long term. The reputation of our house depends on this decision, and once a Vintage Port is bottled, we are commited for ever to it, and evaluated for decades to come. The Vintage Port enthusiast relies on our capacity to make this decision for each Port we declare, and the confidence he has in our house is based on our reliability in taking this decision.

I arrived back home in June 1990, and the decision around the declaration of the 1991/92 Vintage was a perfect example of the wine talking above any other reason. At the time, we had not declared since 1985, and everyone had anounced their intention to declare the 1991's, however the incredible quality and freshness of the 1992's was evident to us. At the time we were much criticised due to 1992 coinciding with Taylor's 300'th anniversary (this did not however apply to Fonseca!), but time has shown the reasons for our judgement.

It is never an easy decision, and sometimes we get two years that are very good side by side (2000/2001), where we have to date always opted to select one of the two to declare. I hope one day that the opportunity will arise to declare a back to back. We are at the moment at a historic point where by declaring the 2009 Vintage Ports for Fonseca,Taylor and Croft, we have for the first time declared 4 Vintage Ports in a decade. I am delighted that we have done it, and looking back over the last extraordinary decade, I would not have changed anything.

The 2009's are extraordinary in that they are so huge. I took my time to evaluate these Ports, and it is no coincidence that it is correct to leave any young Port to rest for 2 winters before making our final judgement. What is remarkable about the 2009's is considering the dimension of these Ports, how much quality and harmony they have to ensure their ageing potential.
There has never been a rule as to the number of declarations, and when you get to taste the 2009's you will make your own judgement as to the quality of this Vintage, alongside your feelings for the 2000, 2003 and 2007's. I don't think anyone has to worry about our quality standards, after all 4 years out of 10 is still being very fussy. Next decade there is no way of nowing how many years will make the cut, there may only be 2, it has happened before (I hope not again!).

David Fonseca Guimaraens

[Derek T.]

It is never an easy decision, and sometimes we get two years that are very good side by side (2000/2001), where we have to date always opted to select one of the two to declare.

David,

Thank you for posting this, it is always great to hear these things directly from the people who make the wines.

Could you please expand on the statement I have quoted above? I am assuming from what you have said that, if 2000 had been a below-par vintage, 2001 would probably have been declared. It therefore follows that both vintage blends made the grade so some other factors must have led to the decision to pick one out of the two vintages to declare. Could you please explain what those factors were?

Thanks

Derek

[Jeff G.]

Does it also mean i need to stock up on 01 fonsecas?

Also when do you decide to bottle the Guimaraens vs the panascal?

[Roy Hersh]

Jeff,

I'll let David explain the timing for you. But a Fonseca-Guimaraens Vintage Port bottling can be a blend of grapes from the various quintas owned by Fonseca and "can" include grapes purchased from other growers too, IF they so choose. The Panascal Vintage Port must be made from 100% grapes coming from that specific Single Quinta property.

[Jeff G.]

Jeff,

I'll let David explain the timing for you. But a Fonseca-Guimaraens Vintage Port bottling can be a blend of grapes from the various quintas owned by Fonseca and "can" include grapes purchased from other growers too, IF they so choose. The Panascal Vintage Port must be made from 100% grapes coming from that specific Single Quinta property.

ya I understood that part, but I was curious that if 2001 was a good vintage why only the panascal came out and not the guimareans (baby vintage). like hte 05's where both the guimareans and the panascal were both released.

[Andy Velebil]

Jeff,

I can't speak about the release of the 2001, but I, along with Derek, had it last month at the Fonseca / Fonseca-Guimaraens tasting in London. While I'm still typing up my notes for an article on the tasting, I can tell you it was very good. It was the first time I'd had it and while I didn't get to spend two or three days with it as I normally would prefer for a younger VP, even from that snap-shot tasting I was in the 91-92 point range. That said, I also felt it was a little out of balanced at that instance and could use more time in the cellar (or a longer decant) to sort it self out and I have no doubt it will improve even more. Compared side by side to the 2000 Fonscea that night, the 2000 was the clear winner of the two. So from my perspective today they made the right choice in picking the 2000. That's my layman's opinion and I'm sticking to it

[Guimaraens]

In response to Derek's point, it is speculating, however if 2000 had not been good enough to be a classic, as was neither 1998 and 1999, we may well have declared the 2001. To me the 2000 has the edge over the 2001, and that was the critéria taken into account at the time. The question as to us declaring a back to back can also be raised, and in recent years both the 2000/2001 and 2007/2008 are candidates for this debate. If we had taken the decision to declare 2000 and 2001, the evaluation would inevitably be which does one prefer over the other, and then if there is a clear preference, we would then have our judgement questioned!
As far as you are concerned, make the most of enjoying the value for money of the non-declared Vintage ports such as 2001 and 2008.

This is where I will take the oportunity to help you understand the unique qualities of a Guimaraens Vintage Port.

At Fonseca Guimaraens we only purchased our Quintas do Cruzeiro, StºAntonio and Panascal in the 1970's. prior to this Fonseca's long tradition in Vintage Port came from putting blends together from our long-standing suppliers of made Port, as was the case for every single Port shipper up until the 1980's. We have records of both Qta do Cruzeiro and Stº Antonio being a key component in all Fonseca Vintage Ports bock to the 1920's.

Where as at Taylor's, where we have owned Vargellas for over a century, a Single Quinta Vintage was bottled in a non-classic year, at Fonseca we opted to blend and bottle a Guimaraens Vintage in non classic years.

The virtues of a classic Vintage Port from any established shipper is the dimension and complexity you get from selecting the best parcels from a combination of different Quintas from an exceptional year, that together you get their incredible capacity to age in the bottle, and gives each particular house style.
The virtue of a Single Quinta Vintage Port is the opportunity to taste in a bottle the specific characteristics of an individual terroir.

At Fonseca the Guimaraens concept is brilliant, and in effect is a Fonseca from a non-classic year. For me, the opportunity to take the best components from our different Quintas is even more important in a non-classic year than in a classic year. Inevitably being a non-classic or a second choice, makes it more difficult to understand in comparrisson with the easier concept of distinguishing a classic Vintage Port and a Single Quinta.

Naturally, owning our own Quintas since the 1970's, at Fonseca we do our own single Quinta Vintage Port from Panascal, however in non-classic years I get the pleasure of putting together a very special Guimaraens Vintage blend.

If it is not available in the US, make your voice known and ask for it. Nowadays more focus is given on the easier to explain Panascal Single Quinta, which is also very good, but do not let this fantastic concept be lost. Enjoy them!

[Tom Archer]

David,

Would you prefer vintages to be known as 'classic' and 'non-classic' rather than the more usual 'declared' and 'non-declared'?

To the newcomer, it can certainly cause some confusion when ports are declared in a 'non-declared' year.

Tom

[Jeff G.]

If it is not available in the US, make your voice known and ask for it. Nowadays more focus is given on the easier to explain Panascal Single Quinta, which is also very good, but do not let this fantastic concept be lost. Enjoy them!

Yes, the US (even NY) has a huge lack of Guimaraens supply and when one or two do pop up they cost more then the VPs from classic vintage years. As I mainly buy Fonsecas (it's my largest house holding at over 150 bottles), I can assure you, that I've definitely been looking =)

So here's my post to ask for more Guimaraens to be sent to NY

Thanks in advanced!

[Guimaraens]

David,

Would you prefer vintages to be known as 'classic' and 'non-classic' rather than the more usual 'declared' and 'non-declared'?

To the newcomer, it can certainly cause some confusion when ports are declared in a 'non-declared' year.

Tom

Tom,

your question is quite pertinent. I generally use the term classic and non-classic. The english language can be confusing, in that when we bottle a Vintage Port, it is declared as a Vintage, however this can be either a classic or a non classic/single Quinta. We also use the term "Declaring" a classic Vintage as a way of distinguishing these extraordinary years. I am not sure there is a simple answer to this question.

[Jeff G.]

David,

Would you prefer vintages to be known as 'classic' and 'non-classic' rather than the more usual 'declared' and 'non-declared'?

To the newcomer, it can certainly cause some confusion when ports are declared in a 'non-declared' year.

Tom

Tom,

your question is quite pertinent. I generally use the term classic and non-classic. The english language can be confusing, in that when we bottle a Vintage Port, it is declared as a Vintage, however this can be either a classic or a non classic/single Quinta. We also use the term "Declaring" a classic Vintage as a way of distinguishing these extraordinary years. I am not sure there is a simple answer to this question.

would it be safe to say with modern wine making techniques that potentially every year is a "declared" year anyway? I don't think it's fair to call it a "second" wine though, as I've had some fantastic Guimaraens. Perhaps you could market it like the old Bordelais used to do. "Drink the "off years" while waiting for your stash of the "classic" years to mature"

[Derek T.]

In response to Derek's point, it is speculating, however if 2000 had not been good enough to be a classic, as was neither 1998 and 1999, we may well have declared the 2001. To me the 2000 has the edge over the 2001, and that was the critéria taken into account at the time. The question as to us declaring a back to back can also be raised, and in recent years both the 2000/2001 and 2007/2008 are candidates for this debate. If we had taken the decision to declare 2000 and 2001, the evaluation would inevitably be which does one prefer over the other, and then if there is a clear preference, we would then have our judgement questioned!

David,

Thank you for your response. That is not the answer I was expecting!

I think there is a general acceptance that not every year can be to 1927 or 1963 standards. There will always (hopefully!) be variation from one declared vintage to another in terms overall quality and the characteristics of the wines produced. I'm therefore not sure I can understand why you think you would be criticized for declaring a great vintage port (which it should be if you declare it) just because the one before or after it happened to be outstanding.

I find the subject of back-to-back declarations extremely interesting. Looking back through history, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there are quite a few major shippers who have declared consecutive years. Cockburn, Martinez, Sandeman and Offley to name a few. I know these shippers are not generally considered to be in the premier league now but they certainly were back then. The complete avoidance of back-to-back declarations therefore seems to be a relatively recent thing (if 50 or 60 years can be considered "recent") and I am intrigued to know why the trade has moved to a position where back-to-backs from major shippers just never happen. Is it not at least partly a commercial decision?

Derek

[Roy Hersh]

Granted, they're not considered a top tier producer, but I know of a consecutive eleven year stretch in which Calem declared a Vintage every year. Pretty amazing actually, as I am not aware of any other producer that can make that claim.

[Jeff G.]

Granted, they're not considered a top tier producer, but I know of a consecutive eleven year stretch in which Calem declared a Vintage every year. Pretty amazing actually, as I am not aware of any other producer that can make that claim.

Vesuvio

[Tom Archer]

Vesuvio started in 1989, and did not declare either 1993 or 2002, so they've yet to manage a nine year stretch, let alone eleven.

But yes, Calem did indeed declare every year from 1982 to 1992 inclusive; although some are very elusive...

Tom

[Jeff G.]

Vesuvio started in 1989, and did not declare either 1993 or 2002, so they've yet to manage a nine year stretch, let alone eleven.

But yes, Calem did indeed declare every year from 1982 to 1992 inclusive; although some are very elusive...

Tom

ah ha, I was missing the 2002!

[Guimaraens]

One of the significant changes in the Port trade has been the production of Vintage ports from Single Estates who are based in the Douro, and who do not distinguish between years of bottling these single estate Vintages. I believe the Vesuvio concept is one of bottling a Vintage Port from this magnificent estate every year they feal the wine is up to it. They do not distinguish declarations for this Quinta. I think this is a great concept for a family buiseness who already has its other specialist Vintage Port houses.

Regarding back to back declarations, it is not a comercial decision (for us), and as I said earlier I hope that during my innings there will be one of these occasions. Each year has to speak for itself, I just hope this following decade has as many good years as this previous one.

A lot is being talked about modern winemaking and its contribution to the quality of Vintage Port today. As most of you know, at Fonseca, Taylor and Croft 100% of our Vintage Port is still being produced in 6 primitive, but wonderfully effective granite lagar wineries with foot treading. Nothing has changed in this part of producing a Vintage port in the last 100 years, although I am now starting to introduce some piston plungers over these lagares to relieve some of the extremes of the foottreading.
Temperature control is often refered to as a modern tool. I do not like using temperature manipulation of fermentation, it is dangerous and can interfere with the character of each year/winery. I prefer to control the ambient temperature of these wineries than the temperature of the fermentations themselves. In our Vintage ports, this factor is not one that can be used to talk about "modern day vintage".
Viticulture is a key point, but not a simple one to cover. Fortunately across many of our Quintas, we have many hectares of 0ver 70 year old vineyards, with random mix plantings. These have been fundamental for my own education, and very much the reason why we actively plant up to 10 grape varieties today in our Quintas, and why all of our fermentations are co-fermented.
There are two points here that are important to refer. By owing our Quintas we have total control on both our viticulture and the attention to detail at the time of harvest. I also have the privelage of working together now for 19 years with Antonio Magalhães, our senior viticulturist, together with whom we have developed our viticulture. He is a master viticulturist, and over these years every vine that is planted and every grape that is picked across all of our Quintas has been a joint decision every time.

Roy, I challenge you to inviting Antonio one day for your Guest Corner.

The single most important change in Vintage Port has been the quality of fortifying spirit that we use today. Here the improvement is massive, and considering that it makes up 20% of every bottle, it is significant. I have no doubt that this is evident in every vintage Port we have produced since 2000. When we have been accused of making Vintage ports easier to drink young, this is entirely attributable to the much finer spirits that we are now using and which allow the fruit to express itself more. The other very significant aspect is that Vintage Port since 2000 no longer goes through so much of a dumb phase as they used to, again this is attributable to the quality of the spirit where the transition between young and fruity, and bottle mature is so much smoother and pleasant. This is particularly evident in the 2001's at the moment. I challenge you all to go out this week and open some 2001's!!!!!!!

best regards,
David Fonseca Guimaraens

[John M.]

Dear David;

Wow---a BIG thank you for your insights on the way things work and the thought processes therein. Excellent thread and a pleasure to read & learn.

I believe I'll open something Fonseca this weekend and toast you!

John M.

[Marc J.]

David,

Thank you for explaining the behind the scenes process that goes into the production of Fladgate Partnership vintage Ports. I must admit that I was not aware of the impact that the various quality levels of spirit would have on the finished product. In particular, I find it fascinating that higher quality spirit can actually shorten/alter the "dumb" phase. Thanks again!