POLL: Declarations of Vintage Port per decade

[Roy Hersh]

Purist or not, the fact remains, the past decade saw four vintages declared by major houses: 2000 + 2003 + 2007 + 2009

[Glenn E.]

3-4 per decade seems fine to me. I do like the concept of a general declaration because it helps ensure that VP is consistently great. If you see a VP in a store you can rest assured that it's probably pretty good. Do away with the general declaration concept, though, and you'd have to know something about the vintages in order to know whether or not the bottle you're looking at is worth buying.

[Todd Pettinger]

The problem with allowing "all out" declarations is, as Glenn mentioned (and several other has said in the past), you have to become a serious student to know which juice ends up being from a good year. The mystery behind the declaration from only the best years is something that adds to the perceived "value" behind Port.

Although, I do think that a split declaration by a major house wouldn't be the end of the world either... I'd love to see if it there was a good cause for it. NOT declaring for fear of the repercutions of a "split" or because otheres did not shouldn't be something the producer should have to fear.

[Roy Hersh]

Todd,

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thrilled you are "back" again!

[Lamont Huxley]

From a strictly consumer point of view I would be happy to see as many declarations as possible per decade as long as the declarations are being made strictly on the basis of the quality of the wines. If mother nature decides to bless more than 3 growing seasons in a decade with exceptional weather, why argue?

[Roy Hersh]

Lamont (et al.),

At some point it becomes futile to even make declarations if you are making a Vintage Port almost every year. Bordeaux and Burgundy used here just as examples, both make wine even in bad years. They occasionally adjust pricing based on how a specific vintage is viewed. If Vintage Ports were made by a name (other than Calem) 7-8x in a decade, it would change the entire dynamic of how declarations would be viewed and imo, they'd become obsolete, in that case.

[Derek T.]

I think the modern Croft vintages are an interesting deviation from the traditional pattern.

For decades we have seen classic VPs being declared in big years that are a blend of wines from the best properties that a shipper can obtain, either through ownership or by buying grapes/wine. In lesser years the best properties produce SQVPs from grapes grown entirely within the bounds of the quinta.

But we now have Croft 2009 (and, I think, some other recent "classic" Croft vintages) that are made entirely from grapes grown on Quinta do Roeda. So we now have a major producer doing something that, as far as I know, is unique. The vines of Quinta do Roeda will produce a wine in every vintage. In very bad years it will be blended away into other styles. In good years it will be bottled and labelled "Croft Quinta do Roeda". In better than good years it will be bottled and labelled "Croft". So the same wine has two different names depending on the quality of the vintage, but is essentially the same wine every year.

Do any other producers do this in the Douro or in other regions?

[Andy Velebil]

If they declared all the time I don’t think it would render them obsolete, it would however significantly diminish the aura surrounding a classic declaration. Like Bordeaux is now that a certain wine critic seems to declare that every year is the “Vintage of the century.” If you look at the long history of Port declaring a Classic Declaration is a relatively new thing. If you look prior to the depression, especially prior to 1900, most houses released what would be considered a classic declaration most years to meet product demand.

So while maybe a bit confusing to those who aren’t ardent followers of Port, I still like the current system of a classic declaration only when it’s the best of the best. Saving the lesser years for Single Quinta’s or other non-classic bottlings. The adjusted cost between them is, IMO important, as it allows people to still get a great product but at a reduced cost. Hopefully that has the effect of hooking them and will lead to eventual larger sales of VP and other Ports. It also makes it far easier to recognize what is the generally accepted better vintage for some houses.

But the question I have is, how does the current accepted system affect the smaller producers who only release a SQVP and don’t have the ability to have a separately labeled “classic vintage?”

[Derek T.]

But the question I have is, how does the current accepted system affect the smaller producers who only release a SQVP and don’t have the ability to have a separately labeled “classic vintage?”

They could follow the model that Croft now seem to have adopted, e.g.

Quinta do Crasto 2006
Crasto 2007
Quinta do Crasto 2008
etc.

That would allow consumers and the wine trade to differentiate between good and great years.

[Roy Hersh]

Derek,

Using Quinta do Crasto vs. Crasto in your example, may be backwards. With the Roquette's Quinta da Cabreira in the Douro Superior having been heavily planted in the last couple of years, there will be more and more grapes available not only for their Douro wines, but to expand their Port production too (in the near future).

So they may not be able to call the Port -- Quinta do Crasto, at all, if grapes from the new property are included. I have a feeling that Vintage Port may remain with grapes only from the main quinta's vineyards ... just so that ... the name can legally remain as Quinta do Crasto. As you certainly are well aware; but others may not be, 100% of the grapes must come from the specific quinta property to be considered a SQVP and use the Quinta's name on the label. A good example of this is Quinta do Noval. When they blend in other grapes, purchased from producers elsewhere for their Vintage Port, the name Silval is used instead.

But back to Crasto. For non-generally declared VPs where Cabreira fruit is used (in the future) in blends with Crasto's own fruit, then that would have to be labeled as Crasto, not Quinta do Crasto as you mentioned above for examples of 2006 and 2008.

[Derek T.]

Roy,

I wasn't trying to comment on Crasto's vintage ports, just to answer Andy's question about small producers who only produce SQVP. So, I will rephrase my answer:

Quinta do Something 2006
Something 2007
Quinta do Something 2008
etc.

[Roy Hersh]

'Tis one of those "AHA" moments.

[Glenn E.]

A good example of this is Quinta do Noval. When they blend in other grapes, purchased from producers elsewhere for their Vintage Port, the name Silval is used instead.

Not to deviate too much from the thread, but another example is Graham's Malvedos vs Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos. I don't have the precise dates memorized, but for some time Graham used "Malvedos" in the same way that Fonseca uses "Guimaraens" - as a second label. Then at some point in the late '80s (I think) they started bottling a true SQVP using only grapes from Quinta dos Malvedos, at which point the quinta name could be used on the label.

[Roy Hersh]

Derek wrote:

I think the modern Croft vintages are an interesting deviation from the traditional pattern.

I'm not so sure this is as unique as you think, but let's see.

For decades we have seen classic VPs being declared in big years that are a blend of wines from the best properties that a shipper can obtain, either through ownership or by buying grapes/wine. In lesser years the best properties produce SQVPs from grapes grown entirely within the bounds of the quinta.

Hmmm. While that is sometimes/usually accurate, there are MANY examples where it doesn't apply, or I should say where both can be represented in the same year. Back at least as far as 1912, specifically used as an example: the Taylor 1912 VP was declared along with other top Vintage Ports, yet Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas 1912 VP was also declared (and it is a young and brilliant wine), both from the same harvest and property. That goes back nearly a century ... just to make a point. I can think of plenty of more recent examples as I am sure you can as well; that go against the common practice. What we're learning ... and has been stated by both the Symingtons and TFP, (and others) is that there is NO SUCH THING ... in terms of an IVDP regulation or specific "legal" nomenclature, as a "generally declared" vintage. It is a marketing myth as we all learned, from A QUESTION FOR THE PORT TRADE, when this topic was specifically discussed. Obviously, it has been adapted and adopted by the majority of the Port trade but there are some Port shippers that do not follow in lock step. Calem is one such example. I know of a strectch in the not too distant past, where Calem had declared 11 consecutive harvests for their own VP. In reality, the norms of what took place up and through the recent past century, are changing quickly. The line in the sand, delineating the classic VP years that have been declared on average 3x/decade ... is quickly being obscured by more frequent declarations, SQVPs and some shippers who no longer ascribe to the notion that 3x/decade makes financial sense for them. Not to mention the lesser second labels and new projects that we see come and go.

But we now have Croft 2009 (and, I think, some other recent "classic" Croft vintages) that are made entirely from grapes grown on Quinta do Roeda. So we now have a major producer doing something that, as far as I know, is unique. The vines of Quinta do Roeda will produce a wine in every vintage. In very bad years it will be blended away into other styles. In good years it will be bottled and labelled "Croft Quinta do Roeda". In better than good years it will be bottled and labelled "Croft". So the same wine has two different names depending on the quality of the vintage, but is essentially the same wine every year.

In 2000, a year before TFP purchased Croft, their VP was mostly Roêda fruit but also blended from other properties too. It was not until 2003, that Croft went with 100% Quinta da Roêda fruit in their Vintage Ports (and why Roêda was truly the impetus for the purchase of Croft and Delaforce in the first place, the crown jewel, per se, for the new owners ... in 2001). There is one exception to your premise above, which does not negate its accuracy, but in maintaining within IVDP regulations: When named Croft Vintage Port, grapes can still be purchased from elsewhere, although when called Quinta da Roêda VP, they can't. The fact that they only use Roêda fruit today in Croft VP's, is something that may continue and probably will, but they're not limited to doing so. No quibble, just an addendum.

Do any other producers do this in the Douro or in other regions?

Yes, both in the Douro and elsewhere. It is commonplace in AVA/Appellations/DOC's to use the grapes from the same property with different labels depending on the quality of the harvest ... and occasionally ... both primary and secondary labels from the same property/same grapes in the very same vintage. Let's stick w/ Port though for the moment. In some cases, the property providing the backbone for a classic vintage Port, such as Quinta de Vargellas, can be released the same year as a regular Taylor and/or Quinta de Vargellas VV. In that case, it might be that one parcel offers something special ... as in Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha Vintage Port which can also overlap. See example of overlaps below, including all 3 made in 2000.

It also happens in Bdx, Burg, CA etc. and examples can be given if necessary.


Overlaps from the past and present ... and this is only a quick, partial list from memory:

Quinta de Vargellas: 1912/1955/1970/1995/1997/2000/2004/
Vargellas Vinha Velha: 1995/1997/2000/2004/2007
Taylor Fladgate: 1912/1955/1970/1997/2000/2007


As I posted this, I noticed Glenn's post and he is correct in his statement about how Malvedos vs. Quinta dos Malvedos was "utilized" in reality and represented on their labels.

[Eric Menchen]

Not to deviate too much from the thread, but another example is Graham's Malvedos vs Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos. I don't have the precise dates memorized, but for some time Graham used "Malvedos" in the same way that Fonseca uses "Guimaraens" - as a second label. Then at some point in the late '80s (I think) they started bottling a true SQVP using only grapes from Quinta dos Malvedos, at which point the quinta name could be used on the label.

Before that time, they used grapes from Malvedos and a neighboring quinta, so they couldn't call it Quinta dos Malvedos. Then they bought that neighboring property and consolidated them. It is not so much that they switched to only using grapes from the original quinta, but they changed what the quinta was.

[Derek T.]

Eric beat me to it. Malvedos to Quinta dos Malvedos is a change of name only, the land that the wine comes from has remained constant.

Roy,

I think we are talking about different things here. Your identification of years where a port shipper has produced both a classic blend and an SQVP in the same vintage is accurate and accepted. But, what I am saying is a relatively rare (possibly new) concept is where the wine is produced from a single quinta, such as the Croft wines from 2003 onwards, and the producer names it as an SQVP in some years and changes the name in years considered to be "Declared" vintages. It is the same wine in the bottle. It does not, as the averagely well-informed Port drinker might think, have the benefit of being made from a blend of the very best wines from a number of properties. It is, in all but name, an SQVP, but is given a name that the consumer associates with a classic blend. I can't think of any other port producer who does that with their vintage wines.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

Not to deviate too much from the thread, but another example is Graham's Malvedos vs Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos. I don't have the precise dates memorized, but for some time Graham used "Malvedos" in the same way that Fonseca uses "Guimaraens" - as a second label. Then at some point in the late '80s (I think) they started bottling a true SQVP using only grapes from Quinta dos Malvedos, at which point the quinta name could be used on the label.

Before that time, they used grapes from Malvedos and a neighboring quinta, so they couldn't call it Quinta dos Malvedos. Then they bought that neighboring property and consolidated them. It is not so much that they switched to only using grapes from the original quinta, but they changed what the quinta was.

To be correct, Malvedos used to be a blend of grapes from the Quinta and three adjoining vineyards. Those Quinta's were bought and incorporated into the present day Quinta dos Malvedos. Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote last year on the Quinta, and which is in a past FTLOP Newsletter...

Originally Quinta dos Malvedos was much smaller in size than it is today. When sold in 1890 the Quinta was only 43.9 hectares (108 acres), and it used grapes from the adjoining three vineyards (Valdossa, Albano, and Assuncao). Over the years these three vineyards were purchased and incorporated into what is the present day Quinta dos Malvedos. This more than doubled the size of Quinta dos Malvedos to its current 108 hectares (266 acres), of which 70 hectares (173 acres) is planted with vines. It wasn’t until the mid-1990’s where all the grapes finally came from the Quinta, and in 1998 the label was changed to “Quinta dos Malvedos” to reflex that.

[Glenn E.]

Originally Quinta dos Malvedos was much smaller in size than it is today. When sold in 1890 the Quinta was only 43.9 hectares (108 acres), and it used grapes from the adjoining three vineyards (Valdossa, Albano, and Assuncao). Over the years these three vineyards were purchased and incorporated into what is the present day Quinta dos Malvedos. This more than doubled the size of Quinta dos Malvedos to its current 108 hectares (266 acres), of which 70 hectares (173 acres) is planted with vines. It wasn’t until the mid-1990’s where all the grapes finally came from the Quinta, and in 1998 the label was changed to “Quinta dos Malvedos” to reflex that.

That's the reference I was thinking of when I wrote my earlier post! LOL... didn't realize I was "quoting" Andy from memory. (And poorly at that!)

[Eric Menchen]

And I was slightly off as well. Thanks for the details Andy.