2000-2009 VP's

[Tom Archer]

Anyone want to hazard a guess about Tawnies?

- No!

Good tawny years sometimes run hand-in-hand with good years for VP, but more often seem to emerge from years that were otherwise rather lacklustre.

I can't ever recall a producer predicting that a particular year was going to triumph for tawnies, and suspect that there's only a limited amount that can be foretold; and that beyond that, it's a case of wait and see!

Tom

[Rob C.]

Anyone want to hazard a guess about Tawnies? On the down side, it'll probably be decades before you know whether or not you're right.

Though Niepoort has a 1998 out and Quevedo a 1996, so i imagine it won't be too long before young colheitas from the early part of the 2000 decade start hitting the shelves.

[Tom Archer]

so i imagine it won't be too long before young colheitas from the early part of the 2000 decade start hitting the shelves

There is a Krohn 2000 colheita on the market already, although I havn't tried it yet. I had their 1997 a year or so back and was not greatly wowed, but it might come round after another decade or three in bottle..

Tom

[David Spriggs]

I had their 1997 a year or so back and was not greatly wowed

Hmmmm.. I rather liked the 1997 Krohn Colheita. Especially for the money, I think it has great QPR. Price in the US is $19.99 (£12.50). I also liked their 1994 marginally better.

[Glenn E.]

so i imagine it won't be too long before young colheitas from the early part of the 2000 decade start hitting the shelves

There is a Krohn 2000 colheita on the market already, although I havn't tried it yet.

I've had 2000 Burmester (89 pts) and Dona Matilde (87 pts). I think those are the youngest Colheitas that I've had so far.

[Tom Archer]

It's hard to be certain without the timeline of re-visiting the same bottling every year for a few decades, but the most agreeable colheitas I've had have been bottled after 15 years or more in wood and then laid down for at least as long again.

I've had one or two that were going south, but they tend to be from minor producers, T-stoppered and (I suspect) over filtered at the time of bottling. Most of them seem pretty indestructible as far as aging ability is concerned.

The Krohns are probably being bottled a little earlier than is ideal, and havn't had time to bottle mature; but as it's apparent that they are pricing them very keenly in the US, it might be worth buying a few to lay down..

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

I don't find that Colheitas gain much in bottle. Yes they change, are different and sometimes even better. However, there is ZERO question in my mind that the best place for Colheita to remain ... for improvement ... is IN CASK. After a slew of 19th century and early 20th century bottlings and cask samples while in Portugal two weeks ago, I remain convinced of that fact.

I have had several 2000 and later bottlings of Colheita and last night was sipping a 2002 Kopke Colheita. Some youngs ones occasionally can surprise me and show lots more evolution than their given age, but it is a rarity. I love when it happens, because these are true gems because of their nominal price, but you have to kiss a lot of frogs in the mean time.

[Tom Archer]

Roy,

The problem with long aging in cask is the accumulated sugar content, which after a couple of decades or so begins to negatively impact my appreciation of the wine.

This is obviously a very personal factor - some people may sense no negative impact from rising sugar concentrations, while others may well be much more aware of them than I am. However I don't think you can state definitively that ultra long aging in cask is a good thing.

Recently bottled Colheitas tend come over to me as a little brash and uncouth, and I greatly appreciate the finesse and subtlety that comes from extended bottle age. Again though, this is a matter of personal preference..

..each to their own!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Tom and I are going to joke around for a few posts.

Tom wrote:

I can't ever recall a producer predicting that a particular year was going to triumph for tawnies


I actually have, and on more than one occasion. Sardonically, in each case, it was meant as a knock on the vintage presented in a British sort of way.

[Roy Hersh]

Tom wrote:

The problem with long aging in cask is the accumulated sugar content, which after a couple of decades or so begins to negatively impact my appreciation of the wine.

I disagree 100%.

The concentrating of sugar actually complements the acidity which has also concentrated while in cask. The complexity of this melding is what becomes more interesting the longer the Port remains in wood. It is the exact same dynamic for great Madeira, which goes through a nearly identical wood treatment.

[Roy Hersh]

Tom wrote:

However I don't think you can state definitively that ultra long aging in cask is a good thing.

Tom,

You act like you've never had a great Madeira before nor an ancient Colheita which has rocked your world. Is that the truth? In all seriousness, have you never experienced an old or ancient wood-aged Port or Madeira that you found as complex as any Vintage Port or Madeira? Not better, but as complex?

[Roy Hersh]

Tom wrote:

Recently bottled Colheitas tend come over to me as a little brash and uncouth, and I greatly appreciate the finesse and subtlety that comes from extended bottle age. Again though, this is a matter of personal preference..

Which just goes to show that Tom and I don't always agree on Port. But Tom, I respect your knowledge far more than most on certain facets of Port.

Lastly, I was never discussing which was better: a bottle, or wood-aged Port. I don't know that I could decide one over the other, it is almost as Vintage Port is diametrically opposed to Vintage dated Tawny Port precisely because one ages in wood and the other in the bottle. The flavor of both VP and Colheita are amazing, even if they show totally different flavor profiles.

[Tom Archer]

I can see you've never had a great Madeira before nor an ancient Colheita which has rocked your world

My encounters with Madeiras have been almost universally disappointing. Ancient colheitas only rock my world if they were bottled a very long time ago.

As I said before, - each to his own..

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Tom wrote:[quote]My encounters with Madeiras have been almost universally disappointing. Ancient colheitas only rock my world if they were bottled a very long time ago. [quote]


Honestly I must say that I am sorry to hear that you've never had a Madeira that you found mind blowing, as the upper reaches of where that can take you, is a pretty beautiful place. I respect your choice for bottle aging. I even understand it and appreciate it too. I just can't get past the complexity of wood aged Ports. That doesn't mean I prefer them though.

As I said before, - each to his own..

Amen, me brother!

[Rob C.]

which of the last ten 'popular' decades was the best, and which the worst?

The noughties put up a pretty strong challenge - better I think (marginally) than the nineties, but better than the 60's? - a hard call, and the twenties are in much the same league..

I was mulling over this last night - i do think that for anyone around in 40 - 60 years time, it will be a golden age for port drinking with the 2000 - 2009 decade providing the most amazing range of great ports that will indeed trump the decades you quote.

Now i don't know whether the 2000-2009 "highlights" will be better compared to the 60s or 20s (i.e. ports produced by the big consistent names of the 20s - 90s), but the sheer depth of what will be on offer due to the proliferation of independent producers and single quinta wines (the great Quinta V. Dona Maria 2003, for example), and the return to form of some old favourites (Sandeman, Croft etc.) must be taken into consideration.

More of a concern to me is whether there might be a bit of a desert at some point before then (or at least until the 94s are fully mature), with the 63s, 66s and 70s fading from their current glory (and becoming too expensive for general drinking anyway), the 77s underperforming, and the 80s producing only a handful of long-haul ports....

[Andy Velebil]

Recently bottled Colheitas tend come over to me as a little brash and uncouth, and I greatly appreciate the finesse and subtlety that comes from extended bottle age. Again though, this is a matter of personal preference..

Having just spent some time with my fellow UK Port loving friends, and having a lot of wood aged Ports, several things are apparent. Most UK'ers don't particularly care for wood aged Ports. Nothing wrong with that, just means more for me, but I suspect it's simply a matter of regional tastes and the perception from the UK merchants that there is no such thing as a wood aged Port that can match or beat a good VP in complexity. Most (again I say MOST) extended bottle aged wood-aged Ports become flabby, cloying, and overly sweet. Even a "young" Tawny can impress those who aren't big tawny drinkers.

We had two bottles of 1937 Cohleita's, a Quinta do Noval (B. 2006) and an AJS Colheita (B. sometime in the 1960's based on bottle design). Both sealed with a regular driven cork. The Noval had lots of acidity, depth, and complexity keeping it fresh and lively. The AJS was losing it's acidity, cloudy, cloying, and obviously past it's prime. Same for a 1910 Constantino Colheita bottled in 1971 and a 1934 Dalva Colheita bottled in 1973. It was obvious the extended bottle age hurt them and their best days long past. This mirrors my typical experience with extended bottle age Colheita's.

Of course there are exceptions to any thing...the 1900 Niepoort Colheita bottled in the early to mid 1970's was still fantastic. But Niepoort is one of the very few producers I've seen and tasted who's Ports seem to HOLD after bottling longer than most.

Back you to your quote Tom....I now see where you are coming from taste wise. You seem to prefer wood aged Ports bottled for an extended time when they have lost much of their searing acidity and become more VP like it terms of being more sweetness driven and less acidity driven.

[Roy Hersh]

Rob,

I am not on the same page when it comes to 1980's Vintage Ports. From 1980, 1983, 1985 and 1987 ... all told, there are plenty of fine bottlings during this decade's four top vintages which will go for the long haul and certainly decades from now ... reaching their 40-75 year old drinking window nicely ... just like the 1960/2963/1966/1967 Vintage Ports have done and the 1970/1977's will do too. There are also some way under-valued VP's from the 1980's with excellent prospects for drinking well now and in the future too. Just the way I see it.

[Ray Barnes]

Hello Roy, I would love to hear more about the undervalued 1980s VPs.

I hope the 2963 vintage port was every bit as fine as the 1963. Back to the future?

[Jeff G.]

2003 Fonseca was one of my favorites from that vintage.

i like hte 05s as a the sleeper

the 2009 Taylor though is some fascinating stuff.

I'm on the boat that the 07 is overrated. It's a good, but definitely not a great vintage. It felt more like a Symington's vintage.

[Rob C.]

Rob,

I am not on the same page when it comes to 1980's Vintage Ports. From 1980, 1983, 1985 and 1987 ... all told, there are plenty of fine bottlings during this decade's four top vintages which will go for the long haul and certainly decades from now ... reaching their 40-75 year old drinking window nicely ... just like the 1960/2963/1966/1967 Vintage Ports have done and the 1970/1977's will do too. There are also some way under-valued VP's from the 1980's with excellent prospects for drinking well now and in the future too. Just the way I see it.

Good to hear. I wasn't firmly committing to that position - just tossing it out! And don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of 80s ports which are probably the most heavily represented decade in my cellar for precisely the reason you state. But i think a lot are drinking well right now (hence the implied question whether, across the board, they are as cellar-worthy as, eg: the 70 vintage), and arguably a few venerable names did go slightly missing in that decade (Noval, Sandeman, Croft, Cockburn, even Taylor/Fonseca in 80/83), though I'm sure i could survive on D80, F85 and G85 for a few years if i had to!

My comment was as much aimed as the 71-79 vintages (since i have never been overly enamoured with 77s outside a few notable exceptions) and the fact that with ports from 3 consecutive major declarations of 63, 66 and 70 drinking so well right now, we currently seem to have such a great choice at the "distinguished mature (or nearly mature...)" end that it is hard to know whether next generation will reach such heights across the board in 20-25 years (when I might be drinking 70s as frequently as i drink 45s now ).

But apart from the obvious standouts now, who knows what else time will reveal - maybe 1975 or 1982 will turn out to be the next 1966! (I do rather like some 82s as well - esp Churchill - before you call me out on that one!) Maybe the '94s will come round sooner. Your assessment is encouraging so I'll rest easy that there will be no desert, but I still think port drinkers will be in an even better position when 94/97/00/03/07 (and all in-between) come round and we have Sandemans, Crofts and Novals etc. from affordable mature vintages right back up there with the big boys, together with all of the new producers as well...