Your impressions of recent experiences w/ 1994 Vintage Ports

[Philip Harvey]

I have just picked up this thread and am currently enjoying guess what? A glass of Smith Woodhouse 1994. Spooky.

I bought a couple of cases of halves some time back as at the time, I felt that this would be a wine that would be enjoyable at any stage of its life. So from this small sample, I would agree with Alex that if the Smith at least has a dumb phase, I'm still waiting to see it. It's quit evolved and enjoyable now (a feature I gather of alot of '94s) and it's really not that sweet (which suits me) but that flush of peppery tannins on the finish suggests that it's not about to roll over for a decade or two either.

And as Jay says, with ten years of bottle age for not much more than an LBV - what's not to like?

[Roy Hersh]

It's quit evolved and enjoyable now

Like your comment comparing the price to an LBV, both quotes bring one question to mind:

You are talking about a half bottle, so shouldn't it be a bit more evolved than a 750 would show? And the price ... ditto.

[Philip Harvey]

Dohhhh! Good point.

Mind you, looking at my notes, the full (ie 75cl) equivalent price I paid for the SW 94 was around £17. LBV retails for around £11-£12 a bottle so you may have a point. Anyway, I woudl still prefer to drink a half of this to a full bottle of the usual LBV names (Niepoort excepted of course).

[*sweetstuff]

It's interesting that there are some real differences in the evaluation of this wine on this board. My recent (last three days) experience show a very good and generally well-structured but low-acid wine that seems like it's pretty much fully evolved in the positive direction. No hurry to drink but not much further improvement is anticipated.

Wonder why the differences? Is it merely tasting acumen or experience? (Of course I'm in the less-experienced group).

[Kurt Wieneke]

What is really amazing is the price on these ports, which is in most cases lower than the 2003. A banner year with 12 years of age for less than the 2000 and 2003 vintage? I'll just buy some more 94's. Jay

Jay makes an excellent point here. I have in the last month purchased '94 Noval regular for $60, '91 Croft for $45, and '92 Martinez Eira Velha for $40. At these prices for good quality VP, it makes no sense for me to be chasing uber-expensive 00's and 03's.

[*sweetstuff]

In re: Smith Woodhouse 1994

Strangely, at four days out in my evaluation, this wine picks up structure and I think it's a bit better and worth a bit more cellaring than I first thought. You might want to look at my tasting note once again, since I've added this new information to it.

This is one thing that makes this forum excellent: the attention paid to houses that are not a slam dunk when it comes to purchasing; that is, the value part of the market. I'd buy more of the Smith Woodhouse at this price ($32).

[Philip Harvey]

Kurt and Jay both pick up on a point that has mystified me for some time, and in just about all fields of wine but none more so than claret and port.

Take for example the price of Dow 1980 vs 2000. I have just bought some of the former at a case equivalent price of around £360 (all taxes paid); the 2000 comes in at around £320. OK OK we could argue the nuances of the 1980 vs the 2000 'til the cows come home but vintages aside, we're talking roughly £2.00 per year of bottle age in this case.

Given that professional storage in the UK runs at between £8 and £10 a year, the Dow 2000 would have an equivalent cost to me in 20yrs of around £480 (forgeting inflation ). Sure, the demand for port wine may soar in the next 20 yrs and in 2026 the 2000 vintage may be unobtainable...but then again, maybe not. In any case, I could drop dead before then.

So at this stage, the 1980 looks good value compared to the 2000. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense to buy some now for later but time and time again, history has shown that the current vintage is usually the 'must have' vintage...that is until the next one. And in the meantime, there's a awful lot of wine sloshing around out there.

And don't even think about getting me started on claret...

[Roy Hersh]

Philip,

I agree with the tenor of your posting and absolutely adore the 1980 Dow VP. Pricing aside for the moment, there is another dynamic to consider. In a discussion with Rupert Symington last March, he was clear that the Symington's are making a concerted effort to buy older vintage bottlings of(ex-cellars, to fortify) their own stocks ... AND ... believes that the older vintages of the Symington's VPs as well as other shippers, will become increasingly if not exponentially more scarce in the decade to come. He stated that the vast quantities of many old beauties have either been consumed or have been socked away in Port lover's wine cellars. Sure a case here and there might dribble onto the auction block, but that is only going to help to augment the price as the availability grows more scarce.

So, although I am not hinting at the 2000 Vintage (and whether it will be available in 20 years or not) I do believe Rupert's assertions and think that there is no better time to buy older vintages of Port wine than today, at current market pricing (which is very reasonable in terms of value per age of the bottles/cases).

Now to refocus on this 1994 thread, I know there are still stocks available today of the VPs from this deservedly hyped vintage and plenty shows up on the secondary markets (at this point) ... but given the innate quality of the vintage, does anyone believe these '95s will ever be less expensive? Factor in the low yields/production of this vintage and the '94s become even more worth chasing now. Choosing amongst the top dozen '94s from the producers/shippers that you are familiar with and are tried and true for your palate, is certainly a wise buying strategy.

For the record, I am only alluding to VPs for consumption sake, not profiteering by the "flippers" out there.

[Eric Duprey]

[quote="Andy V."] The lesser houses (ex. Warre, Graham's, Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell, Quarles Harris) on the other hand, I am not very impressed with for the long haul.

Them's fightin' words! :twisted: I have always been very pleased with those 'lesser houses', esp. Quarles Harris and Gould Campbell, which I think are very underrated. But I can see what you mean about them possibly not being particularly ageworthy. The Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell and Quarles Harris are definitely ready to drink now, but I think the Gould Campbell could hold up well.

My favorites of the Symington 94's are Vesuvio, Graham & Gould Campbell. I was slightly disappointed by the Warre and Smith Woodhouse. The tasting at Graham's was my first opportunity to taste the 94's. Most of the 94's I have in my cellar right now are rather oddball ones, like Pocas and Tuke Holdsworth, and I would like to add some stellar ones to the mix. I'm definitely going to seek out some of the Vesuvio, because I think it's a must-have.

[Monique Heinemans.]

I was doing some reading and came across this old thread. I know Roy, it only has been half a dozen years later, but I'm very curious about the thoughts about the 1994 VP's at this stage.
Mostly because I'm trying to back fill my cellar and to my shame must admit that I never ever have had any VP 1994.....
I do have some 1994 VP's from Vesuvio, Graham, Martinez, Romaneira and Churchill in my cellar and wonder if I should start drinking them after reading the commends here over this year.
So gentlemen, after another 7 years, any new thoughts?

Thanks, Monique.

[Eric Menchen]

I haven't had the Romaniera or Churchill, although I own a few of the latter and should perhaps try one some time. I can't really comment on either. The Martinez is nice and I've opened several and will keep doing so, but I'm in no rush. The Vesuvio is even more wonderful, and I'd open them today, but less frequently than the Martinez. Apparently I don't have any Grahams. I do have Taylor and Fonseca. I opened a Taylor recently for a vertical, but otherwise I wouldn't even touch those for a while.

[Al B.]

I haven't had many '94s recently, preferring to leave them for another 3-4 years before I start opening them seriously. Having said that, I do plan to open a Vesuvio '94 this year to see how that is developing.

The '94s I drank last year did give me the reassurance that these are continuing to develop nicely.

[Moses Botbol]

1994 Dow is stunner today. I am trying to wait unitl 2014 before I call start really drinking this vintage.

[Gary Banker]

1994 Dow is stunner today. I am trying to wait unitl 2014 before I call start really drinking this vintage.

If you bring them to my house, I'll ensure that you don't drink them early.

[Roy Hersh]

Hi Monique,

Depending on the consumers age ... I've had several lately: Dow's, Taylor, Niepoort and Vesuvio (2x) come to mind. All were excellent but still quite youthful, but all delicious although on first impression the Niepoort had a minor flaw which blew off by the next evening. If you are 50 or older, I would suggest trying one bottle now and see what you think, with a decant on most about 8-10 hours. However, if you are in your 40's still ... I might wait a few more years to check one out unless you bought multiples. If you are over 60 which I seriously doubt, then drink and enjoy at your leisure.

[Monique Heinemans.]

Well Roy, I'm in my very early fifties, so a little while to go I hope. But I'll take your advise and will start opening them occasionally, as I do have multiple bottles of most of these houses and plan to buy more if available.
I'll look out for the Dow, as I always kind of like their style. The Fonseca and Taylor's are no option for me as they are way too expensive here in the Netherlands, can't find them for less than 130 euro, a pity, yet there are so many others to try...

[Jeff G.]

The 94 gould campbell is a dud for me

way too much dried black pepper. unbalanced but i've only tried 1 bottle out of the case.

[Richard Beeken]

Like Moses, I've found the 94 Dow to be drinking very well now especially the 375s - the start of a long, happy drinking window methinks.

[Monique Heinemans.]

Just opened a Churchill '94 yesterday and was very surprised about the colour, almost translucent ruby (like a Burgundy wine) with a slightly brick or orange rim.
I've had a glass two hours after opening which showed surprisingly well. Will try it again this evening and tomorrow.

[Tom Archer]

A few years ago I walked away from opening teenage vintage ports because they were such a bunch of mixed up kids. My minimum age for opening a VP at home now is 18, so the '94s have only just re-qualified for consumption. I've opened just one '94 this year, a Cockburn, which proved a poor bottle with noticeable VA.

Away from home consumption, I'm clocking that some of the 94s are going through a slightly awkward phase at the moment, so I'm in no hurry to put any more on death row for now.