Top 10 Port Vintages of the 20th Century

[Roy Hersh]

http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2012/0 ... t-century/

[Moses Botbol]

Does this vintage label look at little odd in the article?

[Derek T.]

I spotted that too. Very bad journalism.

The article is quite superficial and simply seems to be a collection of random thoughts of a few in the trade. It isn't really a serious sattempt to identify the best vintages of the century, more like an attempt to pick out one or two per decade. The fact that 1975 is included in the other vintages of note just about sums it up for me.

...and to include 1985 and exclude 1966 is simply nonsense!


Derek

[Glenn E.]

The article is quite superficial and simply seems to be a collection of random thoughts of a few in the trade. It isn't really a serious sattempt to identify the best vintages of the century, more like an attempt to pick out one or two per decade. The fact that 1975 is included in the other vintages of note just about sums it up for me.

...and to include 1985 and exclude 1966 is simply nonsense!

+1

I don't have a big problem including 1985 without 1966, though I understand what you're getting at, but to even mention 1975 in such an article exposes the lie. '85 vs '66 is forgivable... 1975 is not.

But looking further back, can 1931 really be included on the strength of just one Port? I can't recall ever hearing about that year except in conjunction with Noval. That doesn't sound like a stellar year to me, it sounds like a single magnificent exception.

[Moses Botbol]

...and to include 1985 and exclude 1966 is simply nonsense!

Including 1985 as one of the best of the 20th century was a stretch, as is 2007... That's 21th century.

[Derek T.]

I don't have a big problem including 1985 without 1966, though I understand what you're getting at

Really? 1966 is one of the most consistently stunning vintages in recent tastings, often beating 1963. I don't think 1985 is anywhere close to either of those vintages with the exception of one, perhaps two, stand-out wines.

I completely agree on 1931, although the financial situation of the time will mean we will never know what other producers might have been capable of.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

I spotted that too. Very bad journalism.

The article is quite superficial and simply seems to be a collection of random thoughts of a few in the trade. It isn't really a serious sattempt to identify the best vintages of the century, more like an attempt to pick out one or two per decade. The fact that 1975 is included in the other vintages of note just about sums it up for me.

...and to include 1985 and exclude 1966 is simply nonsense!


Derek

+1 as well.

It was odd to include some that they did, such as 1985. A good vintage for a few producers, but to call it one of the best of the 20th Century is just plain stupid.

[Andy Velebil]

I don't have a big problem including 1985 without 1966, though I understand what you're getting at

Really? 1966 is one of the most consistently stunning vintages in recent tastings, often beating 1963. I don't think 1985 is anywhere close to either of those vintages with the exception of one, perhaps two, stand-out wines.

I completely agree on 1931, although the financial situation of the time will mean we will never know what other producers might have been capable of.

Derek

Agree about leaving out 1966. IMO, with some obvious exceptions, they are holding up better across the board than the 63's given they are only 3 years apart. Then again, is it just that old perception lingering in the media that 1966 wasn't thought of as being that great?? Can't complain about that as prices haven't gone that high since they don't talk about it all that often.

[Glenn E.]

Really? 1966 is one of the most consistently stunning vintages in recent tastings, often beating 1963. I don't think 1985 is anywhere close to either of those vintages with the exception of one, perhaps two, stand-out wines.

I haven't had much luck with 1966. To me they seem like the producers were trying too hard to live up to 1963 and so they often seem like at one point they were probably over extracted. Of course that's no longer the case at 46 years old, but I find a lingering bitterness in a lot of them, and sometimes also quite a bit of heat.

On the other hand, I've had great luck with 1985. Graham, Fonseca, and Dow are all fabulous. Churchill, Smith Woodhouse, and Gould Campbell (especially GC) are superb. Actually now that I've written that, I like the GC better than the Dow. Taylor is a little lackluster to me, but that "only" drops it down into the low 90s.

So it could easily just be my experiences with the 2 vintages, but with only that to go on I can understand including 1985 and not including 1966 despite the general concensus around here. But if someone would like to help me understand the 1966s better, I'd be happy to gain more experience with good bottles from that vintage.

[Glenn E.]

...and to include 1985 and exclude 1966 is simply nonsense!

Including 1985 as one of the best of the 20th century was a stretch, as is 2007... That's 21th century.

The thread here is mislabeled. The actual title of the article is "Top 10 iconic Port vintages of the last century" so 2007 qualifies.

I'd still argue that 1975 doesn't belong in an article about iconic vintages, though that could explain the presence of 1931. 1975 is only "iconic" in the sense that Port enthusiasts have heard of it because of the issues surrounding it. 1931 deserves to be called iconic simply because of the Noval and Noval Nacional. You can't discuss great Port without one or both coming up in the conversation.

And that might also explain 1985 over 1966... since "iconic" sort of by definition means more "how well known is it" vs "how good is it" then 1966 gets docked simply because the original hype was that it didn't compare well to 1963.

[Marc J.]

I spotted that too. Very bad journalism.

The article is quite superficial and simply seems to be a collection of random thoughts of a few in the trade. It isn't really a serious sattempt to identify the best vintages of the century, more like an attempt to pick out one or two per decade. The fact that 1975 is included in the other vintages of note just about sums it up for me.

...and to include 1985 and exclude 1966 is simply nonsense!


Derek

+1

IMHO, I would have expected 1955 to have made the list, but apparently that wasn't the case. 2007??? Really????

[Andy Velebil]

1931 deserves to be called iconic simply because of the Noval and Noval Nacional. You can't discuss great Port without one or both coming up in the conversation.

I disagree about 1931. It is not an iconic vintage as when 1931 is brought up only Noval is mentioned. So is it really a "Top" vintage of the last century? I'd argue no it isn't. One or two (even three) Ports doesn't make a vintage one of the top of the century. In 1931 about a dozen were declared. Yet has anyone ever talked about, let alone tried, anything but the 31 Noval's? Heck even a check right now of the TNDB only shows TN's for Noval, with one each for Croft and Robertson's.

Of course one could argue the "potential" of 1931 as being great. But sorry, that doesn't work for me as we could say 1987 should then be considered as one of the best vintages too. But no one would argue that as it wasn't a "classic declaration."

[Roy Hersh]

1975 and 2007. Really? I would take either 2000 or 2003 before 2007. Several glaring mistakes in this article. It seems like research went only as far as what was TOLD to the author and that Port is not his strong point. I am sure two dozen FTLOP Forumites could put together a better list.

[Andy Velebil]

1975 and 2007. Really? I would take either 2000 or 2003 before 2007. Several glaring mistakes in this article. It seems like research went only as far as what was TOLD to the author and that Port is not his strong point. I am sure two dozen FTLOP Forumites could put together a better list.

That's what I was thinking as well.

[Glenn E.]

1931 deserves to be called iconic simply because of the Noval and Noval Nacional. You can't discuss great Port without one or both coming up in the conversation.

I disagree about 1931. It is not an iconic vintage as when 1931 is brought up only Noval is mentioned.

I dunno... I get what you're saying, but I think that qualification applies more to a "top" vintage than to an "iconic" vintage. 1931 can be iconic just because it produced the best Port ever made. But that one (or two, depending on who you talk to) Port isn't sufficient to call 1931 a "top" vintage. But again to be fair, the article doesn't try to call it that - the article is about the top 10 iconic vintages of the last century.

To me, iconic just means everyone has heard of it. And I think anyone who knows even a little about Port has heard of 1931 because of the Novals. 1931 is easily more iconic than '45 or '55 or probably even '48.

Along those lines... I guess I'd have a hard time calling any of 2000, 2003, and/or 2007 iconic vintages. They're too new to deserve the label. I'll give 1994 a pass on youth since it's at least old enough to vote now.

1966 isn't iconic - mass market perception (such as it is for Port) is that it's the lesser sister of 1963 which gives the iconic nod to 1963.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that 1985 isn't as good as 1966, but it's irrelevant. Regardless of opinions on quality, 1985 is the most well-known Port vintage from the 80s which gives it a leg up on a lesser sister from any other decade.

[Eric Menchen]

I'll vote for 1931 as iconic.

[Al B.]

For me, an iconic vintage is a vintage which someone would choose, if they had a passing knowlege of port and were offered a glass any year they wanted from the last 100 years.

While I disagree with the list (and with what appears to be the relatively lazy way in which it was written) I did enjoy reading the article and can't criticise the writer too much - after all, none of us could find the time to write the article instead of the author!

I reckon the list is 70-80% accurate to the list I would have chosen. If I use the definition of iconic as above, I would have come up with the following list:
1912 - especially this year
1927
1931 - lots of people with a passing port knowledge know of the reputation of the year, even if based almost totally on only 2 wines
(1934/5 were were not put on the list, although jolly good!)
1945
1948
1963
1966 - although likely only chosen by people with a better, if passing, knowledge of port vintages
1970
1977
1994

You need to have time to develop an iconic reputation, and sometimes the reputation is based on initial publicity which later turns out to have been a bit on the optimistic side. 2007 just cannot be iconic yet, in my opinion.

[Roy Hersh]

And I don't see 2007 ever earning that distinction, either. I'd rather bet on 2011 than 2007.

[Andy Velebil]

I'd rather bet on 2011 than 2007

You must have read the 2011 weather report

[Shawn Denkler]

1931 belongs on the list. It certainly has the great Quinta do Noval and the Noval Nacional which are iconic, everybody has heard of them. Many people who do not drink port have heard of the 1931 vintage because of Noval. Fonseca, Graham, and Taylor did not declare so the vintage reputation rests on Noval.

But was it a great vintage or was only the microclimate at Quinta do Noval perfect. The problem is we will never know. At mentioned in The Drinks Business article many houses did not declare the vintage because of the large amount of unsold 1927s and the world wide depression. Bruce Guimaraens told me that after World War 2 so many 1927s were still available that they were opened and poured as ruby port in England.