For The Love Of Port

1983 Cockburns takes the cake for me, it stands as the most obnoxiously TCA ridden wine I have ever tasted outside of a lab. Interestingly enough, another bottle was one of the better I've had in the last year.

Andy, I know Nacionals are tremendously pricey even in their lesser years. If you could pay any price on the '83, what would you pay? I'm only asking as it sounds like it just failed to deliver in a QPR sense, rather than an absolute sense.

Bradley Bogdan wrote: I know Nacionals are tremendously pricey even in their lesser years. If you could pay any price on the '83, what would you pay? I'm only asking as it sounds like it just failed to deliver in a QPR sense, rather than an absolute sense.

$100ish for me.

1994 Cockburn's was a great port early on, then shut down to no avail.

I would avoid the 2000 Kopke LBV, a horrible swill it was.

The 1976 Warre's Colheita is a sweet & spirity mess.

Kurt Wieneke wrote:

1994 Cockburn's was a great port early on, then shut down to no avail.

And Al B. referred to it above, too.

Well, 10 bottles of this just sold at auction for $320, add 18% buyer premium and it went for $37.76/bottle--I thought it a rather low price and checked it out here on FTLOP as I thought it would be a good one to bid on---NOT. Thanks for the info--you both saved me!

1994 Cockburn will turn around and end up being a lovely port IMO. It may not be showing well as of today, but the final chapter is far from being composed just yet.

Well then, perhaps someone got a nice deal...I'm rooting for it. Nothing sadder than a bad bottle of port when expectations are so hopeful.

Except for 1983 Cockburn's when TCA rears its ugly little head.

Andy Velebil wrote:Adrian has stated there is bottle variation in both the 1977 Fonseca and Taylor's, more so in the Taylor's. From my own empirical evidence from opening a lot of 1977's, and from talking about this vintage (and surrounding vintages) with many producers, there is a general agreement the cork industry was/is the primary source of problems around this time frame. One can't fault the producers, as we've all seen when these bottles rock they rock. But as Rob has pointed out, there is some serious bottle variation not to mention the massive TCA issue as well.

I'm getting to this debate late in the day, but something that Andy says above seems wrong to me.

If you buy a luxury car and find out later that the brakes don't work, would you blame the car manufacturer or the guy who made the brakes?

The person or the company who takes my money for a product is responsible to me for the quality of that product. I don't care a single jot who he or they paid for the components. That is not my problem.

If I open a corked bottle of Port I blame the shipper, not the cork producer. The shipper had a choice. He chose a shit cork and gave me a problem.

Just my

Derek T. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:Adrian has stated there is bottle variation in both the 1977 Fonseca and Taylor's, more so in the Taylor's. From my own empirical evidence from opening a lot of 1977's, and from talking about this vintage (and surrounding vintages) with many producers, there is a general agreement the cork industry was/is the primary source of problems around this time frame. One can't fault the producers, as we've all seen when these bottles rock they rock. But as Rob has pointed out, there is some serious bottle variation not to mention the massive TCA issue as well.

I'm getting to this debate late in the day, but something that Andy says above seems wrong to me.

If you buy a luxury car and find out later that the brakes don't work, would you blame the car manufacturer or the guy who made the brakes?

The person or the company who takes my money for a product is responsible to me for the quality of that product. I don't care a single jot who he or they paid for the components. That is not my problem.

If I open a corked bottle of Port I blame the shipper, not the cork producer. The shipper had a choice. He chose a shit cork and gave me a problem.

Just my

But what if your only choice is a "shit product" but you don't know it's a "shit product" at the time you got it?

With current technology to test corks I would agree with you 100% as it relates to more current wines. But back then there wasn't the scientific means to test for certain things like there is today. And there wasn't a huge choice of options since almost all corks come from their home country or neighboring Spain. So it was kinda like buying a car back in the old days. They broke down often and after a short warranty period you were on your own.

The question is, do I think the current owners/companies should do something. The short answer is, generally yes they should. A question that is different than laying blame for a faulty product, as the VP which was made wasn't faulty in and of it self.

I am willing to bet that it was possible to detect TCA in 1979. I would be amazed if such a simple chemical identification was impossible a decade after we put men on the moon and a few decades after we managed to explode atoms.

That aside, any producer of any product who chooses to blame his supplier when HIS customer is disappointed is not going to come top of any customer service survey. If I tried that in my business we would be dead in two or three years.

Producers have, and always have had, a duty of care to their end customer. Choosing to use faulty components, whether intentionally or through an act of neglect or omission, does not absolve them of blame.

Derek T. wrote: That aside, any producer of any product who chooses to blame his supplier when HIS customer is disappointed is not going to come top of any customer service survey. If I tried that in my business we would be dead in two or three years.

How many of us have been buying Cockburn Vintages since being stung on '83? Cockburn should replace the bottle with another vintage. Not only does it make Cockburn out to be a hero to consumer, it allows the consumer to try a vintage they may've not considered or tasted. Maybe they'll buy a few more bottles just because they are new fans of the house and their management?

2012 has not been a year of many great surprises for me - of the veteran vintages, 1942 has shown itself to be finer than I had previously given it credit, and of the younger ones, 1994 is a year that really needs to be left to emerge from it's teenage blues.

A couple of years back I devised a relative vintage ranking system to cover the 48 year period from 3 years back to 50 years, grouping vintages into six sets of eight - Alpha to Zeta - with the top two in each group accorded a plus and the bottom two a minus.

Vintages are ranked according to combination of a) Quality and b) Diversity. There is obviously a good measure of subjectivity involved, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Updating the list for 2013 has required very little work - the incoming 2010 vintage seems very slightly better than the outgoing 1962, and besides that, few adjustments have felt necessary.

This is my list for 2013:

Alpha

1970 +
2003 +

1963
1966
1994
2000

1977 -
2007 -

Beta

1997 +
2009 +

1967
1987
1991
1992

1983 -
1985 -

Gamma

2004 +
2005 +

1980
1996
2001
2008

1986 -
1995 -

Delta

1964 +
1975 +

1982
1990
1998
2010

1978 -
1988 -

Epsilom

1972 +
1976 +

1965
1974
1999
2006

1984 -
1989 -

Zeta

1979 +
2002 +

1968
1969
1971
1981

1973 -
1993 -

Don't know that I agree with your assessment of the 1994's at this current time. Last month we had a blind tasting of 1994 VP's and I must say, nearly all of them showed up to their full potential at this stage (18 years old). Only one of them was "arguably" closed at the time. Long decants did make a difference.

Roy Hersh wrote:Don't know that I agree with your assessment of the 1994's at this current time. Last month we had a blind tasting of 1994 VP's and I must say, nearly all of them showed up to their full potential at this stage (18 years old). Only one of them was "arguably" closed at the time. Long decants did make a difference.

Roy
I look forward to your comments/notes on the '94s. I am pondering when to start drinking my Grahams and Warres.

Interesting list Tom, the only year I'd disagree the most would be 96. I'd probably swap it with 99 or 98.

the only year I'd disagree the most would be 96. I'd probably swap it with 99 or 98

1996 is a bit of mixed bag. It's ranking is largely supported by the Vesuvio, which on recent encounters, I have judged to be as good as, if not better, than the '94..

Tom Archer wrote:It's ranking is largely supported by the Vesuvio,

And the Nacional, which is very good.

Tom Archer wrote:

the only year I'd disagree the most would be 96. I'd probably swap it with 99 or 98

1996 is a bit of mixed bag. It's ranking is largely supported by the Vesuvio, which on recent encounters, I have judged to be as good as, if not better, than the '94..

I'll have to try the 1996 Vesuvio again. I'm partial to the 1998 Vesuvio -. And the 1994 of course.

In a recent horizontal of 1994's, I found the wines with a proper long decant showed very well, some even great. Our last flight of 1994 Graham's, Fonseca, Vesuvio and Taylor ... was likely the single best flight of four I had in all of 2012. I don't find them closed/dumb at all, the other four were also quite good but not on the same level (Dow, Gould Campbell, Warre and Niepoort). You'll see the TN's in the newsletter that should be released tomorrow.

Ok, it is now time to bring this topic into the year 2013.