For The Love Of Port

Derek Turnbull wrote:JGlad to see we got your blood boiling - I will expect to see your ship looming on the horizon any minute now

Derek - we ARE coming... Cambridge, Oxford, <any British University) cellars - beware.

I do however agree with you for the most-part - VP truly is meant to be enjoyed AFTER its 30th anniversary for most houses... sometimes after 15-20 years.

Problem is, being young(er) I tend not to have ANY old VPs available to me and as I have demonstrated in other threads... import duty, taxes, base cost due to exchange rate, this all makes VPs not all that affordable for us in Canada anyway.

Sometimes a (young) Vintage is all you have available to you and you need to try SOMETHING with the massive body and strong fruit/tannins.

Sometimes a young VP is decent to track there per month.

Todd

The XXXXX guy says this : Variety IS the spice of life . . .
Life is too short . . . so drink 'em old or drink'em young but dag nabbit drink 'em !!!!!
Point finale .

Wow,

For starters I am glad that I was locked out of the site this wekend and unable to do a pretty heated reply to this ridiculous rant. I have to say that the post is a pretty classist and Portist (is that a word?) take on when and how to drink Port.

The worst part about it was I was in Tuscon this weekend showing the site and forumn to a friend and occasional port drinker and this was the second post we read aloud. After I just had gotten through how open, unpretentious, knowledgable, welcoming, and willing to share information on Port you all are, my friend and I read this post and he said, "that seems pretty snooty, how the heck can I afford to buy 25 year old Port?"

I think the more Port, young or old, that gets consumed by more people the better. Can we steer people to keep their mits off of the '94's for as long as they can stand? You bet.

Todd very adequately covered many of the points which I share on this matter. I just have to add that as an employee of a small NGO I already devote 10-15% of my gross salary to wine purchases. I'm blessed and lucky to be able to do that and dilligently budget wine into my financial planning. But that includes all my wine consumption in addition to Port.

Would I buy and drink nothing but what the "experts" agree has reached maturity if I could afford? Most of the time. Would I still add young ones into vertical tastings for comparison, oh yeah. Am I glad the '92 taylor was one of my first VP's....hell yeah! I might not be here today if it was an over the hill '63. Unless the occassion warrants the opening of one bottle of my 12 that are considered mature, my only choice is to send one to an early grave. I try as much as possible to purchase 375's for this purpose.

Remember, this site is likely filled with those most serious about Ports and that not most everyone else who drinks the occassional VP has the financial means and luxury or even place to procure mature VP's.

I just think the post goes against the whole nature and feeling I get coming to this site...drink, experiment, share opinions, find opinions, figure out which wines your lucky enough to have in your cellar that should stay there for a few years, and most importantly taste, taste, taste.

Scott

Ok, some of you dont like the fact that some of us cannot see the point in drinking ridiculously immature ports. That we dont think you need to taste a Port thats 4 years old and it then then in some cases it will transpire you never actually try the same Port in 20 years time when its at its prime.
Fair enough. Its a world full of opinions and variety.
So in that vein, I'm going to reconsider.....and start drinking it all with lemonade.
Viva la difference!

Alan

Scott,

I think we may have an Atlantic divide here. I also think, with all due respect, that you are slightly missing the point.

Mature does not necessarily mean expensive. Yes, mature classic vintages like 1963 and 1966 are expensive wherever you go but there is a lake full of port from the 1970's and 1980's that is fully mature and in many instances the same price or less than the younger equivalents.

For example, look at these current low end retail prices for Fonseca VP in the UK from http://www.wine-searcher.com tonight:

2003 - £40
2000 - £40
1997 - £35
1994 - £65
1992 - £40
1985 - £40
1983 - £32
1980 - £68 (blip?)
1977 - £60
1975 - £30
1970 - £60

I am sure if you repeat this exercise for almost any house you will see a similar pattern.

I don't think that it can be argued that the only way to find a reasonably priced Fonseca is to drink the 1994, 1997, 2000 or 2003 when you can buy the 75, 83, 85 and 92 for the same money or less. That said, price and availability may well tell a different story in Canada.

From the prices above I find it particularly noteworthy that the 1985, one of the best ports money can buy, is the same price as the 2003 yet has been cellared at someones expense for 20 years from bottling and is far more drinkable, although will last decades from now. In that context, the price of the 2000 and 2003 are excessive and not good value for your hard earned cash.

On one specific point you raised, I can assure you that Alan is not "classist" and I am sure he would say the same about me. We both work for a living like you do and spend what we can when we can on our passion for port. We are expressing an opinion on when we think VP's should be consumed, not pontificating about who can afford to buy them. What this Forum is all about is having the opportunity to express ones opinion. If you disagree with that opinion then disagree, but please do not suggest that the conversation should not be had.

I appologise if you took offense from this thread, I can assure you none was intended.

Derek

how the heck can I afford to buy 25 year old Port?

In the UK, 25yr old wines are generally cheaper than those at first release -

- crazy? Yes - but true.

In our cramped Old World we are often very envious of the ample space in the New World - but for specialist products that are sold in small quantity, the abundance of space conspires against efficient distribution.

Then there is the ethos that has propelled the USA economically - the instinctive impatience, the need for immediate results.

You can almost write a Bob Newhart sketch:

'OK so you want me to buy these bottles - well, hey, they're pretty cool looking and that's a really neat looking polished wooden box'

'So who do we sell them to?'

'OK...so we don't sell them - we just put them in a dark damp room and wait for... - HOW MANY YEARS??'

'OK, OK, we've bought your bottles, we've put them in this dark damp room for twenty five years, and then we take them out and they'll be just OK right?'

'OK, so the labels will be rotten, and the boxes falling apart - probably.. and we have to hold the bottles up to the light to check how much has escaped over the years - and well, excuse me for saying this Sir... - but are you really a businessman??'

It looks like we really need to ship some old (patient) world bottles over..

Tom

uncle tom wrote: It looks like we really need to ship some old (patient) world bottles over..

Tom

I think Jay already has a plan

Derek

Despite the time stamps, I believe that Alan, Tom and I posted our reply's without reading the others - all typing at the same time. I think this proves the point that there ae many different ways to approach any issue

Derek

I no longer think it is an American thing that we drink our wines young..or the perception that we do. In older, more simpler times, people were more patient. Houses were larger and a good number even had cellars (even here on the west coast of the US). People bought things such as furniture, wine, and heirlooms to pass on to their decendants.

As times have changed, housing has gotten smaller and more expensive, families are getting smaller, and things are now made cheaply and are disposable. People live in the "now," to use the term. I look at Parkers wine board and people (from all countries) are drinking wines younger and younger. Seems as times are a changing, so to is the patience to cellar any wine for long periods of time.

I guess some of us are the exception to the new world order....

Andy,

Ever the diplomat

You know as well as I do that we think of you as our lost second cousin, doing all you can to live a civilised lifelstyle of manners, patience and good taste - one day we will let you move to the motherland, right after you learn how to use cuttlery

Derek

No, no personal offense taken (I was just speaking up for the little guy!) nor was I trying to be personal in implying that Alan or anyone was classist. I am looking at the comments made and am always game for lively discussion I apologize if I may have implied anything personal as that is not my intention at all.

I may have been missing the point on a bit of the discussion, but I also think that the mere suggestion of drinking only mature VP misses the points I am making as it applies to a majority of Port drinkers in this world. That most VP drinkers, myself included, do not have the resources (time or money) to access fully mature VP's if they do not have the prices and availability of retailers which you are lucky to have in the UK.

I might suspect that we on this forumn represent a mere fraction of folks in this world who enjoy Port and consume it with even infrequent regularity. Most people's exposure to VP is at their local retailer. Here in Alaska, and many retailers across the US you will not find prices and certainly not availability like the ones you list here.

Unfortunately in my entire state (and being in Alaska I may be an anomally compared to the rest of the US), there are literally only a few 77's and 85's at retail prices which are more than double those at auction. Even 20 yr tawnies go for $50 US.

It took me a handful of years to figure out and get a feel for VP prices at auction and then a bit longer to find which auctions to use and then figure out how to bid at that auction, and finally how best to ship those wines to Alaska. Most people...I would venture a majority of VP drinkers are just not going to do that if mature VP is not easily and relatively cheaply available to them. So even strongly suggesting as Alan did in his post that we only drink mature VP's and leave the testing to experts suggests that we leave out a vast majority of Port drinkers in this world. And we all know we can't afford that as we are few and far between these days.

It turns out that even my Port loving friends have no time for this on their own and have employed me (with free tastes) to procure bottles for them at auction.

Low Retail: Price does not inlclude delivery to me...usually $6.50-$15.00 per bottle
2003 - $75
2000 - $65
1997 - $55
1994 - $180
1992 - $95
1985 - $85 (Chicago--2,750 miles from me)
1983 - $70 (NY)
1980 - $60 (Missouri--2,800 miles from me)
1977 - $214 (New York--3,500 miles from me)
1975 - none on wine searcher US
1970 - $175 (NY)

So yes, there are Vintage Fonseca's from the 80's that are available to me for much the same price as current releases. But the point I was making is they are available from all differing retailers whom i don't know (thus don't trust) and who just might charge $20 for shipping each bottle they stored upright next to a heating vent for 14 years.

It's hard being a Port loving fool living in the far frozen North!

Scott,

I fully accept that living in Alaska puts you at a disadvantage when buying port. However, the "vast majority" of port (VP) drinkers live in either the "mainland" USA or the UK. I don't think we have your excuse for only drinking the few that are available. The bottom line is, if the US generated a market for 1980's VP someone somewhere in the UK would satisfy the need. That said, I hope they keep drinking the young expensive stuff and leave all this cheap mature stuff to us

Derek

Scott,

I just noticed that I inadvertantly accused you of being Canadian - can you ever forgive me, please? :?

Derek

Derek,

Are you kidding me? These days I wish I was Canadian :!: :!: :!:

Scott

Scott,

Actually, you are - just declare independance from the oppressive regime and enjoy the freedome of a guilt free life 8)

Derek

Yes it does put me at a disadvantage living where I do--especially with the liquid travel ban nowadays. But looking at the wine-searcher prices:

1997 - $55

1970 - $175 (NY)

Would I rather buy 3 '97's drinking one too young and knowing I have two more for ten and twenty years down the road?
Or should I buy just one '70 and be done with it?

It is a tough call and one which I make with some regularity. And sometimes I go for the three bottles and just give the infant plenty of decanter time. Heck this scenario is the reason I purchase some first growth bordeaux and current VP releases--so that I am not faced with this same decision 20 years from now

Scott,

I would accept the argument if you could quote prices for 1975, 1980 and 1983 that were significantly higher than your 1997 price. Fonseca 1970 isn't a fair comparison with 1997 when it comes to buying bottles for regular drinking

Derek

Yes good point. But like I am saying, with limited resources do I......

#1) Buy the one '70 to enjoy this weekend for $175

#2) Buy three 97's, one to enjoy this weekend, the others in a few decades for $155

#3) Buy three 80's to enjoy over the next few years for $180

According to my wifes budget you get to only choose one. :?

The answer is #3 - then, when your wife next spends money on shoes, buy a 1970 and 3 x 1997's and hide them away so she doesn't see them

Derek

PS: Seriously, look into exporting 1983 and 1985 VP's and Single Quinta 1980 to 1990's from the UK - it may be worth the effort financially compared to the younger ports

Oh wait....I think I conveniently forgot to mention the "personal" credit card account. Sometimes you may just have to choose all three