For The Love Of Port

I was in a "cold beer store" picking up a case of beer as thanks for a buddy who helped me with some woodworking and let me borrow some expensive tools that I otherwise could not have afforded nor finished my job properly without, and saw Smith Woodhouse 2000 VP on the shelf for $160 + tax. Needless to say, all twelve bottles were on the shelf.

I asked the kid behind the counter if he had any idea what 'that stuff' was and why it was so expensive. He shrugged, and muttered something about "I don't make the prices man."

Needless to say - 12 bottles remained on the shelf after I was gone. Probably will remain here until 2050 when $160 for a 2000 Smith Woodhouse might actually be considered a decent price!

Moses Botbol wrote:Wow, I see that (Ramos Pinto 20-yr old Tawny) for around $300 a case around here!

Where?!? Gimme!!! :lick:

It's $55-ish per bottle around here when I can find it, which isn't often.

The worts I've spent. Was a Royal vintage 1980, boutgh in 08' for 76$.
It was in decline, in poor condition. It even wasn't worth 1$. Undoubtedly, this one has been my worse Port purchase.

In the scheme of things I am not a real fan of "worst" lists ... when it comes to wine or Port. Too negative and so many great ones and good ones.

However, I have no issue when coming across something that should be avoided, mentioning it publicly, so that others can either take my avoid and DNPIM or if they ignore it ... try 'em for themselves to see. Either way ...

Offhand I can't recall one worst value port but there are stores in town where every port on the shelf is poor value. There's a store like that in every town I guess.

There are many definitions of value, as elaborated upon by Stewart, but ultimately it lies in each person's pocketbook. I suppose one can differentiate between a value and a bargain, a value being pleasure or quality for a lower price versus and a bargain being a good price for what one's buying.

However I don't accept the rating game and that we can judge ports on a score per dollar basis. Ratings and scores are useful in determining how good a port is but it is not definitive. It is a subjective attempt to assess how the port will perform over a long period of time, and during this time the port may not always be at its "best". I've seen too many wines and ports receiving markedly different scores from different reviewers. Often the same reviewer will offer different scores for the same port or wine over a period of time referring to the date the it was scored. So to say that two ports with a 95 point rating is tantamount to being the same thing is incorrect. Cannot an LBV, a tawny, and a VP, get at the same score, especially if it's at its peak drinking pleasure?

It boils down to being an individual choice. I gave up the opportunity to buy the 2000 Nacional for about C$600 because I was about to embark on a year-long backpacking trip. Sure it was a good deal. At the time I was told that I could double my money the moment I set foot in Portugal. It was probably the right decision at the time but my guess is that it will soon drift into the regret side of life. C'est la vie....

Mahmoud.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:So to say that two ports with a 95 point rating is tantamount to being the same thing is incorrect.

Just to be clear, that's not at all what I'm saying. They're obviously not the same thing. And I agree that comparing ratings from different tasters is at best perilous since ratings are subjective. I also understand that no two bottles are identical, so a seemingly identical bottle of wine may get a different rating on a different date.

However, if rating systems have any use at all, then a 95 point rating must mean something consistent at least within the ratings of a single taster. Saying that wines are magical and each experience is different is just playing apologist for a rating system that is meaningless.

If a German Riesling receives 95 points from a particular taster, and that same taster gives a Spanish Tempranillo 95 points, then on some level that taster believes that those two wines provide equal enjoyment, are of equal quality, have equal potential, or some combination thereof at the time of the respective tastings. The two wines most likely received their ratings for different reasons (especially since in this example one is a sweet white while the other is a dry red), but they did receive the same rating and so must be of equal quality (again, on some level and at the time they were tasted).

One can then use those ratings to compare the two wines, and if the question is one of value then the less expensive of the two wines is by definition the better value.

The more we talk about this in different threads, the more convinced I become that wine (and Port) ratings are useless. The systems are plainly broken and meaningless because no two people view them, or use them, in the same way. I'm beginning to think that there's no point in working toward being able to provide my own ratings because no one will truly understand them and they'll just propagate the ratings myth.

Glenn, with respect to German white wine you are implying that it has to be sweet to receive a score of 95 or more, or that all German wines are sweet. I can confirm the latter is absolutely not true, and the former is not necessarily true.

In the current issue of Wine Spectator a German wine priced at $35 was scored 95 points. I am pretty sure, not having the exact information in front of me, it was ranked in the QmP system no higher than Spatlese, which would be off-dry or dry.

As a postscript, the German wine in question is the 2007 Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt Riesling Scharzhofberger Spatlese, 95 points, released at $34. If this price does not go up before the next WS Top 100 list (seems to me like an early contender for a top ten or five ranking), it almost certainly will afterwards.

Ray Barnes wrote:Glenn, with respect to German white wine you are implying that it has to be sweet to receive a score of 95 or more, or that all German wines are sweet.

Neither, actually. You're making far too much out of an off-the-cuff example of how two 95-point wines could be completely different, and yet still deserving of a 95-point rating.

I am going to have to agree to disagree with you Glenn. Whether the example is off the cuff or not, the secondary facts and assumptions supporting the primary argument should also be accurate. The end does not justify the means. Regardless of the debate about scoring, I questioned your statement about German wine specifically.

My statement is not about German wines, it is about rating systems.

I imply nothing about German wines in general in my statement. I created a hypothetical sweet German Riesling, a hypothetical dry Spanish Tempranillo, and used them as an example to make a point. Somehow you incorrectly infer from that statement broad generalities about all German white wines... a leap of logic that I cannot follow.

Besides, if my statement implies what you say it does then by the same logic your statement implies that no German Riesling that receives a score of 95 or better can be sweet. Somehow I doubt that's what you're really trying to say.

I will let others comment upon this particular thread if they so choose. I do not feel it is worth pursuing at this time. You have said your peace and I have said mine.

Ding Ding..back to the corners ye 'ol mates The best part of this forum is that at times we can agree to disagree. If we all had the same views it would be a boring place and Cruz ruby would be the Port of choice :hello:

Andy Velebil wrote:Cruz ruby would be the Port of choice

:devil:

Well said Andy and thank you. Glenn and I likely cannot reach a mutually amicable position on this issue, and further comments back and forth would almost certainly create more problems than it would solve.

Andy Velebil wrote:Cruz ruby would be the Port of choice :hello:

Fired.

The more we talk about this in different threads, the more convinced I become that wine (and Port) ratings are useless. The

I kind of tend this way as well Glenn, unless it is a taster that i have followed over time as someone who appreciates wines similar to my tastes. Then I rely on his or her scores that are calibrated to my own tastes. Foolproof? No. But at least I get in the ballpark. I have a few folks on this site who I regularly go out and pick up a bottle to try based solely on their nod of approval and/or score. There are even fewer on this site whom I seem to have similar tastes enough to go out and but a whole 6 pack or even a whole case blind.

So to me scores are irrelevant unless the 'scorer' mean somehting to you. For me that might mean Parkers high scores need to lay in my cellar for a deacde or more until they become approachable to my palate.

During a visit this summer (june 2009) I had Andresen Colheita 1910 direct from barrel. It's worth it - every cent. This is what it's all about. Thick as melted caramel. So intense. So complex. So raffined. Just kept on going - it just kept hanging in my mouth for hours. One of my top port experiences - 99-100 points. I was informed that you can have a bottle for 900 euro.

Waking up next morning - is that the 1910 I can taste...???

Best regards
Henrik

Henrik,

In June 2007, I opened a bottle of the 1910 Andresen from my cellar and it was quite good indeed. Your score is quite a bit higher than mine, but that may be because we were having 30 Colheitas at that quality level going back to a pair of them from 1815. Many from the 1800-1900 vintages. I truly find Andresen is a very solid producer. I have never met Mr. Andresen although we email back and forth during the year on occasion. Seems like a great guy!

Have a look at this article ... you'll get the picture, literally.

http://www.fortheloveofport.com/port/wo ... 957-7.html

Ray Barnes wrote:Well said Andy and thank you. Glenn and I likely cannot reach a mutually amicable position on this issue, and further comments back and forth would almost certainly create more problems than it would solve.

Ray,

I think perhaps you should re-read Glenn's posts. I don't think Glenn was expressing a view on the topic you seem to think he was. Even if your reading of the words makes you think that, I am happy to let you know that having met Glenn and exchanged many emails, PMs and posts with him I think he was genuinely commenting on the validity of scoring systems using a couple of random hypothetical wines as examples to prove a point. It's not worth falling out about something unless you are both talking about the same thing

Just my

Derek