A 'dumb" question about vintage declarations

[Jay Hack]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Portuguese wine fascists (as opposed to the French wine fascists) have imposed a rule that a producer cannot declare more than three vintages per decade. Maybe I dreamt that rule, but maybe not. I have reviewed Roy' tasting notes, and it does appear that no one has more than 3 declarations per decade, at least not that I could find. So since most houses had 3 declarations in the last decade by the time 2007 was done, what happens if 2009 is another 1945? I did once have a 1945. I was REALLY DELICIOUS and it would be a shame to waste something of that quality.

[Eric Menchen]

It is not a written rule. I was going to write that it is an unwritten rule, but even that might be implying too much. It is a practice of the big houses with more British historical ties. Taylor, Grahams, ... never more than three per decade. But go look up Quinta do Vesuvio, Niepoort, ... There are plenty of houses that will release more than three times per decade. Some of this is marketing, some of it is history, and there is also a technological element to it as well.

[Jeff G.]

didn't sandeman release a 70, 72, 75, 77 ?

i know dow has a 70, 72, 75, 77

ferreira has a 70, 75, 77, 78 i believe

[Glenn E.]

didn't sandeman release a 70, 72, 75, 77 ?

i know dow has a 70, 72, 75, 77

ferreira has a 70, 75, 77, 78 i believe

Any set that includes '75 doesn't really count as a counter-example, as there were a lot of other considerations that went into that particular declaration.

Even so, it's really just sort of a rule of thumb. Same with no back-to-back declarations and not declaring any year that ends in 9.

[Jeff G.]

or the affinity to declare anything ending in 7

[Jeff G.]

How about noval

60 63 66 67?

[Glenn E.]

I thought the 1967 Noval was a Nacional? Did they declare both?

[Jeff G.]

I thought the 1967 Noval was a Nacional? Did they declare both?

indeed they did

acutally one of the few houses you can do a single vineyard vs vp tasting of the 66 and 67 side by side

[Andy Velebil]

I thought the 1967 Noval was a Nacional? Did they declare both?

indeed they did

acutally one of the few houses you can do a single vineyard vs vp tasting of the 66 and 67 side by side

And in 1983 as well, with Quinta do Noval's Quinta do Marco and Quinta do Silval. Two small sub-plots on the Quinta. And to make matter even worse, there is an actual Quinta do Silval very near to Noval, that is not part of Noval and which by agreement they can't use that name on their labels.

[Peter W. Meek]

...and not declaring any year that ends in 9.

I still say that is because most houses have used up their self-imposed 3-per-decade by the time years ending in "9" come around.

They are really going to feel stupid if a "9" comes around that should have been a "declaration of the millennium".

[Derek T.]

...and not declaring any year that ends in 9.

I still say that is because most houses have used up their self-imposed 3-per-decade by the time years ending in "9" come around.

I think it is more likely that they want to declare years ending in 0 {nice round numbers = marketing man's dream}, so don't use 9 to avoid back-to-backs. The only 0 they have missed this side of WWII is 1990, which was immediately followed by the 91/92 split. But that's a whole different debate

There definitely isn't a rule, written or unwritten, which limits to three per decade. I believe the choice of most of the major shippers to limit themselves to this frequency is (a) a genuine attempt to keep the quality of "Declared" years as high as possible and (b) a reflection of the balance of commercial reality in that the percieved value of the product would be adversley affected if they declared too often against the need to declare regularly enough to provide cashflow to support the manufacture of the product.

Just for interest: when the Symington's produce a Quinta do Vesuvio in a year that they are also producing the premium VP from other houses they refer to it as being "Declared". When they produce a Vesuvio in "off years" they refer to it as being "Released".

Derek

[Lamont Huxley]

This is a great thread and brings up a number of questions for me:

So has there ever been a year that was particularly outstanding but was not declared due to this general rule of thumb? And on the flip side, has there ever been a year that was not up to standard but was declared just because it was a good number for marketing (Not including '75 which I know had political factors behind it)? Other than 2000, which would understandably be a very desirable vintage from a marketing standpoint, it's hard for me to imagine a declaration being made solely based on a "0" or "7" on the end of the year.

In a good year that isn't generally declared, where do the grapes go that would have otherwise ended up in the VP? Are they used for LBV? Colheita? Rubies? Or does it just depend on the particular producer and their individual product line?

I've got a few more but I don't want to toss out too many at once...

[Glenn E.]

So has there ever been a year that was particularly outstanding but was not declared due to this general rule of thumb?

Several, I think. 1987 and 1967 would both fit into this category (due to '80, '83, and '85 in the former case, and '60, '63, and '66 in the latter), though it might be argued that 1966/1967 was a split declaration. 1978 and 1995 probably both could have been declared as well, but don't fit the "rule of 3" reasoning - in both of those cases it was likely to avoid a back-to-back declaration (vs 1977 and 1994 respectively). 1978 I'm not that sure about, but I've heard that the few SQVPs declared that year are outstanding.

And on the flip side, has there ever been a year that was not up to standard but was declared just because it was a good number for marketing (Not including '75 which I know had political factors behind it)? Other than 2000, which would understandably be a very desirable vintage from a marketing standpoint, it's hard for me to imagine a declaration being made solely based on a "0" or "7" on the end of the year.

1975 is the only one I know of. In 2000 they were lucky, I guess, because the vintage is quite good in its own right and fully deserving of a general declaration. But I agree with your closing thought here - I can't imagine them declaring a "bad" year just to get to 3 simply because they're more concerned about quality.

In a good year that isn't generally declared, where do the grapes go that would have otherwise ended up in the VP? Are they used for LBV? Colheita? Rubies? Or does it just depend on the particular producer and their individual product line?

Yes. Sometimes they declare a single-quinta VP, sometimes they use the grapes for LBV, sometimes they use the grapes for Colheitas... it varies from year to year and producer to producer. Personally I like it when the use the grapes for Colheitas!

[Lamont Huxley]

Thanks for the answers Glenn. I'd never heard that '78 was a good vintage and don't recall ever seeing one for sale but I'll keep an eye out.

Personally I like it when the use the grapes for Colheitas!

Lucky for you there doesn't seem to be any rule about not producing Colheitas in back-to-back years

[Tom Archer]

I'd never heard that '78 was a good vintage

With good reason - a '78 horizontal in London is remembered for being the most disastrous offline ever..

The Vargellas isn't too bad, but almost all the others we could muster were pretty awful..

..the flipside is that the VPs from the '82 vintage, despite a mauling from Richard Mayson, are generally showing rather well now; although they are not built to last forever.

Tom

[Glenn E.]

With good reason - a '78 horizontal in London is remembered for being the most disastrous offline ever...

Well crap... I must be mis-remembering something then. Not an uncommon occurrance these days, I'm afraid!

[Jeff G.]

1978 I'm not that sure about, but I've heard that the few SQVPs declared that year are outstanding.

/me looks at his last remaining 78 Fonseca guimareans and thinks to himself ... "Outstanding? Yes, yes it was"

[Roy Hersh]

I agree Jeff. That is the "other" top 1978 along w/ Vargellas and Ferreira is also pretty decent, but not up to par with the other two.

[Andrew E]

I'll add another slightly dumber question. About how long until a new vintage like the 2009 shows up on the market.

[Cynthia J]

Andrew - No question is ever dumb, we're all here to learn from one another. A vintage, whether brand-name or single quinta, if it is declared, will be declared roughly 18 months later - so, as you've probably noticed from other threads in the Forum, 2009 is just being declared, or not, about now. The reason for that timing is a) time to assess the wines' development and quality and to trial possible blends, and b) IVDP regulation regarding when we must bottle it if it's going to be Vintage - we have a window of time which works out to 2 years after harvest, give or take a few months either side. Again, regulation forbids our shipping before 1st May, though exactly when the wine is shipped thereafter is up to the producer, and of course your retailer as far as when it gets to you. Classic vintage brand declarations are made available for sale "en primeur" meaning, you can buy before the wine is shipped. Single quintas... depends on the house policy. At Symington Family Estates, the rule is we age it in our lodge, and release the wines when ready to drink, usually around 10 years old. Exceptions being the single quinta brand, Quinta do Vesuvio, and the Dow's Senhora da Ribeira which are made available en primeur. Also, very occasionally, if the single quinta wine is just extraordinary, we'll put it out en primeur.

@ Lamont Huxley, I'll stick my oar in there too...
Regarding 3 per decade. as everyone has said, there is no regulation driving that. From a winemaker's perspective, Mother Nature is just too capricious a wench to LET us produce more! Wines of the power, complexity and quality to last 50 to 100 years just don't happen every year - think about it, is there any other class of wine from which you routinely expect that kind of longevity? Ok, Madeira. But any table wines? The single quinta wines made in off years by the brand names are beautiful, but don't often have the structure for ageing 50-100 years, you'll want to drink them younger. Finally, for a little extra added confusion, there are some "brands" that are in fact single quintas - the two I know and love being Quinta do Vesuvio and Quinta de Roriz - which make ONLY Vintage Ports, no other styles, most years, depending on quality. These are cases where the quinta is extraordinary, due to the indefinable magic of terroir, and can in fact produce a high quality vintage port most years.

Even in a Vintage year, not all wine produced goes towards Vintage Port (for the brands which make a full range of port styles, forget Vesuvio and Roriz now). The rest of the production is assessed for suitability for other port styles and is aged accordingly, and continuously re-assessed. By regulation we have to keep substantial quantities of wine in stock, ageing. And we couldn't make all those fabulous aged tawnies if we didn't. In a year in which no Vintage is deemed possible or desirable, the wines can still be of a perfect quality for use in other styles of Port. I've only once heard of things being so bad a couple parcellas of grapes went into the mulch pile without ever seeing a lagar. Shudder...

Years that should have been declared and weren't... I can't believe no one has named 1931! Occasionally, as in 1931 and during the War years, vintages were not made for economic reasons (world depression, no one out there to buy it, really), though that may be less of an influence now, can't say. I admit to being a bit useless at understanding the commercial side of the business. Hope I've helped more than confused further! Cynthia