In a brief commentary earlier today, one of the FTLOP faithful joked about my "78 year drinking window" or lack thereof.
I knew he was kidding in a way and got a good chuckle out of it. So in your experience in reading my drinking windows or those of others who review Ports ... what are your thoughts?
Are they a waste of time?
Are they helpful?
Do you pay any attention to them?
Do you prefer ones that are intentionally short (playing it safe)?
Do you think going out on a limb saying 50 years for a great young cask sample, is outrageous?
This is not a poll, nor do you need to answer any of these questions, it is just to help those who are new to Port or short on time.
I presume you are talking mostly about VP. I do not pay any attention to drinking windows because:
1 - As to the start of the window I am very conservative and use the following "rules": 21 years for VP and 15 years for SQVP (maybe when I can afford to buy in larger quantities I will start trying them earlier to try and better understand their evolution);
2 - With old bottles storage conditions and provenance are very important: I guess drinking windows pressupose perfect conditions which is not relevant in many situations;
3 - How mature you prefer the wines is a very personal issue, a mature wine for 1 person may be over the hill for another.
I do pay attention to the drinking windows listed on this site in particular. Because I'm still a relative novice when it comes to port drinking, there is a lot out there that I haven't tried and I'm well aware that a) not all products are equal and b) not all vintages are equal, and that both of these factors will change the drinking window. I'm more than happy to see a large drinking window specified. The most important thing is that it is an honest opinion.
In the world of table wines, at least here in Australia, I think far too many reviewers give very short drinking windows and I think it has got to the stage where it is a waste of time because if you stick to the window, then you won't get the best out of the wine. If I think a reviewer has significantly underdone the drinking window, I'll also begin to wonder how much the review actually knows about the style or the region and I won't trust the rest of the review.
Having said that, Daniel makes some valid points about provenance and personal preference and the 21 year rule for VPs is something that I've applied to the Australian vp styles since my late teens.
My experience with Port drinking windows is that most reviewers/critics don't know what they're talking about. I've seen older reviews, as an example, that say a 1994 Vintage Port should be drunk between 2000 and 2010. Dang! I've missed the drinking window!
In some ways I think it's a definition problem. What, exactly, does the "drinking window" mean to that particular critic? Is that meant to represent just the prime window when the Port is at its best, or is it meant to represent any point during which the Port will drink well? Or as in the example above, is it just meant to represent the opening of a very long and unpredictable window?
Personally, I do like very young VP. But I would never say that a 3-5 year old VP is in its proper drinking window! For most Vintage Ports I'd say that 21 years is a good time to check on their development, but that they're not going to be mature yet. Most good Vintage Ports won't be mature for at least 30 years, and the great ones will need 40, 50, or more to fully mature. But that doesn't make for very good advertising copy. "Buy this Port now! But don't drink it for another 30 years!!!"
So for the most part I ignore them. I can get a better idea of when a Port will be ready to drink by coming here and reading the notes in the TNdb.
Are they a waste of time? - Generally. Port is one of the longest lasting wines.
Are they helpful? - Not really. A review of how it tastes is important, not their drinking window estimation.
Do you pay any attention to them? - Just for laughs if one says a Taylor VP has a 20 year window for instance.
Do you prefer ones that are intentionally short (playing it safe)? - Yes they do and it makes them look foolish.
Do you think going out on a limb saying 50 years for a great young cask sample, is outrageous? - Not at all. How many 1963 and 1966 VPs are "past their prime" assuming good storage?
Are they a waste of time? In general, yes, because while you can get a reasonable take on whether a young VP is a serious long haul player that will need many years to mature, you only begin to get a feel for the back end of the drinking window when a port is 20-25 years old, and if it's a heavyweight you can still be left guessing after 50 years.
Hazarding a guess as to when a VP will be mature enough to start drinking is a fair call, but any attempt to predict the end of the window will only leave the writer looking foolish in years to come..
I think that it helps people like me, who aren't expierienced enough, don't attent port tastings a lot, don't open 2 or 3 bottles a week to try, etc, etc, to decide for themselfs if a VP is at his peak or is going to last another 20, 30 or 40 years. So: yes, it is helpful to me and I appreceate it when someone writes down or tells me (next to a review) that a bottle I want to purchase, or open or keep in my cellar is holding up for the next couple of years.
If the reviewer is consistent, and you can calibrate your palate with their recommendations, then it's useful; but I guess that's the same with any type of review.
I truly believe that even with cask samples or young just "finished" bottlings can be deciphered by folks who regularly and over many years, evaluate lots of them. I don't think that pinning down a specific five year period is practical or even anywhere near being accurate. But I think an experienced winemaker/blender or qualified critic should be able to assess whether a VP will last 15-25 years or in the 30-40 year range or beyond 50 years, per se. I disagree with your comment that, "any attempt to predict the end of the window will only leave the writer looking foolish in years to come.."
I don't think that pinning down a specific five year period is practical or even anywhere near being accurate.
I didn't - I said you only begin to get a take for the end of the drinking window after 20-25 years.
For example, Fonseca '85 is now 26 years old, and is still very immature - I'm hesitant to predict a start to its drinking window, let alone call the end. Taylor '85 on the other hand is now drinking reasonably well, and you can sense that it is unlikely to make particularly old bones. Tentatively I would guess that it will have its best years in five to fifteen years time, but will still be very acceptable (if properly cellared) in another half century.
I disagree with your comment that, "any attempt to predict the end of the window will only leave the writer looking foolish in years to come.."
Can you any name any past writers who have attempted to call the end of the drinking window for port, and have not been proven wildly inaccurate?
What I'm interested when reading a review is whether a port is closed down and how long it is likely to need to come out of the closed phase. It's also useful to read in a review whether a port should be considered to be past its peak and starting to dry out.
Beyond that, drinking windows for port don't mean much to me because I have been lucky enough to have had the chance to drink a fair range of ages of port and know what to expect from different shippers and vintages. However, I can see that some guidance would be useful to people who are just starting to develop their experience with port. But perhaps all that is needed is the sort of drinking window that Berry Brothers use on their website - keep, will improve if kept but can be drunk now, ready for drinking but will keep, drink soon, drink up, past it.
I can illustrate this with some examples from the 1970 vintage ports:
Hutcheson - past it, avoid
Borges, Carvalhas, Gonzalez Byass, Royal Oporto, Sibio - tiring, drink up
Butler Nephew, Dalva, Noval, Offley - fading slowly, drink soon
Andresen, Barros, Cockburn, Croft, Gould Campbell, Graham, Kopke, Martinez, Morgan, Niepoort, Quarles Harris, Sandeman, Warre - ready for drinking but will keep
Dow, Fonseca - will improve if kept but can be drunk now
While there might be some debate around the wines on my list and which category they should be in, the broad approach should be accurate. The real challenge in an exercise like this is trying to predict in which category the 2007 ports will be in, say, 2030 when they are 23 years old. That's the challenge that seems to really cause experienced palates to struggle. Look at James Suckling's drinking windows in his Vintage Port book!
I was looking for some information about the 2000 Smith-Woodhouse VP today and stumbled over this article: http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/ ... 2000-ports
When I look at the drinking window advice of the Vesuvio I must have done something wrong as I just bought a case two weeks ago.
I've always respected Jancis Robinson for her articles, but this indeed looks a bit foolish. Then again I really do appreciate the thoughts and advice on this forum about drinking windows, a port being shut or past his prime, etc. And I know that all depents on provenance too, but please keep up the good work!
Monique Heinemans. wrote:I was looking for some information about the 2000 Smith-Woodhouse VP today and stumbled over this article: http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/ ... 2000-ports
When I look at the drinking window advice of the Vesuvio I must have done something wrong as I just bought a case two weeks ago.
I've always respected Jancis Robinson for her articles, but this indeed looks a bit foolish. Then again I really do appreciate the thoughts and advice on this forum about drinking windows, a port being shut or past his prime, etc. And I know that all depents on provenance too, but please keep up the good work!
The Vesuvio window in the article is funny :)
The Smith-woordhouse 2000 is a nice VP, i have several. I drank one earlier this year. Really nice but leave it age some more.
This does make me wonder if maybe I should try one of my 2000s, but I do think those windows are a bit silly. Delaforce and Kopke in 500ml seem like reasonable candidates.
Al B. wrote:What I'm interested when reading a review is whether a port is closed down and how long it is likely to need to come out of the closed phase. It's also useful to read in a review whether a port should be considered to be past its peak and starting to dry out.
IMO, still the best advice on drinking windows I've read. Sums it up nicely!
Port, especially VP's, can have wildly different maturation time lines for a given vintage depending on producer and product. So the above is great advice on a per bottle basis.
considered to be past its peak and starting to dry out
But how often have writers called the incipient demise of a port, only to see it bounce back again?
Almost every such pronouncement on a VP under 35yrs old has seen the subsequent embarrassment of the writer..
The problem I see is most writers are not really Port drinkers. They review Port only once in a great while when they have to, usually on the heels of a classic declaration. Suckling was probably the closest to a Port drinker back many years ago, but in reality did he really drink that much Port other than the bit he tasted when young and the odd older bottle someone shared with him from time to time. I'd say many here are better adept at evaluating older Ports than most wine reviewers simply as they drink older Ports far more often.
Though I do agree that as we're finding out, Port can and often does go through weird phases even when quite older. The top 1960's have bounced back a little bit from recent years ago when they were mostly drying out and dying and thought to be mostly done.
I am curious to what effect modern winemaking and better quality brandy will cause it to do. We are in uncharted territory in that regard.
![[cheers.gif]](./images/smilies/cheers.gif "Toast"){kind=small}
![[shrug.gif]](./images/smilies/shrug.gif "Huh?"){kind=small}
as I just bought a case two weeks ago. 
