For The Love Of Port

English bottled - no label or any sign that it ever had one. Acquired some time ago from a Cambridge auction as ex. college stock - (I didn't prise open my recently acquired owc).

Identified by the capsule - the cork is so lightly branded, it is hard to discern the date. Bottler unknown.

Decanted 3pm. Came very cleanly off a huge sediment. Green glass is so much better then brown...

In the decanter, a noble ruby - typical for it's age.

First sip - only a hint of bottle stink - good on the palate, but not mind-blowing - finish is a bit fiery.

I think it will be better this evening and tomorrow.

More anon..

Tom

9pm - a glass proper

In the glass it could hardly look better - a deep majestic ruby with just a hint of bronze and clear meniscus.

Bouquet is also superb - rich & venerable.

On the palate it slides down effortlessly, with a flash of fire on the finish, but is perhaps a little lacking in body and flavour - it's almost as though too much has come out of the wine and gone into that mountain of sediment..

But this is a class act, and in no way going over the hill. Indeed it might yet improve a little over the next few years, but whether it will plateau for a long time I am not sure - perhaps not enough beef for that.

This is certainly a good wine to enjoy now

Lets see how it develops...

Tom

24 hours on and the wine is now very nicely developed - it comes over as having a little more youth and substance now, and I have more confidence in it's ability to stand the test of time.

Like the W77 I had last December, the passage of a day has added a flash of purple to the colour.

However, whilst there is good consistency of style, this is definitely the better of the two.

Tom

Tom,

I will not be opening my bottle until Sunday. Where do you think the peak is based on your 3 tastings so for?

Derek

Bouquet was better after 6 hours than at 24, but slightly better on the palate after 24 hours.

If I was going to present a bottle at a dinner party, I'd probably decant at breakfast time the same day.

Tom

and if you were to rate the Warre 1970 VP on a 100 point scale, where would you judge this wine to be?

I couldn't wait and opened my bottle on Thursday. Apologies Tom for cutting in on your note - impressions as follows:

On decanting No sign of any leakage and a nice solid cork which came out all in one piece - always a good start. Like Tom's sample, masses of gloopy sediment - the level of wine in my decanter is about 1/2 an inch lower than usual. Colour is a deep dark ruby with a slight tawny hint. Some bottle stink that should blow off. A small sip showing a lot of sweetness and hot spirit.

6 hours The bottle stink has blown off as expected and a glass proper shows a pretty, almost floral wine - a bit firery still.
Needs more time to unravel.

24 hours Nice mature bouquet now - a bit gamey even. Rich sweet plummy flavours and a texture as smooth as our week old baby's bottom. This would be a really lovely glass of port but for that finish which is just a bit too hot to make the balance really top notch.

48 hours Fading now, except for that finish which is as firery as when it was first decanted and which it still prickling my tongue well after the last swallow.

Overall, I agree with Tom that this is very good port but for me, it lacks that wow factor that would put it in the top drawer - the main culprit being the hot finish which never seemed to blow off, even after two days. Nice wine, I enjoyed it but I won't worry that I just drunk my last bottle.

Apologies Tom for cutting in on your note

No apology needed - parallel commentary is really interesting.

You are right, the fire on the finish is the one notable downside to this wine, but I don't de-merit too severely - a fine wine with a notable bite on the finish is perhaps more of a characteristic than a fault.

~~~

Roy, by asking for a rating on a 100 point scale you are presumably asking for 'Parker points'.

If you look through my 500-odd posts on this site, I don't think you will find any Parker scores of my own - indeed, I'm not sure I've ever referenced a Parker score from someone else.

Now I've nothing personal against Robert Parker, and I think in the long term the historians will be quite kind to him - as someone who blew away some of the unpleasant snobbery that surrounded Bordeaux, in particular.

But I've looked closely at Parker's rating system, have tried it out, and compared it to the opinions of published critics.

Weighing it in the balance, I find it wanting.

Firstly, if I apply his rating system, strictly, and as published, I arrive at scores that are typically five to ten points lower than those of professional commentators. There has clearly been some 'Grade creep', and there is now an unhealthy focus on the number 90.

Secondly, his system is strongly biased towards his own personal preferences, giving far more weight to bouquet than does the typical wine consumer.

Thirdly, the system is prone to absurd outcomes. A bottle of Tesco wine vinegar can claim a score of over 60...

Fourthly, the Parker approach to maturation is to rate wines as an estimate of their quality when fully mature. However, this is horribly vague, and, I think, not properly observed by many who publish scores.

It is my view that no-one can accurately and consistantly rate wine on a scale that has 100 divisions.

Now all this is nothing new. Some venerable London wine merchants use a 20 point scoring system that, magically, never rates a wine they sell at less than 15.

Broadbent uses a five star system, which, with the addition of the terms 'poor' and 'avoid' amounts to a seven grade scale. This is closer to what is realistic.

After much thought, I personally think a rating system should reflect no more than that which a reasonably competant consumer can differentiate.

I also think there should be no redundant points in the system, and in the case of wines that develop significantly in the bottle, a distinction should be made between a wine's ability to provide immediate gratification, and it's likely perfomance when mature.

Thus two scores should be routine for Vintage Port.

Where a wine is already mature, and appears set fair on a plateau, the two scores should be marked the same. Where a wine is felt to be in decline, the second score should be one or two points lower, depending on the taster's perception of the degree of decline.

Where a wine is young, raw, but promising; the first score might be very low, but the second score much higher.

Parker emphasises the need to keep within peer groups - this I agree with. A Vintage Port should not be rated against a Tawny or LBV.

Within the overall spectrum of Vintage Ports, there are a few truly exceptional wines, and a few rubbish ones. The others range from the very good to the pretty poor.

Keeping things in perspective, I think the best system is where you consider where the wine stands, when judged alongside all other Vintage Ports - good, mediocre and bad years alike.

The judging should always be personal, based on the individual's overall impression of the wine, and one should not be intimidated if others differ in their rating.

Out of all the wines, the top five out of every hundred should get a rating of ten, the bottom five a rating of zero.

The other ninety should share the ratings one through nine in equal proportion.

So in other words, there should be eleven grades - zero through ten, with 5% destined to get top score, 5% destined to get bottom score, and 10% each for all other scores.

Using this system for the Warre '70; my opinion of the wine for immediate consumption ranks a score of 9 - my opinion of the wine over the next few years suggests neither major improvement nor decline - so also a score of 9.

So my rating for this wine is 9-9

Tom

Tom

I like your system, particularly the dual score part of it. I have often thought the 100 point scale is a little strange due to the fact that I never see anything rated less then ~85.

I can still get value form others using the existing systems, as long as I know what they are basing their scores on.....i.e. what style they are looking for as the "best" wine. For instance Broadbent seems oriented towards the Warre style. If you like the house style (which I do), Broadbent's system is useful, as long as you understand that Warre from a good year is what he is looking for in a 5* wine. For me then, I would try everything Broadbent rates 5*s because I think we have the same idea of what a very good port is like.

I would also try wines that Roy rates highly, as I learn his style prefrences and rating system.

And of course the "must try" wines would be ones that got consistantly high ratings from Roy, Broadbent, Parker, and participants in this forum. Seems like it would be easy to correlate these ratings but actually its a lot of work getting the results from various sources. But then you run into the problems of someone's palate who you generally agree with being rated down by another (for instance the recent Niepoort differences) significantly.

The real answer (if you can afford the time and money) is to try everything yourself

For me personally, the 100 point system is impossible to use to give my own ratings, perhaps because I lack the experience (or palate), but I cannot break things down into one point differences. To me wines are: "Never buy from this producer again, don't buy, OK, good, very good, and fantastic".

Jay

Tom/Jay,

I couldn't agree more - my ratings go something like Yuck, Mmm, Yum & Wow. I accept that others have far more decerning palates than I do but quite how someone can use a 100 point scoring system to rate wines from 200+ producers spanning 100+ years at all stages of their evolution is beyond me. I remember ranting on about this a few months ago here in a debate about 2003 VP's - my argument was basically that it is ridiculous to suggest that a 98 point 2003 is the same as a 98 point 1963 - whilst the former may show 98 point potential the latter has proven itself through time and has earned it's 98 points. I like the dual score idea as it puts some context around when the wine is tasted.

On my version of the dual score rating system Warre's 1970 is Wow - Wow 8)

My TN is posted in the Virtual Tasting Room - it would be great if you could copy your TN's across from this thread to there to m ake them easier to find in future.

Derek

Derek et al

I couldn't agree more. I have always been a bit mystified by a points system. As you say, I've never seen a Parker score below 80 so presumably, a wine gets 80% of the available marks just for being the right colour and turning up at the tasting. I would argue therefore that Parker uses a 20 point system as the first 80 are effectively redundant. I mean what would be awarded 20 points? Stagnant pond water?

Likewise Jancis Robinson's 20 point system. I subscribe to her purple pages and have never seen a score below 12 - so presumably this is really an 8 or 10 point system as once again, the first 10 or 12 points are awarded just for being fermented grape juice in a bottle.

So we get back to Jay's point that a system with say six or seven grades is more realistic. For my own notes I use "poor, fair, good, very good, excellent and outstanding". I have only had two "outstanding" wines this year, one being Gould Campbell '77 (consistently rated three times since March) and a Chablis Grand Cru 'Clos' 2000 by Fevre, which again is a stunner.

So back to the point in hand - on my scale, the Warre 1970 would probably be 'good' which if it were translated to a true 100 point scale (ie where ALL the points count) we'd be somewhere in the fifties.

I suspect the debate will run and run.

Interesting comments.

I looked again at Broadbent, and noticed that some wines have no stars, but also no cautionary words, so his scale is actually eight grades (although he's a little vague at times).

I don't think the Broadbent system has quite enough divisions - in particular there is too wide a spectrum within his five star band, embracing both the very good and the excellent.

On the other hand, a 20 point scale, (without redundant points) is more than I feel I could allocate to consistently, without presuming skills that I do not possess.

The real answer (if you can afford the time and money) is to try everything yourself

Tasting every VP wine is a great idea, and three decades ago it was not unfeasible to maintain an exhaustive cellar.

But we now have upwards of 200 VP's offered to the market every decade - keeping abreast of all of them would be a bit of a struggle now

I think some people are being a bit modest about their ability to discern - my main difficulty is encountering a flavour I recognise, but suffering a complete mental block when I try to put a name to it!

Tom

uncle tom wrote: I think some people are being a bit modest about their ability to discern - my main difficulty is encountering a flavour I recognise, but suffering a complete mental block when I try to put a name to it!

Tom

This is exactly the problem I have :?

Derek

I prefer the Broadbent scale (not a UK v US thing - I like Parker's clear and concise notes, I just don't like the number system). I think the Broadbent 5/7/8 point scale is just a Wow, yum, yuck thing of his own and it makes sense. Usually, he only gives no comment before maturity or once its gone over. Most wine in the "drinking window" gets some stars.

Anyway........

so are we agreed then, Warre '70 is five star and, well, at least let's say 95 Parker points? Will Roy give it another chance? I've got about 20 bottles left by 3 different bottlers if he wants to give it a go! (And you can still replace them for about $80 each on a good day at auction)

I thought I'd chip in with my views on rating scales. Funnily enough, while I agree (mostly) with what Tom says I still choose to use a slight variation on the Parker rating scale.

The bit of Tom's analysis that I disagree with - and where I also disagree with Parker - is having to rate within the same family of wines. My view is that if I taste a Bordeaux wine and rate it at 90 points, an Aussie Shiraz rated at 90 points and a VP at 90 points then each of those wines brings my taste buds the same amount of "Wow" factor. I'm as likely to buy each of those wines next time I visit the supermarket and the one I take off the shelf will depend on the mood I'm in.

However, the rest I do agree with.

I use the Parker rating system but with the variation that I do not attempt to rate a wine based on what it will become, but only on what it is when I drink it. If I think it will be better or worse then I will attempt to say so in my comments but I recognise that I do not have the experience to be able to predict today how a wine will taste in 20 years.

So the rating system I use is effectively a 25 point scale. If I get the cork out of the bottle and wine into the glass then it gets 75 points. If its stagnant pond water / brown vinegar / cloudy rubbish then it gets no further points. I give additional marks for colour, clarity, nose, initial mouth impact, mid-palate complexity and aftertaste. Next, I "moderate" the scores to compare with an absolute yardstick and with the experience memory of previous wines I have drunk to ensure that their score is reasonable.

The absolute yardstick I use is:
75-80 - 5 minutes of my life I will not get back, hopefully a spoiled wine
80-85 - not worth repeating, but not repulsive
85-90 - pleasant and enjoyable
90-95 - Yum!
95-100 - Wow!!

I've not yet come across a wine I have rated at 100, so you could fairly argue that my scale is 23 points and not 25, but the scale I use seems to work for me. Can I differentiate between a 92 point wine and a 93 point wine? I believe so, even though they are extremely nice wines and the difference between them may be marginal.

Should I be differentiating between them? Do I gain anything from doing so? Again, I think its worth this fine distinction. In an ideal world where I have unlimited funds I would always buy the higher scoring wine but I find it helps me to make buying decisions to look at 2 different wines on a price list and think to myself, "Wine A is the wine I enjoy more but I can't justify an extra £20 a bottle when wine B is almost as good". If I had given both wines 4 Broadbent Stars, I would not have been able to have this internal debate.

Its personal, but it does work for me.

Alex

Of course, one attribute of a wine that is impossible to rate is the 'time and place' factor. Put simply, you could have a glass of port that just hits the right spot on one day when it might crash and burn on another.

Example: A well decanted bottle of vintage port accompanied by a clean glass, a log fire, your trusty labrador at your feet, a bowl of fresh walnuts, the rain & wind howling outside, the 'phone off the hook and the kids at grandma's for the night may just hit a different spot than the same wine served on a blazing hot day when you've just finished re-roofing the shed and what you really want is a cold beer .

Extreme example I know but you get the idea. Now don't get me wrong, it's never the wrong time for a glass of port, it's just that some times are better than others and I know that the 'time and place' factor must in some way affect my 'score'. Guess I'll just have to keep tasting.

and what you really want is a cold beer

That's when you go down the pub instead

Tom

Alex,

To address your point re. relative scoring.

If you score a wine in absolute terms - against all others regardless of creed and colour, then your point holds firm - the good are good and the bad are bad.

The problem is that this is very hard to do.

In another life, I am one of a small team of firework competition judges, where in some categories we are sometimes asked to judge what is effectively chalk against cheese.

We really hate this, because it is impossible to be confident that the outcome was fair.

You cannot produce a definitive argument why cheese is better than chalk, but you can explain why one type of cheese is better than another.

This is why I believe that scoring Port should always be relative and not absolute.

To give a good example, I have in front of me right now, a glass of Graham LBV '82. It bears a remarkable resemblance to a Delaforce '75 VP that I opened at the end of last year.

In both cases I regard the wine to be slowly in decline.

As an LBV, I consider this to be notably better than the median for LBV's. Using my scoring system, I therefore rate it 7-6.

If this were a VP however, I would rate it as one of the less impressive wines, probably a 2-1.

- Thus a significant difference..

Tom

I still can't get my head around this 100 (or is it 25) point scoring system. Especially as wines are judged on their showing on the day of tasting rather than allowing for age or provenance.

For example, I would assume that a proportion of the points are awarded for ageing potential. Let's just say for the sake of argument that there are 10 points available for this. Is it even remotely relevant to award 9 points to a Vesuvio 2003 which has so much to prove and then award 6 or 7 points to a Sandeman 63 because it hasn't quite made it to 30, 40 or 50 years old withour starting to fall apart? No, it isn't :x

Here is a specific example. In 1975 Wyndham Fletcher wrote "It is not undue flattery to say that they [1967's] are reminicent of the 1927's. When our friends Taylor and Croft, after shipping their 66's, brought out their single quinta's [in 67] we were happy to say 'we told you so'" - by 1990 James Suckling rated the Cockburn's 67 at 85 points and the Taylor and Croft 66's at and 89 and 90 points respectively. By 2002 Broadbent had Cockburn's 67 at 3 stars, Croft 66 at 3 stars and Taylor's at 5 stars. Fletcher's opinion at the time he tasted the wine was probably accurate but his ratings now seem silly as only the Croft has maintained it's score throughout the last 30 years with Cockburn's falling away and Taylor's rising to the top.

....and another thing I've noticed - in 2002 Broadbent describes 1997 as "a very good, widely declared and highly priced vintage" (****) and 1994 as "Widely declared. Overall this was a very good vintage..." (****) - in both years Taylor is rated as (*****) - i.e. nothing now but potential to grow into a 5 star wine. Today on http://www.wine-searcher.com the 97 is £40 and the 94 is £80 for the lowest priced merchant who supplies both wines. So, at the age of 5 Broadbent thought the 97 was potentailly as good as the 94 but now it is half the price :x :x :x :x :x

Incidentally, in 2002 Broadbent rates 4 wines from 1927 at 5 star and the highest from 67 at 3 star :? I wonder of MR Fletcher would still think 1967 was the good choice over 1966?

I like Broadbents "potential" scoring for young VP where he rates wines on a 5 star scale but indicates the current and potential rating by using brackets - e.g ***(**) - 3 star today but could be 5 star when it's ready to be judged - I think this system has similarities to Tom's dual score system, which I like as it removes this ridiculous notion tht 2 year old wines can be rated alongside those that have survived and impoved over 50+ years.

It would be very revealing if it was possible to get an accurate drinkability score for a single wine every year throughout it's evolution. Forget potential, what does it taste like now? We might even be able to work out the improvement potential and deterioration half-life of the average VP from each shipper 8)

Derek

PS: This chilled Taylor 1999 LBV is very nice

Broadbent gave the 1970 Warre's 5 stars. Does Uncle Tom in conclusion also give it 5 stars? Will Roy be giving the 1970 Warre's a second chance?