For The Love Of Port

As we near the end of the year, I look back and am glad to have tried many more young Ports in 2006 then in almost any previous year. It was one of my New Year's resolutions that I did keep.

I am wondering about one specific vintage. I have had several this year and a couple last year too. What do you think of the Vintage Ports you have tasted from 1994 ... are they evolving as well as expected? Do you believe that the majority of VPs from this vintage will make for old bones? Do you like what you've seen so far?

You need not provide answers to these specific questions as I am more interested in your indepth views of this vintage a dozen years later. Thanks.

Roy,

I don't have a wide experience of 1994, just 2 ports this year - my first '94 VP's so nothing to compare with.

I have had the Vesuvio and Noval Nacional this year. I have both of these noted as spectacular wines and still very thick, dark and very very young. For me these 2 obviously have the legs for a long future. I can't comment on other shippers but hopefully others here will.

Derek

I've had a few this year and last year too. Among them :
Graham's
Dow's
Warre's
Vesuvio
Ramos Pinto Qta Evermoira
Barros from half

Appart from Barros that was a weakly evolved one, all the other ones where showing great fruit, still very young and evolving slowly. Tannins have started soften but not the fruit. After 12 years, these are not shutting down(dumb phase), will they ever have one? Compared to the other Vintage I've tasted in their youth(97,2000,2003) these wines are showing lower acidity. In fact, this is my only concern about their longevity and their harmonious evolution, are these wines lacking acidity to fill the expectation of the critics!?!

I know at least one reputable shipper that shared with me his thoughts and fear that his 94 will not last because it lacks acidity. Though his 94 was highly acclaimed by the critics, he prefers the 95 and thinks it will outlast the 94.

I never had them on release, but I've had a number this year and my overall impression was the major houses (ex. Taylor, Fonseca, Dow's, Vesuvio, Noval and even Quinta do Crasto) are holding up very well and will have a long life ahead of them. Reviewing my notes, these all are still very young and primary, with no signs of fading, with great structure and balance.

The lesser houses (ex. Warre, Graham's, Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell, Quarles Harris) on the other hand, I am not very impressed with for the long haul. I think some of these have entered the drink starting now phase. That being said, they are not on the decline and should hold for a number of years. But they are far behind the others. My notes indicate that several of these are getting some very slight fading at the rim and are not integraing that well.

My notes on the '94 Quarles Harris states, "A bit flabby!"
On the '94 Gould Campbell, "A good drink now - 10 more years."


Overall, my impression is there is a big gap between the producers who nailed the vintage and those that did not.

Andy V. wrote: ........The lesser houses (ex. ... Graham's ....) on the other hand, I am not very impressed with for the long haul.

I hope the Symington's aren't reading this, Andy - are you saying Graham's is considered a lesser house for 94 or in general?

Derek

Using it in the context of the 1994's only.

I was very surprised at the lack luster performance (compared to others) of the Graham's. Of the "lesser" ones I mentioned this will probably hold up the best, but still no where near the Noval, Vesuvio, etc.

Although my experience is limited, my gut feeling is that the 94's are very good wines that are blooming early.

More forward, I would suggest, than both '91 & '85 (but not '83)

There is an element of deja vu in that there is more than a hint of similarity between the '63 & '66 duo, and the '94's & '97's

However, time, as always, will tell..

Tom

I think that the 94's appear to be doing well, and will continue to do so. Contrary to Andy, I personally think the Grahams and Smith Woodhouse are by no means "lesser houses" in 94 :) . The Quarles Harris maybe.

My favorite is the Vesuvio, hands down. But that may well be something in that particular wine that "speaks" to me in particular. I really loved the Noval Nacional 94, but would still put the Vesuvio a little higher. Martinez is right up the too.

What is really amazing is the price on these ports, which is in most cases lower than the 2003. A banner year with 12 years of age for less than the 2000 and 2003 vintage? I'll just buy some more 94's. I just picked up another case of the Vesuvio a week ago. Looking for some Smith Woodhouse currently, which can be had for a song.

Jay

What is really amazing is the price on these ports, which is in most cases lower than the 2003. A banner year with 12 years of age for less than the 2000 and 2003 vintage? I'll just buy some more 94's.

Jay brings up an excellent point. Now that many folks have taken positions with the 2003 VPs, is it the right time (given the advantageous pricing) to back fill the cellar with 1994s?

I appreciate those that responded to this posting and wish that more folks would weigh in on this topic. 8)

Unfortunately I have not tasted many of the '94 ports, only the Cockburn's. My very general assessment based on that experience was that the '94's are holding up extremely well, and have plenty of backbone and acidity to carry them well into the next decade before the good drinking begins. I have a Kopke '94 that keeps whispering my name, so that is next on the docket.

I've had some that were very nice:
- Warre (delicate and lovely)
- Martinez (wow)
- Romariz (not the complexity of a truly great port but very good indeed)

...but also some that were disappointing:
- Graham's (missing structure and complexity)
- Ramos Pinto (strange port)
- Burmester (too evolved already)

I have only tasted one 1994 VP. I found the 1994 Dow to be a very good port, it did not disappoint. The Dow was still very young and probably won't be at peak drinking for another 10 to 20 years. I do have a few 1994 Grahams in my cellar. I'll have to open one of those up sometime soon to see how it compares.

Roy Hersh wrote:

What is really amazing is the price on these ports, which is in most cases lower than the 2003. A banner year with 12 years of age for less than the 2000 and 2003 vintage? I'll just buy some more 94's.

Jay brings up an excellent point. Now that many folks have taken positions with the 2003 VPs, is it the right time (given the advantageous pricing) to back fill the cellar with 1994s?

I appreciate those that responded to this posting and wish that more folks would weigh in on this topic. 8)

I also just bought some more Niepoort 2003, and suspect that what you really want to have at the end of the day is a mix. But I have been focused on 1994 lately as far as purchases go, and to a lesser extent 1985 (fairly cheap as well in the scheme of things). Actually, I buy everything that I have had and liked. And when I hear about something that sounds good, for example on this forum, I buy a single bottle and then if I like it I buy more.

So essentially I cannot go wrong. But if one is limited in funds or ability to locate bottles, the 94's seem like a no brainer. In recent times I have bought the Vesuvio, Grahams, Warres (for the cost of an LBV!!!!) and both Martinez's. Try a single bottle (or if you can find a tasting just try it) and then go for it.

Jay

1994 is the year that I regard as the "cusp" year in my port cellar. In my opinion, 1994 is perfect for drinking today and most are drinking beautifully. Anything younger than 1994 I am generally looking to hold for future drinking (apart from the odd bout of infanticide) and anything older than 1994 is ready now.

1994 in particular is one of my favourite years and sits alongside 1963 and 1966 as "go to" vintages. This shows when I say that in the last 371 days I have had wines from:
Cockburn
Crasto
Dow
Gould Campbell
Grahams
Morgan
Noval Nacional
Sandeman
Smith Woodhouse
and Vesuvio

There are some disappointments in there which I will avoid in the future (Cockburn, Sandeman) and some absolute stars (Nacional, Vesuvio) and a lot of very enjoyable current and future drinking.

My New Year's resolution will be to keep drinking the '94s next year and to see if I can get my hands on some of the highly recommended Martinez that has been mentioned.

And my outlook for the future? I believe that a large proportion of the wines from this year will develop extremely well over the next 2-3 decades. There will be winners and losers, and some of the losers are already beginning to show up.

One thing I have found very interesting is the apparent lack of a dumb period in this vintage.

Alex

I also just bought some more Niepoort 2003, and suspect that what you really want to have at the end of the day is a mix. But I have been focused on 1994 lately as far as purchases go, and to a lesser extent 1985 (fairly cheap as well in the scheme of things). Actually, I buy everything that I have had and liked. And when I hear about something that sounds good, for example on this forum, I buy a single bottle and then if I like it I buy more.

So essentially I cannot go wrong. But if one is limited in funds or ability to locate bottles, the 94's seem like a no brainer. In recent times I have bought the Vesuvio, Grahams, Warres (for the cost of an LBV!!!!) and both Martinez's. Try a single bottle (or if you can find a tasting just try it) and then go for it.

Jay, this is a VERY sound buying strategy. You've nailed it.

My only gripe is: when you find those amazing deals on the 1994s that cost you the same coin as LBVs ... why don't you share the wealth with your Port buying brethren here (in our Marketplace Forum). Certainly you can share this info after filling your own racks, right?



Alex,

You have been busy attacking your 1994s eh? I don't know too many Brits that would admit, publically no less, to:

In my opinion, 1994 is perfect for drinking today and most are drinking beautifully. Anything younger than 1994 I am generally looking to hold for future drinking

But of course, there is NOTHING wrong with drinking your Vintage Ports at ALL stages of their development to experiment and see what tastes best for YOU. As you know, I used to get on people for their drinking their VPs so young and commiting "infanticide" with their drinking proclivities. It was not until 2005 when I lost my attitudinal sclerosis! This year has been dedicated to drinking many young VPs ... even a few from my own cellar. 8)

Alex wrote:
One thing I have found very interesting is the apparent lack of a dumb period in this vintage.

A fascinating piece of insight and worth reading this entire thread, just to get to this one line! Seriously. I wonder if anybody else shares this belief and if so, would be willing to comment here. I think it would make for a very interesting tangent to follow!

Roy Hersh wrote:

Alex wrote:
One thing I have found very interesting is the apparent lack of a dumb period in this vintage.

A fascinating piece of insight and worth reading this entire thread, just to get to this one line! Seriously. I wonder if anybody else shares this belief and if so, would be willing to comment here. I think it would make for a very interesting tangent to follow!

As written in my post above, I do also share this opinion. I don't have much experience to tell why and how these wines don't have any dumb phase, here it would be interesting to have someone from the trade commenting technically about the winemaking methods at that time and how he feels the wines are evolving compared to what he has tasted in his life so far.

Is it possible that the 1994's ar so good [or different] from regular vintages that they haven't yet reached the start of their dumb phase?

Derek

Since I've only had '94s in the past 1.5 years I can't comment on the dumb phase. But I've not had one yet that was shut down or in that dumb phase, hmm.

So, did the 1963's have a dumb phase, or were they like the '94s with no apparent dumb phase? If so, maybe an omen???? history and time will tell.

Roy Hersh wrote:
My only gripe is: when you find those amazing deals on the 1994s that cost you the same coin as LBVs ... why don't you share the wealth with your Port buying brethren here (in our Marketplace Forum). Certainly you can share this info after filling your own racks, right?

Well.....Because I bought them all I'll try and restrain myself in the future, but it's not easy! Sadly, nothing compared to Tom's recent purchase, which has almost driven me insane with jealosy

All

OK, I was greedy with the Warres (well, it was only a case). So here's another deal I noticed lately. Croft 2000 VP for US $27 (similar price to the 95 Warre LBV and Smith Woodhouse 92 LBV) at Kahns Fine Wine and Spirits. Not a 94, but still a fair port with aging potential.

http://www.kahnsfinewines.com/product_d ... uctID=7697

I have no association with them, but I have purchased from them before and was pleased with both the wine and the customer service. They often have good prices on fairly young vintages. I bought 96 Vesuvio and 98 Malvedos for them before for a song. And got them to send the OWC without any hassle.

Jay