There are lots of reasons to love both vintages and there are certain characteristics that they share ... but only having had a couple of 2000s and 2003s side-by-side from the same producers the choice is not as easy as one might think (especially blind!).
If you have had the 2000 and 2003 from the same producer you can certainly make certain deductions. Having them both at the same tasting is very interesting to be able to contrast the qualities of the vintage itself.
So what is your pick and why?
Comparative Vintages: 2000 vs. 2003
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
Comparative Vintages: 2000 vs. 2003
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
Still very early days, but my suspicion is that the 2003's will prove a little more forward than the 2000's, and that the two will therefore mature at much the same time.
Given the climatic differences between the two years, I would not be surprised if the 2000's are showing better in 50 years time though.
In terms of overall quality, it looks a very close call.
With the 97's looking long haul, we'll be spoilt for choice in 20 years time, but by then, the 94's may well be running out of steam..
Tom
Given the climatic differences between the two years, I would not be surprised if the 2000's are showing better in 50 years time though.
In terms of overall quality, it looks a very close call.
With the 97's looking long haul, we'll be spoilt for choice in 20 years time, but by then, the 94's may well be running out of steam..
Tom
-
Jay Powers
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:48 pm
- Location: Pacifica, California, United States of America - USA
83 vs. 85 would have been an easier question. This one made me think more!
I thought about this for a while then checked my tasting notes. Turns out that on different occasions I have tasted Noval, Noval silval, Noval Nacional, Quinta do Portal, Niepoort, and Grahams on same day same time tastings.
When I first saw this post, my immediate thought was that I liked 2000 better, which I think of as a more "classically" styled vintage. But upon looking at my notes, I see that asides from the Grahams (where I greatly prefer the 2000), and the Niepoort where I could not decide, the others I have tasted side by side indicate I liked the 2003s better.
Although I still think that 2000 is a more classicaly styled port, I had to vote 2003 over 2000 based on my own tasting notes. Perhaps I am growing my tastes away from the "classic" style? I guess we will really see in 20-30 years. Sadly, I did not get a chance to do the similar experiment with 63 vs 66 or 80 vs 83 vs 85 when they were young, so I don't really have that historical background to look back at.
One thing I do feel sure about is that both 2000 and 2003 are really good vintages. If I live long enough, then I will know for sure, as I have plenty of both in the cellar. Although I may need to now ensure that I have a suitable number of "pairs" to look at the question in another 20 years from my own cellar.
Great poll question, really made me think!
Jay
I thought about this for a while then checked my tasting notes. Turns out that on different occasions I have tasted Noval, Noval silval, Noval Nacional, Quinta do Portal, Niepoort, and Grahams on same day same time tastings.
When I first saw this post, my immediate thought was that I liked 2000 better, which I think of as a more "classically" styled vintage. But upon looking at my notes, I see that asides from the Grahams (where I greatly prefer the 2000), and the Niepoort where I could not decide, the others I have tasted side by side indicate I liked the 2003s better.
Although I still think that 2000 is a more classicaly styled port, I had to vote 2003 over 2000 based on my own tasting notes. Perhaps I am growing my tastes away from the "classic" style? I guess we will really see in 20-30 years. Sadly, I did not get a chance to do the similar experiment with 63 vs 66 or 80 vs 83 vs 85 when they were young, so I don't really have that historical background to look back at.
One thing I do feel sure about is that both 2000 and 2003 are really good vintages. If I live long enough, then I will know for sure, as I have plenty of both in the cellar. Although I may need to now ensure that I have a suitable number of "pairs" to look at the question in another 20 years from my own cellar.
Great poll question, really made me think!
Jay
-
Andy Velebil
- Posts: 16626
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
I’ve pondered a lot about this question and came up with some interesting results.
My first reaction was to say I like the 2003’s a tiny bit better. A nice elegantly smooth vintage, with strong tannins, good fruit, etc, etc. However, after going over my notes for the 2000’s and 2003’s I saw an interesting trend emerge. In my notes I tend to place the score a Port is at now and then if I feel it is going to get significantly better with time I put a little note in parenthesis indicating what I feel it will be scored in 20+ years.
As I went over my notes, reading all the various descriptors, one thing started to be apparent. I had more of those parenthesis in the 2000’s and fewer in the 2003’s. Looking harder into my notes I realized I had more descriptors of smooth and elegant in my 2003 notes. Where my 2000 notes showed more of a brawny roughness about them. That being said, there were some 2003’s with a roughness to them, however, by and far, 2000 had more of those descriptions in my notes.
That brought to mind some prior conversations and discussions about a “newer” style of Port being produced. My gut feeling, despite industry denials, is that SOME producers are now making a more forward Port that is easier to understand when it is young.
I also feel that 2000 is a much more classically styled Port (for the reasons stated above) and that both are excellent vintages. But to me the 2003’s seem as though they are just a little too smooth and elegant at this stage. Which I think may be their crutch in the long term. I feel the 2000’s, with their slightly more wild-side, will eventually come together with time and then continue down a long long road. But who knows for certain at this young stage….time will tell.
My first reaction was to say I like the 2003’s a tiny bit better. A nice elegantly smooth vintage, with strong tannins, good fruit, etc, etc. However, after going over my notes for the 2000’s and 2003’s I saw an interesting trend emerge. In my notes I tend to place the score a Port is at now and then if I feel it is going to get significantly better with time I put a little note in parenthesis indicating what I feel it will be scored in 20+ years.
As I went over my notes, reading all the various descriptors, one thing started to be apparent. I had more of those parenthesis in the 2000’s and fewer in the 2003’s. Looking harder into my notes I realized I had more descriptors of smooth and elegant in my 2003 notes. Where my 2000 notes showed more of a brawny roughness about them. That being said, there were some 2003’s with a roughness to them, however, by and far, 2000 had more of those descriptions in my notes.
That brought to mind some prior conversations and discussions about a “newer” style of Port being produced. My gut feeling, despite industry denials, is that SOME producers are now making a more forward Port that is easier to understand when it is young.
I also feel that 2000 is a much more classically styled Port (for the reasons stated above) and that both are excellent vintages. But to me the 2003’s seem as though they are just a little too smooth and elegant at this stage. Which I think may be their crutch in the long term. I feel the 2000’s, with their slightly more wild-side, will eventually come together with time and then continue down a long long road. But who knows for certain at this young stage….time will tell.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
tastingnote
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:07 am
- Location: Cupar, Fife, United Kingdom - UK
I've only tried Warre's, Graham's and Whytingham's (from Quinta do Vale Meao) and I think Tom is right and that the 2003 are going too be a lot more forward then the 2000's for these three producers, but I think with time, the 2000 will reveal itself to be a better port.
The strange thing I found was that the Warres was very very drinkable. Yes it was big, jammy and very very tight, but wasn't showing any massive tannin.
I think what we should all do is buy lots of both and then we have great port for the next 50 years!
Peter
The strange thing I found was that the Warres was very very drinkable. Yes it was big, jammy and very very tight, but wasn't showing any massive tannin.
I think what we should all do is buy lots of both and then we have great port for the next 50 years!
Peter
Going slightly (?!) off topic, but following on from Peter's thought. I have often found myself wondering what proportion of the global output of a particular wine the folks on this forum end up buying.
For example, Vesuvio made 2,500 (12 bottle) cases of vintage port in 2000. I own 2 of these. If all 400 people on this board also owned 2 cases each of the Vesuvio 2000 VP then between us we would account for 30% of the sales of this particular wine.
If nothing else, that would / should really focus the minds of the producers to ensure that the information that flows to us matches that to their other largest markets. Who knows, that might even make us (collectively) the largest single market for VP. Advertise here folks! Offer us distributor prices (for distributor quantities)!
I'll be quiet and get back in my box now....
Alex
For example, Vesuvio made 2,500 (12 bottle) cases of vintage port in 2000. I own 2 of these. If all 400 people on this board also owned 2 cases each of the Vesuvio 2000 VP then between us we would account for 30% of the sales of this particular wine.
If nothing else, that would / should really focus the minds of the producers to ensure that the information that flows to us matches that to their other largest markets. Who knows, that might even make us (collectively) the largest single market for VP. Advertise here folks! Offer us distributor prices (for distributor quantities)!
I'll be quiet and get back in my box now....
Alex
-
Frederick Blais
- Posts: 2708
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
- Location: Porto, Portugal
I took some time to decide too. I did go for the 2000. As a few said before, for me this is classic VP expression, elegant wines with great balance of acidity, sugar, fruit and they where almost all showing great depth when young, something I found some 2003 where lacking. Also many 2000 where showing in their youth great floral tones on the nose for which I have a personnal preference in the flavours a VP can show.
The 2003 where showing very jammy, bold fruit Port often packed with tight and dry tannins making them hard to taste especially those I did taste 2-3 months after release, now tannins are starting to integrate better. I do think they will age as much as the 2000, but my vote for the wine that will give me more pleasure in 20-30 years from now would go to the 2000.
It is always so hard to judge VP in its early days, especially to compare two very good/excellent year.
The 2003 where showing very jammy, bold fruit Port often packed with tight and dry tannins making them hard to taste especially those I did taste 2-3 months after release, now tannins are starting to integrate better. I do think they will age as much as the 2000, but my vote for the wine that will give me more pleasure in 20-30 years from now would go to the 2000.
It is always so hard to judge VP in its early days, especially to compare two very good/excellent year.
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
-
Ted D
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:53 am
- Location: Durham, New Hampshire, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Great dialog!
As 2000 was the birthyear for #1 son (hmmm, I sound like Charlie Chan!) I bought but did not taste.
As 2003 wasn't a birthyear, and suddenly I felt much older, I did taste and liked what I tasted.
Wish I had tasted 2000! Lesson learned -- try everything young, especially as there is no guarantee you can try it old.
As 2000 was the birthyear for #1 son (hmmm, I sound like Charlie Chan!) I bought but did not taste.
As 2003 wasn't a birthyear, and suddenly I felt much older, I did taste and liked what I tasted.
Wish I had tasted 2000! Lesson learned -- try everything young, especially as there is no guarantee you can try it old.
Any Port in a Storm
The 2003, IMO ... is today and will be in forty years to come, the equivalent of what we now know as -- the beautiful vintage of 1966. In 2047, (I'll be dead or 90) you'll be able to say that you heard it here first.
For Port historians here, you know what the opinion was about the 1966 upon harvest, upon release and for the next 20 years. It was not until the late 1980s that it started to receive any real respect. But that is not why I say that the 2003 emulates that very vintage. It is because of the organoleptic similiarities in their youth. Of course I was not there to taste them ... but I have studied the vintage inside and out. The growing seasons were different, for sure ... but early on the reports on the '66 are exactly what I detected and even what Frederick wrote about the '03s.
I know I won't be here at 90, so someone make sure to remind my daughter that I said this. Thanks!
For Port historians here, you know what the opinion was about the 1966 upon harvest, upon release and for the next 20 years. It was not until the late 1980s that it started to receive any real respect. But that is not why I say that the 2003 emulates that very vintage. It is because of the organoleptic similiarities in their youth. Of course I was not there to taste them ... but I have studied the vintage inside and out. The growing seasons were different, for sure ... but early on the reports on the '66 are exactly what I detected and even what Frederick wrote about the '03s.
I know I won't be here at 90, so someone make sure to remind my daughter that I said this. Thanks!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
I voted that I didn't have enough experience to be able to make a decision - but having had a chance for the first time since this thread was started to refer back to my notes, I see that I have actually drunk or tasted 10 different wines from each vintage. The sad thing is that with the exception of the Sandeman 2003, I had completely forgotten all of these.
So on the basis of my notes and not my memory, I would now change my vote from "Not enough experience" to a slight preference for the 2003 vintage. However, I fully accept that I may not have been comparing like for like as I believe that the 2000's are currently going into a dumb phase.
To my taste the 2003's are superbly fruity but have the acidic and tannic structures to last the full distance. Generalising horribly, I find the 2000's to be slightly more austere, more tannic and with less full-on fruit.
My favourite among the 2003's to date would be the Croft and my favourite among the 2000's would be the Neipoort.
But its going to be fascinating to run a comparative tasting of 2000 vs 2003 for Roy's 90th birthday celebration!
Alex
So on the basis of my notes and not my memory, I would now change my vote from "Not enough experience" to a slight preference for the 2003 vintage. However, I fully accept that I may not have been comparing like for like as I believe that the 2000's are currently going into a dumb phase.
To my taste the 2003's are superbly fruity but have the acidic and tannic structures to last the full distance. Generalising horribly, I find the 2000's to be slightly more austere, more tannic and with less full-on fruit.
My favourite among the 2003's to date would be the Croft and my favourite among the 2000's would be the Neipoort.
But its going to be fascinating to run a comparative tasting of 2000 vs 2003 for Roy's 90th birthday celebration!
Alex
I voted: I like both and can't make up my mind
I thought about this more last night and think there may be an analogy here:
1963 is to 1966, as 2000 is to 2003.
I hope that makes sense in a cerebral way; to be pondered over a glass of VP.
I thought about this more last night and think there may be an analogy here:
1963 is to 1966, as 2000 is to 2003.
I hope that makes sense in a cerebral way; to be pondered over a glass of VP.
Last edited by Roy Hersh on Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Frederick Blais
- Posts: 2708
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
- Location: Porto, Portugal
Please do use a Ouija board to let me know!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Gizzyeq
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:03 am
- Location: NYC & Japan, New York, United States of America - USA
ahaha Roy's gonna be haunting our port cellars 
I'm not changing any diapers at the hospice! although I'd be willing to hook up your port IV drips heheh...but the question is could we afford the 2023-24 vintages withought having to sell our kidneys...
In my extremely limited experience(only tasted the warre's 00 & 03) it was slightly hard to taste differences except that the 03 seemed "bigger" than the 00 (I'm not even sure what that means personally..just what came to mind)
I'm not changing any diapers at the hospice! although I'd be willing to hook up your port IV drips heheh...but the question is could we afford the 2023-24 vintages withought having to sell our kidneys...
In my extremely limited experience(only tasted the warre's 00 & 03) it was slightly hard to taste differences except that the 03 seemed "bigger" than the 00 (I'm not even sure what that means personally..just what came to mind)