How Do experts know how long to 'lay down' ports?

[Alan C.]

As I emmerse myself in reviews, and descriptions, I'm missing something. Through lots of experience and skill, I can imagine how expert tasters, and the Houses, spend a year or two deciding that one year was better than another. The same strategy over how one brand compares to another.
My question is, How does the reviewer attach years required to reach a premium? Am I right in thinking that it is at best, an educated guess? They make it sound like a definate science. 30years for this, 10years for that. Has there been cases were the experts have been hopelessly wrong, and the port has passed its prime, when it should have been still improving?
If it is so clear cut, why dont the houses put 90% of the stock away until it is at its premium and then sell at its full price? Just a thought,

Cheers, Alan.

[Derek T.]

Here are my thoughts on your questions, Alan:

How does the reviewer attach years required to reach a premium? Am I right in thinking that it is at best, an educated guess?

Yes, an educated guess based on many years experience of drinking many different VP's at various stages of development

Has there been cases were the experts have been hopelessly wrong, and the port has passed its prime, when it should have been still improving?

Absolutely, but the experts tend to keep coming back to the same VP as it matures and would update their scores and ageing forecasts with each tasting if they thought the wine was holding longer than expected or beginning to fade. I would think that the 2 main reasons why some VP goes beyond it's peak is because (a) there is too much of it stored in large cellars in the UK that never hits the market until it's too late and (b) people tend to buy and store far more than they could ever drink.

If it is so clear cut, why dont the houses put 90% of the stock away until it is at its premium and then sell at its full price? Just a thought

They do keep a percentage of each vintage in their cellars in VNG or on the Quinta. Single Quinta VP is normally held by the shipper until mature enough to drink. Classic VP is also released at various stages of development - if you buy mature VP that has just been shipped from VNG it will be designated "Ex-cellars" by the wine merchant. You would normally expect to pay a premium price for these bottles as you can be certain of excellent provenance.

Derek

[Alan C.]

Derek,
I told you, you were an informative sod! But thanks. Makes sense. At the moment I'm full of questions, but I'm sure once I've got the basics I'll calm down.
Alan.

[Al B.]

Alan,

I'd also assume that the timing of when to sell stocks has got to be an issue of balancing cash flow with maximising price - ie. the cash in hand for selling as soon as the wines are bottled versus the (hopefully) larger amounts of cash achieved when selling the same wines in 30-50 years time.

Alex

[Alan C.]

Bridgema,
thanks, I was coming to a similar conclusion once Derek confirmed they do hold a percentage back. I understand they couldn't hold back most of it with mouths to feed now, but you would think they'd hold back the majority for a year or two, and if its a vintage year, then store it to then sell it in a decade or so when the price will have rocketed. In non-vintage years, they can offload for the normal expenses of producing. Sometimes simple thoughts have complicated answers, but thanks for the guidance,
Alan.

[Andy Velebil]

They can hold back quite a bit more than you think. I've seen rows and rows of older bottles aging gracefully in the cellars in VndG. Ever wonder how that Dow's 1970 VP has a brand new label and capsule for a 37 year old bottle

Derek gives some sound answers that I agree with. As for predicting how a Port will age, there really are only a handful that I would trust, and I've had the pleasure to drink with a few of them

That said there are some reviewers or publications (Parker, old Suckling notes in his book that are 20 years old) that, for me personnally, I don't pay much attention to. Nothing personal as they do a very good job in other areas, just very few people or publications are good at giving very acurate Port reviews. Just my $0.02

[Tom Archer]

Suckling must cringe when he re-reads the drinking windows that he put in his book fifteen years ago.

According to his book, the 85's should be well over the hill now - yet they're mostly immature still..

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Tom,

Derek was kind enough to give me an extra copy of Suckling's old book on the harvest trip last year. I read it when I got home and I must say it was a fun read. SO much has changed since he wrote that book (and not just his Port reviews). It was quite the step back in time, especially after having just returned from Portugal a few days earlier. For anyone who is a newer Port nerd like me it is a great insight to see what has changed over the past 20 years. Such as ownership, production methods, wine reviews, the old players, etc.

[Roy Hersh]

Alan,

Thanks, this is truly the type of question I had in mind when building the site and wanting to have a PORT BASICS for exactly this type of interactivity. I am going to add my views to your questions, although I believe that Derek's post was very well thought out.

My question is, How does the reviewer attach years required to reach a premium?

I can not provide a response any better than Derek's. Yet, there is one more dynamic which came up a year ago, when I publicly questioned Pierre Rovani's Wine Advocate review of the 2003 Vintage Ports. Tasting cask samples of Vintage Ports versus tasting bottled pre-release samples of new VPs offers a difference in terms of how the VPs may show. The few months between these moments in time, make a significant difference and it is MUCH easier in my opinon to wait until the pre-release bottles are made available to the wine press. Unfortunately, often times the en primeur first tranch pricing is released before the pre-release bottles are shipped to the media! So although imo it is far more perilous to prognosticate a vintage from cask samples ... in terms of providing a "buying guide" for savvy Port consumers ... it is essential. I dove in early in the 1990s when cask samples were being made to the trade/press typically at tasting events. I think the very first time that cask samples came to the USA was with the 1985 vintage, but I was not involved in assessing them back then in the latter half of the '80s (but was drinking Port already for half a decade). It is certainly LESS risky for those who chose to wait until the cask sample scores and reviews are already made public by Suckling, Mayson and me. OTOH, there is a certain self satisfaction when looking back a decade and seeing that one's own scores and impressions (and drinking windows) were spot on, from cask sample evaluation. As Derek mentioned, it takes years of experience to guage these and have any chance at being accurate with any consistency at all.


Am I right in thinking that it is at best, an educated guess?

I know the Port trade definitely looks at it that way!
I don't care if it is Suckling, Parker, Jancis, Mayson, Broadbent or a far less experienced forecaster like me. Crystal ball forecasts from cask are fraught with inaccuracies. The methodology which the individual employs in their particular evaluation process is very important. If you want to learn about mine, I suggest you go read my 2003 Vintage Port Forecast (check the article archives if need be ... or google it) which thoroughly explains my normal routine (especially for declared vintages). But as a contrast, there are some critics/journalists who don't have as much time to spend with 20-50 cask samples. When that happens, we the reader wind up with a "snapshot" view of that wine, which is merely a critique of a very brief moment in time. That is different than trying the same bottle a half a dozen times for 30 minutes per visit, revisiting the Port over a 2-3 day evaluation period.

They make it sound like a definate science. 30years for this, 10years for that. Has there been cases were the experts have been hopelessly wrong, and the port has passed its prime, when it should have been still improving?

I agree with you Alan, Uncle Tom (and others). It is very easy to provide VERY short tasting windows for a wine, no less Port. At best one may look silly for underestimating the true drinking window. Taking no risk by analyzing a recent release of '85 VP in 1988 and saying drink 1992-1998 is certainly going to prove to be correct during that time frame. But what happens when that same bottle of '85 is still drinking well in 2005 and really would be at its zenith in about 2015-2025?
This is where I take issue with some critics and journos, as Tom mentioned above. Yes, it is easy and safe to do this and PLENTY of pros do this to cover their butts on NOT FAILING and having wines go over the hill before their windows come to pass. I understand that minimizing their risk, or that of the magazine they work for ... is their cash cow. But no way the person really BELIEVES that type of short window if they really understand the nature of VP (or Bordeaux as another example).

Have a look at the upcoming Feb. FTLOP newsletter and have a look at my drinking windows for 1994s that I reviewed, as a case in point. Please do feel free to come back here and tell me if I seem like I have gone out on a limb with some of my views or you think I am nuts. I'll respect you in the morning.

In all seriousness, to me, the consumer or loyal reader deserves the truth, without a hidden agenda when it comes to long or short drinking windows. I am happy to put my own reputation out on the line with my true feelings from my own experience, deeply ensconced in having dozens of Port verticals and horzontals, which are some of the best tools to hone one's own skills as a forecaster. Drinking cask samples every possible vintage also helps to sharpen one's ability to predict the long term qualities and maturation of VPs. I certainly am still learning, but while I am, I am not afraid to go way out on a limb with my own beliefs and make them public. Shoot me if I am wrong. But burn me at the stake, if I withhold the truth in favor of protecting my own cred.

With all of that said, please think of a professional weather forecaster, which has scientific data and trends to monitor before making their forecast public. From my readings, they are no more than accurate 33% of the time. Even if it was 50% ... that is bleak. I do not know of any wine critic is always right, nor a sports betting line in Vegas as another example of a pro putting their reputations on the line in a profession with tons of invariables that usually can not even be foreseen. So take all wine critics with a grain of salt ... with their prognostications and make purchases based on reading as many opinions as possible and tasting as much as you can (old and young) Vintage Ports.

[Alan C.]

Thanks, very interesting.

[Alan C.]

Having read Roys recent article, were he questions the 1975 Vintage, there is no less than Rupert Symington, who in answering Roys question says...
What we cannot predict accurately is how wines will evolve once bottled, this again is part of the fun!
Again confirming what you all said and I suspected...'An Educated Guess!'
Alan.

[Roy Hersh]

Having read Roys recent article, were he questions the 1975 Vintage

To be honest, this was not my question. It was a topic brought up a couple of months ago on the Port Forum, so I can not take the credit. The questions that will be used in each and every newsletter's column: A Question for the Port Trade will either come from emails I receive or topics brought up in the Forum that would benefit from the input of the trade members.