SINGLE VINTAGE

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:01 am

I am interested to know which you would choose, if, you could only drink Vintage Ports from one specific vintage from 1970 and younger ... which would it be?

One vintage will be removed because we already know it is a FTLOP Forum favorite and that is 1994. So please do pick any other year that you'd like to drink for the rest of your time on earth.

Thanks!

Moses Botbol · Post by **Moses Botbol** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:02 am

1970 has many epic ports like Taylor, Croft, and Fonseca. There are few others that are incredible too that are escaping my pre-coffee post, but I'll take 1970 as my favorite single year since 1970.
Runner up's would be as many will say 1977, but I'll throw in 1985 (for discussion point) in there too. Most ports outside of Graham do not get mention much for that vintage.

Al B. · Post by **Al B.** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:41 am

That's a real tough and interesting question. I think 1970 is probably head and shoulders the best vintage for drinking for the rest of my life, I think it is a long lasting and very good on with some superb wines in there.

Second - a tie between 1983 and 1987. I think 1987 is just so underrated. 1983 is a full declaration year so is less overlooked but tends to be viewed as a poor relation to 1985 and I feel that this is unfair.

Anything younger than 1987 is not that great for drinking today so I don't want to be forced to drink it for the rest of my life.

Alex

Marc J. · Post by **Marc J.** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:02 pm

Without a doubt 1970 would be my choice if I had to pick a single vintage. Almost across the board, '70 produced some stellar wines with a long life ahead of them. '77 would come in second with '85 not far behind.

Marc

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:56 pm

2000, just so consistent all accross the board, with intense floral notes and freshness, balance, great acidity with that Grip that I like. I just want to see those babies evolve!

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:18 am

Fred,

You still must learn "Port patience." But who am I to talk. At your age I was opening anything I could get my hands on. Young, old and older ... but certainly lots of young VPs. It has been fun watching them age alongside me.

When the 2000 VPs reach their real pleasure zone, you will already be well into your 60s, if not early 70s.

As great as we believe 2000 truly is, I could not even consider drinking 2000s as the only Port vintage that would ever pass my lips again.

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:13 am

Roy Hersh wrote:Fred,

You still must learn "Port patience." But who am I to talk. At your age I was opening anything I could get my hands on. Young, old and older ... but certainly lots of young VPs. It has been fun watching them age alongside me.

When the 2000 VPs reach their real pleasure zone, you will already be well into your 60s, if not early 70s.

As great as we believe 2000 truly is, I could not even consider drinking 2000s as the only Port vintage that would ever pass my lips again.

The thing is that in my opinion there is more different shippers that will be drinkable from the 2000 year than 1970 in 30 years. I have the luxury to have the drinking window on them, so why not

Alan C. · Post by **Alan C.** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:51 am

If you just want a generalised reply...1985.

There are some great years and some great Ports, with many surprises/disapointments along the way. I think the 85's are back on track. I have drank a few ordinary ones, and I was beginning to be persuaded by those who suggested that this vintage, which was initially trumpeted, should be downgraded a bit, and was being over taken by 70 and 77.
It's all opinions, but I'm a fan of 85 and think it's beginning to live up to its former reputation. Try the Martinez 85 now, and try the Fonseca 85 in another decade. I hope I'm around and am able to do so, I think it will be as good as the 63 is now.

Alan

Paul Eddy · Post by **Paul Eddy** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:25 pm

I was just about to say 1970 then I read Alan's post and thought "he's got a point". I have tasted more 85's than 70's and no doubt was going to say 1970 based on what I have heard and not on what I have tasted. So its 1985 for me.

Does this mean we should have blind postings as well as blind tastings?

Paul.

Mark DaSilva · Post by **Mark DaSilva** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:08 pm

For me, 1977 brings me back to some samplings I did in the Algarve in 2001. Simply wonderful. I haven't tried many 1970s or 1985s (although I graduated high school that year) but 1977s were truly magnificient.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:20 am

Its fun reading all the replies. But the one major part of this question that had the biggest influence on my decision was

you'd like to drink for the rest of your time on earth.

I've got a lot of years left here, or so I hope. In that case I need something to last for at least 40+ years and that narrows the playing field considerably. There may only be a couple that would still be holding on in another 30-40 years and I don't want to get stuck with just a couple of different VP's to drink. So here is my pick.

2000

Yes, its a little young now, but there are lots of great Ports from this year that will last my life time.

Todd Pettinger · Post by **Todd Pettinger** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:05 pm

Thank goodness this is just a theoretical question and not one that I'm being really forced to make, because I am at a bit of a disadvantage. I have not tried too many of the 'older vintages' (in fact NONE from prior to 1980 :? :oops) YET... I'd hate to be forced to make a choice based simply on what I have tried thusfar.

IF I did have to, I would go with the 2003. I am just a few years behind Andy, and like him, I hope to have more than enough time to see the majority of the Vintage age gracefully alongside me. There may be a few that outlive me (the Taylors and Fonsecas and perhaps even the Novals) but all that I have tried indicate to me that this could very well be Vintage of the decade, especially thusfar. If there is not a huge year over the next couple of harvests, I doubt we'll see one as good as the '03 until the numbers begin with 201x...

Of course, like I said, this is sheer speculation based upon what I have been able to try, which is not vast like many others here.

Thank goodness this is merely speculation and I'm not actually forced to live up to this because I would hate to miss out on the many, many VPs that I have not yet been able to try yet!

Todd

Luc Gauthier · Post by **Luc Gauthier** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:56 am

Todd ,
Speculation is such a nasty word . . .
Remember what happened in 1929 when the word speculation was used too often .