Vintage year debate

[Roy Hersh]

In contemplating which digit at the end of a vintage year has been the greatest ... (as "4" appears in 1994) historically speaking for Vintage Port wine, which would you choose?

So I'll explain using, "9" which was not produced with any acclaim in 1909, 1919, 1929, 1939, 1949, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989. In 1999 and 2009 there were a few successes, but not enough to make the "9" a relevant choice. So please take it from here.

[Edward J]

For me it's more of a exercise of administration rather than experience. Just off the top of my head I thought a few minutes and thought 00. Upon checking, (ND no declaration, GD General, MD Minor) 2010ND , 2000GD, 1990ND, 1980GD, 1970GD,1960GD,1950MD,1940ND,1930ND, 1920GD,1910ND,1900GD. So that is 7 of 12. Looking back a bit more 1890 was a good year for Dow, 1880, Niepoort declared, 1870 was a great year,1860 minor?, 1840 Ferreira for sure, and finally 1820, again Ferreira for sure. So anyways, thats my take on it.

[Eric Ifune]

Are we including Colheita years?

[Eric Menchen]

Well, I don't have a cellar stocked with bottles prior to 1960, and my tastings of bottles that old are few. So in thinking about VPs 1960 and on, I think it comes down to the 0's, 3's, and 7's, and I'm leaning for the 0's. I've had a few great 1960s, I love 1970s, and there have been a few wonderful 1980s. 2000 I don't know, but it was a general declaration, so maybe it will support my case in another 10 or 20 years.

Throwing in colheitas would change the game. Without thorough thought, the 6s are at least a strong contender.

[Bradley Bogdan]

I'd agree with 0 being my top choice. I'd also say 5 would be a solid 3rd or 4th, '95 was solid even though not GD, '85 had winners, '75 was solid though not great, '55 has winners, '45 is legendary, '35 has winners, and before that I've got no clue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

[Glenn E.]

Always a fun question!

0: 60, 70, 80, 00
1: 31, 11
2: 12, 52(C)
3: 63, 83, 03
4: 04, 24, 94
5: 45, 55, 75(meh), 85; 95 and 05 both also have very nice SQ ports
6: 66
7: 27, 37(C), 57(C), 77, 97, 07; 47, 67, and 87 also have some nice offerings
8: 08, 48
9: ... yikes.

Hopefully I haven't missed anything significant!

(Edit: '11 added per Phil's reminder. Thanks Phil!)

So if you count Colheita years and "off" years with significant offerings, '7' wins for me pretty much uncontested. It's still my winner without them, but with them it isn't even close.

If you restrict to just the last half of the 20th century and beyond, then... hmm. '0' is pretty good, but '7' still has 5 years with worthy contenders. '3' still has to deal with the stigma of 93, but its 3 main years are on average superior to the 4 years of '0' or the 5 years of '7'. That said, I can't penalize '7' for not having as "high of highs" when the fact that it has 5 worthy years means its all-years-included average is likely higher.

So... '7' for me any way you look at it. :)

[Eric Menchen]

I like 77 SW, but I think 77 Fonseca is overrated and prefer the 70. I like 70 Taylor over the 77. I do like 77 Warres a lot, but I really liked the 80 the last time I had it. And I liked the 80 Dow over any 7 Dow I can think of. 97? Yes, it was a general declaration, but how great? Will 2007 be better than 2000. That one may go the 7's, but I think it is too early to call. And I've had some great 1960s, Taylor and Noval coming to mind. So my pick is based less on general declarations and availability of SQVPs, and more on bottles I've enjoyed the most.

[Glenn E.]

I like 77 SW, but I think 77 Fonseca is overrated and prefer the 70. I like 70 Taylor over the 77. I do like 77 Warres a lot, but I really liked the 80 the last time I had it. And I liked the 80 Dow over any 7 Dow I can think of. 97? Yes, it was a general declaration, but how great? Will 2007 be better than 2000. That one may go the 7's, but I think it is too early to call. And I've had some great 1960s, Taylor and Noval coming to mind. So my pick is based less on general declarations and availability of SQVPs, and more on bottles I've enjoyed the most.

All good points. We're just looking for different things.

My experience with 60 and 80 has them on the weaker end of declared vintages. Not as weak as 75, but in both cases they're the weakest (declared) vintage of their respective decades. I even feel like 67 and 87 are comparable quality-wise, though smaller declaration-wise.

If you're just looking for pure quality, then 63-83-03 has to be in the conversation. Neither 60 nor 80 has given me as much pleasure as 83, and the two big contests - 70 vs 63 and 00 vs 03 - will likely be causing arguments for another 50 years or more. So for me 60 and 80 fit more into the enjoyable footnote category.

Of course if you're looking purely for quality, then '1' wins it hands down for the 1931 Nacional (and Noval).

So that's why I go with '7'. It may not have the highs of a 63 or 70 or 94, but there's just so much good Port available spread out across the decades. You could build a cellar out of 67-77-87-97-07 that would last for generations. And you'd have all those yummy Colheitas from 37 and 57, too.

[Eric Menchen]

I've only had a few 1987s, and one of those was corked They are hard to find.

[Glenn E.]

I've only had a few 1987s, and one of those was corked They are hard to find.

A little birdie told me that you may have access to some... soon (tm).

Off the top of my head I can only remember having had Vargellas, Malvedos, and Souza. The first two of those are outstanding, with the Vargellas rivaling F85 for Port of the decade, and the Souza is excellent. I may have had others along the line, but if so they're slipping my mind at the moment.

[Roy Hersh]

Eric I. = nope, only Vintage Ports.

[Eric Ifune]

In that case, I'm going with 7 with 0 as a runner up.

[Phil W]

Always a fun question!

0: 60, 70, 80, 00
1: 31
2: 12, 52(C)
3: 63, 83, 03
4: 04, 24, 94
5: 45, 55, 75(meh), 85; 95 and 05 both also have very nice SQ ports
6: 66
7: 27, 37(C), 57(C), 77, 97, 07; 47, 67, and 87 also have some nice offerings
8: 08, 48
9: ... yikes.

Hopefully I haven't missed anything significant!

To the 0s I would add 20 (general declaration and very good) and 50 (may have been minor, and not great). Also for the 1s you should add 2011. Once you start adding SQs such as 95 and 87 then I would probably add a few more, but for me it does come down to the choice of 0, 5 or 7. Which to pick depends on the question, and whether factors such as cost or availability come into it, and how we account for anything post ~90ish which isn't ready for drinking.

With very limited availability and high cost of pre-60, and considering "ready for drinking", that reduces the choice to something like:
(rare/costly in (), future drinking in [])

0: (20), 60, 70, 80 [00]
5: (45 55), 75, 85, [95, 05]
7: (27 47), 67, 77, 87 [97, 07]

On that basis, I think I'd go for 0, though it is a close run thing between 0 and 7.

[Monique Heinemans.]

As I don't have as much experience as most of you, and the oldest bottles I drunk were from the 1977 vintage, my two preferences are:

7: 1977 Dow (delicious) + Warre (very good), 1987 Graham (delicious) + Taylor (loved several bottles) + Fonseca (very nice), 1997 Vesuvio (had it twice, both showed very good) + Niepoort (one bottle was stunning, one showed VA) + Fonseca (very goed), 2007 Pocas (loved the first bottle, the second was a disappointment)
0: 1980 Dow (delicious!) + Smith-Woodhoouse (very good), 2000 Fonseca (had 3 bottles and I do love this very very much!!) + Niepoort (very good)

So for now I go for the ...7

[Glenn E.]

To the 0s I would add 20 (general declaration and very good) and 50 (may have been minor, and not great). Also for the 1s you should add 2011.

1950 was a general declaration? Hmm... I wasn't aware of that, and now I need to find a G50 to add to my vertical...

I added 2011 to my list above, but still left 1950 out because I'm not sure I've ever had a 1950 VP. Colheita, yes... but VP? Really not sure.