For The Love Of Port

Mark Squires makes some very solid points. But do you agree with all of them, re: vintage and wine enthusiasts?

https://winejournal.robertparker.com/th ... age-charts

Yeah I agree... It is a general appreciation of one person towards quality in a wine region. I especially agree that it lacks nuances. For example, too many vintage charts do not split red/white rating just like they should split red/white/port in Douro.

I think it makes more sense for region where blends are happening, like Bordeaux and Port, while regions dominated by micro-climate expression, more individual success or failure will happen. Also you have to take into account the reviewer's taste. For example, nowadays 2007 in Burdundy gets a very low rating, but if we were in the 1980's, that can of year was more frequent and desired/expected from wine lovers and it would have get a higher rating.

The big flaws with those Vintage Chart is that they seldomly get updated on how wines are evolving. Just like many of their wine ratings, crictics can make mistake and they are very shy to expose them.

For me nowadays, I prefer to follow my favourite producers in good and ''bad'' years because in the end, they always produce something I do like, and for me it is normally better than an average producer's wine in a great year. I also very much appreciate the vintage expression and variation.

I rate vintages on a combination of extent, quality and consistency.

For example, try reading the Symingtons harvest report for 1973:

Colour, flavour and ‘nose’ of the finest musts was good and with cool fermentations promises well for the best wines which will certainly be very well balanced. Throughout the Douro grapes were healthy with no traces of podre (rot)… very sound wines have been made and some could well prove to be very good indeed.

From that you can judge that it was a pretty sound year - except the alcohol scandal killed it dead. We now have no idea what the consistency was like, and there's virtually nothing left that hasn't been blended with other years. So although the quality may have been above average, giving credit to the harvest report; I give it a rating of F - just one notch short of my lowest rating, F- (which goes to 1993, 1981 & 1956)

Now look at 1985. Very widely declared and some very good wines made, so for extent and quality it scores highly; but there are also a lot of very problematic wines, which undermines it on consistency very badly. So not an alpha vintage nor even a beta - I rank it C+

Then take 1988 - an undeclared year with a full gamut of flabby bland SQ wines. Extent isn't that great, and quality is nothing to write home about - but in my experience they have been pretty consistent, which keeps it off the bottom rung - a straight E

In case anyone's interested, the three vintages I rate A+ over the moving window of 60 years that I cover, are 1994, 1970 & 1963. Although the 1960 vintage is showing very slightly better than 1963, the increased extent of 1963 gives it an edge. However, 63's top ranking could be lost to 2011 - I want to see how the 2011's evolve before making a call on that..

Tom, I appreciate your evaluations and can't disagree with them. To the point of the story, you've narrowed the focus from a country down to a region, from all wine to a type, Port, and I presume a very specific style Vintage Port (to include SQVP). And while you score 1973 with an F, if I see another Casa da Eufemia Special Reserve White at a reasonable price, I'm probably interested in it.

I agree as well, but I also like the article in general. Now I want to taste the 2014 Monte Branco and the Quinta do Mouro side by side!

Casa da Eufemia Special Reserve White

Not a wine I've previously come across. If anyone has a spare bottle, I'll make a generous trade for it, as it's one of my 'missing' vintages.

I've noticed that there is a surprising lack of concurrence between good vintages for white ports and those for red ports. 1971 seems to have been great for whites, but a rubbish year for reds.

I agree with all of what has been said and a big +1 on what Fred mentioned...follow your favorite producers in all years.

To use one as an example, Crasto generally does quite well even in not so great vintages. It's a producer I am confident in buying year in and year out. Sure some vintages aren't as good as others, but they aren't ever bad.

Vintage charts are useful for the person who isn't super geeky about wine or about a particular region. Most of us here can recite who did well, or at least the good and bad vintages for Ports and Douro wines, in the last 20 vintages off the top of our heads. But we may know nothing about how another region did because we don't closely follow them. In that case vintage charts are helpful.

Andy Velebil wrote:I agree with all of what has been said and a big +1 on what Fred mentioned...follow your favorite producers in all years.

The producers I like, I just buy their wines and don't think too much on the vintage. I take notice if it's a known great vintage, but if it's one that's not talked about a lot I'll buy it either way. Maybe I won't go deep on it if I am unsure.

Tom Archer wrote:

Casa da Eufemia Special Reserve White

Not a wine I've previously come across. If anyone has a spare bottle, I'll make a generous trade for it, as it's one of my 'missing' vintages.

Having just moved mine from one fridge to another, I have exactly 4 left. One is the fancy bottle with the lip at the base (and was bottled in 2008), while the other 3 are in more generic Port bottles with no lip and no bottling date.

Note that it does not (and cannot) say 1973 anywhere on the label, but it's a widely known secret that it is in fact a 1973 Colheita Branco.

I haven't made my trip arrangements for the 2018 Harvest Tour yet, but if I end up coming through London as I usually do then I'd be happy to bring you one.

That's very kind Glenn - we must liaise later in the year to ensure our paths cross.