1997 Souza Vintage Port

[Andy Velebil]

Tasted over two days. A bit darker in color than a previous bottle. This also showed a little more youthful fruit than a previous bottle. Very light tannins still present on a mid-weight body. I've said before this has reached its zenith and I will stand by that with this one. I think it drinks well right now and will hold here for some years to come, perhaps 8-10 years. But as it ages and softens even more, existing complexity derived from the remaining fruit will fade and this will become even less complex and more linear. Not every VP can be a blockbuster and not every VP is meant to last 50+ years, very few in fact reach that level. This VP is one that has reached its drinking age, in-line with most VP that is produced.
89 Points

[Thomas V]

This VP is one that has reached its drinking age, in-line with most VP that is produced.

I don't quite understand this sentence. Could you elaborate?

Thanks for the note. I myself is a big fan of the 97 vintage. Some are as you describe the Souza primed for drinking now and wont gain much from further time in the cellar. Others are nowhere near their peak and can be enjoyed for the next 15-30 years. There really are bargains to be made from this under the radar vintage I my humble opinion. The Graham, Vesuvio, Dow's and Fonseca are all sublime.

[Andy Velebil]

This VP is one that has reached its drinking age, in-line with most VP that is produced.

I don't quite understand this sentence. Could you elaborate?

Thanks for the note. I myself is a big fan of the 97 vintage. Some are as you describe the Souza primed for drinking now and wont gain much from further time in the cellar. Others are nowhere near their peak and can be enjoyed for the next 15-30 years. There really are bargains to be made from this under the radar vintage I my humble opinion. The Graham, Vesuvio, Dow's and Fonseca are all sublime.

The vast majority of VP produced reaches it peak around the 20-30 year mark. In the scheme of 60+ VP's that are produced only a small percentage reach peak well past the 30 year mark. So in that regard, at 20 years old, this VP has now reached its peak balance. Sometimes we as consumers assume that all VP should last 50+ years and be better for it then. In reality, that's not the case. I simply wanted to drive home the point that there is nothing wrong with this reaching peak at this time.

[Eric Menchen]

Well, one contingent holds that you shouldn't drink a VP until it has aged at least 21 years. This is at 22. I'm fine with this at its price point, and accept that everything can't age 50+ years. But I'm not sure that this aging curve is typical or average. Now we can quibble on language.

[Andy Velebil]

Well, one contingent holds that you shouldn't drink a VP until it has aged at least 21 years. This is at 22. I'm fine with this at its price point, and accept that everything can't age 50+ years. But I'm not sure that this aging curve is typical or average. Now we can quibble on language.

I do agree on price point. If this was 3x the price I'd be pretty disappointed.

As for the aging curve. Look at horizontal tastings when VP's start to reach the 20-30 year mark, and not ones with only the top dogs in it. What you typically get is the usual top end VP producers that show super young and complex and the others which are far more along in their evolution and much less complex. The 1980's decade is an easy one to show how many are advancing at a far faster rate than others.

Roy's just released part 2 newsletter has 25 VP tasting notes. Of those, nine (9) are scored 92 or less. So 36% of those on the list were 92 points or less and there are some generally top regarded producers there. While 92 is a good score in and of itself, they struggle compared to the scores of the other 64%, which range from 93 to 98 points. The previous group averaging 89.13 points (corked bottle removed from average) and the latter group averaging 94.75 points between them. That's a big difference in average scores. I look forward to seeing all his scores and the averages then.

However, I do think that gap is closing quite a bit more than what it used to be. Advances in technology, viticulture, winemaking, blending, etc have helped many of these previously struggling producers make a better and more consistent VP than they ever have in the past. But again, tasting them side by side with their peers does reveal the shortcomings of many. Age magnifies that.

[Eric Menchen]

Andy, on 7/22/2017, a good number of the FTLOP crowd tasted 1997 VPs. The following is a rough summary of my notes. I just reread them all looking in particular for observations on bottles that were at peak or past prime, and there weren't very many. Quite a few, including a fair number that were just rated in the good range had comments about having potential for future aging, or strong tannins, etc. I count three or maybe four (with the Souza) as being perhaps past prime, and five as flawed, out of 30.

1997 Calem Vintage Port - excellent
1997 Caves Messias Quinta do Cachão Vintage Port - flawed
1997 Churchill Vintage Port - very good
1997 Cockburn Vintage Port - corked
1997 Croft Quinta do Roeda Vintage Port - off, stewed, perhaps over the hill
1997 Delaforce Quinta Da Corte Vintage Port - "Give this more time, as it can easily wait 10 years, and could go 20-30."
1997 Dow Vintage Port - excellent
1997 Fonseca Vintage Port - good
1997 Gould Campbell Vintage Port - very good
1997 Graham Vintage Port - very good
1997 Martinez Vintage Port - good
1997 Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha Vintage Port - VA and oxidation, perhaps past prime
1997 Niepoort Vintage Port - not scored due to VA
1997 Osborne Vintage Port - good
1997 Porto Rocha Vintage Port - good
1997 Porto Souza Vintage Port - good, 93 points, although I did notice some oxidation
1997 Quarles Harris Vintage Port - good
1997 Quinta das Heredias Vintage Port - some bad aromas, fair
1997 Quinta do Infantado Vintage Port - very good
1997 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port - very good
1997 Quinta do Noval Silval Vintage Port - good (this label is intended as an earlier drinker, but had lots of life)
1997 Quinta do Portal Vintage Port - good
1997 Quinta do Vesuvio Vintage Port - excellent
1997 Quinta Vale D. Maria Vintage Port - flawed, with acetone and maybe acetic acid
1997 Ramos Pinto Vintage Port - very good
1997 Rozes Vintage Port - good, but noted as "a little stewed and oxidized"
1997 Sandeman Vau Vintage Port - good
1997 Smith Woodhouse Vintage Port - good
1997 Taylor Vintage Port - excellent
1997 Warre Vintage Port - good

[Glenn E.]

It's important to make a distinction between "at peak" and "will age for XX more years". Both can be true at the same time.

"At peak" simply means that the Port probably isn't going to get better as it continues to age. It may still change and evolve, but if I've rated it 92 points "at peak" then it's probably never going to see more than 93 points if it even sees that. "At peak" means that I think that is as good as it is ever going to get.

"Will age for XX more years" probably varies quite a bit more from one reviewer to the next, but at least for me means that it isn't going to drop precipitously for XX more years. It might continue to improve... or it might not. But if I've given it 92 points and say that it has XX more years, I would not expect its rating to drop more than a point or two in those XX years.

There are a lot of different ways that a Port can get 92 points. It can get that while very young and boisterous, or while stuck in a teenage funk, or while old, mellow, and pleasant.

[Andy Velebil]

Glenn is spot on and what I have been saying. This VP won't get any better with age. It has reached its peak. Sure it may change as it ages but I don't see it getting better going foward.

As a side;
Outside of perhaps holding a few for vertical tastings down the road I don't get the point of holding onto Ports for any substantial amount of time once they've reached peak? This is the perfect time to enjoy them before they start that slow slide downhill and the experience diminishes. There is an * to that statement and that is; I'm talking about VP's that mature in the mid-term time frame, 20-30 years. I find the top ones that are capable of reaching around a 1/2 century still on the upswing (i.e. 1966 Fonseca) tend to hold up a whole lot longer once they hit peak and even when they start their slow downhill slide so there is generally no rush to consume those. And at their age they tend to no longer be daily drinkers unless you're Bill Gates

[Eric Menchen]

I don't get the point of holding onto Ports for any substantial amount of time once they've reached peak?

Well, there is the practical aspect of, "What are you going to drink?" Sure, bottle A might be at peak, but so are B, C, and D. First world problems. I have an idea of when I will drink my wines, but I've not set out a plan and complex model like some around here.

[Glenn E.]

I don't get the point of holding onto Ports for any substantial amount of time once they've reached peak? This is the perfect time to enjoy them before they start that slow slide downhill and the experience diminishes.

That's where the second part of the equation comes in. I agree that the 1997 Souza is "at peak" but I also think it's going "to age for 10 more years" and quite possibly more. It will change during those 10 years, but I don't see it improving nor do I see it declining. So it's really about style preference at that point - right now it's still a pretty fruity and lively Port, while by the end of its plateau it will be softer and smoother. I prefer mature Port to be more on that softer and smoother end of the spectrum, so while I still expect it to be ~92 points in 10 years it will be a Port that I enjoy drinking more at that time. (I typically rate both the '97 and '95 at about 91-92 points IIRC.)

So for me, it makes sense to hold them for 10 more years even though they're already "at peak."

[Thomas V]

I don't get the point of holding onto Ports for any substantial amount of time once they've reached peak? This is the perfect time to enjoy them before they start that slow slide downhill and the experience diminishes.

That's where the second part of the equation comes in. I agree that the 1997 Souza is "at peak" but I also think it's going "to age for 10 more years" and quite possibly more. It will change during those 10 years, but I don't see it improving nor do I see it declining. So it's really about style preference at that point - right now it's still a pretty fruity and lively Port, while by the end of its plateau it will be softer and smoother. I prefer mature Port to be more on that softer and smoother end of the spectrum, so while I still expect it to be ~92 points in 10 years it will be a Port that I enjoy drinking more at that time. (I typically rate both the '97 and '95 at about 91-92 points IIRC.)

So for me, it makes sense to hold them for 10 more years even though they're already "at peak."

Wont you rate them higher even if they are at their "peak" according to you, cause they will "age" and change characteristic into what your prefer? So for you the Souza is not at its peak, as you will enjoy them more in 10 years?

Also I think your definitions are much different to most people I know that drink wine.

When people I know (myself included) refer to a wine will age well or for 10 years, most indicate that there is room for improvement. That the wine has not yet reached its full potential, its peak. So you would never hear the sentence: This wine is at its peak but will age well. It is contradictory, at least in to my logic.

Fun debate.

[Eric Menchen]

I suppose this depends on if you think the peak looks like this:

p2b.jpg (34.89 KiB) Viewed 2942 times

Or this:

p1b.jpg (37.78 KiB) Viewed 2942 times

Although now that I look at it, there is even a little bit of flat spot on the second. And some might argue that the first one doesn't even have a peak.

[Andy Velebil]

Eric
I’ll admit those pics made me laugh out loud. Well done!

[Glenn E.]

Wont you rate them higher even if they are at their "peak" according to you, cause they will "age" and change characteristic into what your prefer? So for you the Souza is not at its peak, as you will enjoy them more in 10 years?

No. If it's "at peak" then I'm saying I don't think it's going to get better - at least not a full point better.

The '97 and '95 Souzas are good examples. I think that they're both at peak, but the '97 has a younger and more youthful profile than the '95. I think with time the '97 will slowly turn into the '95, and the '95 will slowly fade. As they stand right now I typically rate them the same (depending on bottle variation, etc). So if the '97 does in fact need 10 years to turn into the '95... at which point it will have the same score as it does now... then it is both "at peak" and "will age for 10 more years".

Also I think your definitions are much different to most people I know that drink wine.

When people I know (myself included) refer to a wine will age well or for 10 years, most indicate that there is room for improvement. That the wine has not yet reached its full potential, its peak. So you would never hear the sentence: This wine is at its peak but will age well. It is contradictory, at least in to my logic.

Fun debate.

I think it is Port that is different. Port can be brilliant both when young and when old. It often hits a plateau, not a peak, and can hold on that plateau for 10, 20, or sometimes even more years. I'm not a dry wine drinker, so I don't know how true that is of dry wine. But I have to assume that wine's age profile doesn't come to a sharp point and then immediately begin to decline precipitously, so even if the timelines are different what I'm saying for Port has to be true for dry wine as well. Surely a dry wine can be "at peak" for at least a couple of years, right? In which case both "at peak" and "will age for 2 more years" are both true?

Perhaps it is the use of the word "age" and maybe something like "hold" would be better?

[Andy Velebil]

Most upper end wine hits a plateau and holds there for a period before it starts the decline. How long that plateau is varies a lot of things. It's rare for a top end wine to peak and then immediately start a decline.

My general experience with lower end "commodity" wines is they tend to not have much or any plateau.

[Thomas V]

Perhaps it is the use of the word "age" and maybe something like "hold" would be better?

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is the use of the word "age" in that context that throws me (people) off. Something like hold or maintain would be a more clear choice (from my perspective), to avoid confusion.