Single Quintas: How important are they?

[Roy Hersh]

Do you prefer to see more integration of SQVPs hitting the market on an annual basis, or do you feel three declarations per decade is a better system? What about a better system for the consumer?

Actually you can go for both if you'd like ... just venture an opinion.

[Nikolaj Winther]

Personally, I steer clear of SQVP's from the major producers. Fonseca, my favourite producer has the Guimaraens-lable as a sort of second-lable AND a SQVP - often in the same years.

To me it deflates Vintage Port. I'd say either you keep the exclusive exclusive, or you don't make exclusive at all.

I'm not saying that the producer can't make more than three vintages pr. decade. If the circumstances are right, then make 10 per year.

In MY "perfect world", VP-vintages is for VP (and colheitas/aged tawnies) only. Non-VP years are for LBV (and colheitas/aged tawnies) only.

That way, rather than dilluting the VP quality and prestigt, you actually strengthen both VP and LBV-prestige and quality, as only the most superb wine has the word "vintage" on the lable, whether it's straight Vintage or Late Bottled.

Then the producer should focus on making quality Traditional LBV on "off-years", rather than issueing a second lable, a SQVP, a traditional AND a "regular" LBV in off-years, and in vintage-years, they issue Vintage, Second lable, SQVP, traditional LBV AND ordinary LBV. If you only have the same amount of quality juice, then somewhere there's products not delivering their max. potential.

[Moses Botbol]

In MY "perfect world", VP-vintages is for VP (and colheitas/aged tawnies) only. Non-VP years are for LBV (and colheitas/aged tawnies) only.

That way, rather than dilluting the VP quality and prestigt, you actually strengthen both VP and LBV-prestige and quality, as only the most superb wine has the word "vintage" on the lable, whether it's straight Vintage or Late Bottled.

I can feel for your points, but as a consumer, the cheaper price point on the Single Quintas are welcome.

[Jay Powers]

I do not think that the SQVPs detract from the quality of the "main" wine in most cases. Take a look a Grahams...I don't think anybody could say that their 94, 00, or 03 VP's were diluted by their decision to have a Malvedos in '04 or '95. Did Noval 1997 or 2000 suffer because there were Nacionals made in the same year? I don't think so, and from what others report here and elsewhere, not to many others would argue.

And what about Quinta do Vesuvio? Should the wine made there just be put into the Grahams? Very different wines, same high quality. I like to have the choice, and variety.

Jay

[Nikolaj Winther]

I do not think that the SQVPs detract from the quality of the "main" wine in most cases. Take a look a Grahams...I don't think anybody could say that their 94, 00, or 03 VP's were diluted by their decision to have a Malvedos in '04 or '95.

Not at all. But it's just not whether they withhold juice or not. The traditional "speech" has always been "if you produce vintage-ports in non-vintage years (or too often) you damage the prestige of the concept.

There's rarely a vintage that does not see a wine from Fonseca. Either F, FG or the SQVP. So the producers themselves are, in my optics, damageing the concept because they flood the market with wines that has "vintage" on the lable. And I must say, that I rarely see SQVP's that top in the reviews. So rather than making weak-to-medium quality (SQ)VP all the time, make strong traditional LBV that blows all other rubys out of the water.

To me it's much like the great Crus of Bordeaux - if they made nothing but "special cuvées" of this and that parcel every year - all things being equal, the main wine would suffer from it. And while Graham's is not be affected in 94 by making 95 Malvedos, it will weaken both the brand AND the other wines that they (in my mind) should focus on - the LBV's or tawnies.

I also see a problem in the flooding of the market with more or less obscure SQVP's - if your argument holds, that the SQVP in same years as VP's don't dillute the product - as it clutters the market. Port is complicated enouth as it is. Having potentially hundreds of SQ-wines on the market doesn't help.

Anyway. I frown upon SQVP's, as I see them as bastards of the trade, and rather than producing an amount of great wine, they make twice as much wine with half the potential. My message: Focus, people!

[Andy Velebil]

I enjoy SQVPs and generally think they offer a better deal for mid-term wines at a better price than their VP counterparts. However, seems that is quickly changing as producers have realized a market exists for SQVPs and are now raising prices on them. The latest release of '05 Vargellas is selling for around $45-55 a bottle at stores around me, this is crazy and I will not pay that for a "non-declared" year SQVP. I'll just wait for them to be discounted by retailers later.

With the exception of a few that produce every year (Vesuvio for example) I think they need to cut back SQVP to those years where it really was just a slightly "off" year and a full fledge VP just barily didn't make the grade.

If Port companies flood the market, which is what they are starting to do with all these SQVPs and high end LBV's, then they will only hurt themselves in the long run. I mean retailers are already having a hard time selling the 2000 and 2003 VPs (just look at how many discounts on these there are, and how many are still easily available), so why put even more product on the market.

I think all producers should go back to the old way of looking at SQVPs, and that is to make them periodically, hold them in their cellars for 10+ years, then slowly release them on the market as almost mature or mature Ports. BTW, I also have to give thanks to those that still do this.

just my

[Luc Gauthier]

Andy ,
I think part of the equation also rests in the target market .
In Quebec , we haven't been flooded with SQVP'S .( Yet )
The SAQ having the monopoly of alcool sales , producers must meet certain minimum standards in order to have their bottles on the shelves .This minimum is $ 100,000 . (Some spend as much as $300,000 on marketing)
Reason # 2 : The SAQ automaticaly increases the price of premium Port by 25% !!!
Fred and I just love this market . NOT !!!

[Frederick Blais]

I like SQVP. It is a way to get some quality port at a cheaper price. Normally it evolves faster so I don't have to wait 30 years to crack it. Often they are made in a more approchable way too. So as long as they do it only with the SQVP and keep the VP in the old fashion way, it is cool with me.

Also it gives the producer a break They don't have to do a full field blend from all the quintas they own.

[Frederick Blais]

I think all producers should go back to the old way of looking at SQVPs, and that is to make them periodically, hold them in their cellars for 10+ years, then slowly release them on the market as almost mature or mature Ports. BTW, I also have to give thanks to those that still do this.

This is an idea I like too. I think the company who used(still are partly doing it) felt there was a place for them on the market of young SQVP as the "new Douro " producers are releasing them almost every year in a young stage. With new Douro I mean all the Quintas that are now releasing Ports and not selling their grapes anymore. They brought a new dynamic to the market of SQVP.

[Marc J.]

It seems to me that SQVPs are a nice complement to full-blown declarations. Even though there was some apprehension early on (mid-80's) concerning the saturation of the market by SQVP in addition to the 3-4 full declarations per decade, those fears seem to be unfounded. This system appears to be working well but I believe that a key element of this arrangement is that the SQVP declarations are kept to fairly small bottlings in less than perfect years (but not EVERY year). The pricing of these bottlings is also a factor and as long as that also remains in-line (significantly less than a full-blown VP, but not "cheap" by any means) then this system should contine to benefit both the consumer as well as the shippers.

Marc

[Al B.]

Personally, I like the Single Quinta concept and the closer match that brings to terroir and to vintage variability - I like a lack of uniformity in my wines!

I had always assumed that the main difference between a blended full declaration and a single quinta declaration was mainly in the volume of port that was of the quality required to support a full declaration (eg. Cockburn 1977) plus the view of the major shippers on the health of the market that would be required to absorb a full blown declaration. I don't share the perception that the quality of the wine inside a bottle is any less because it is a single quinta and not a blend. Vesuvio and Noval produce wines in almost all years, but vary the quantity that they produce rather than whether or not they bottle a vintage port. There are some examples of very long lived ports that are single quinta wines as well as some that are examples that are blends.

I believe that some SQVPs are still very good value for money when compared to the cost of some other types of port. The 1987 Vargellas is one such example, where this port is as good as some blended vintage ports that I have tasted from other fully declared years.

I suspect that SQVP's main role will become one of allowing smaller and independant producers to make, bottle and ship their own vintage port in most years while also reserving sufficient quantities to support their development and production of other styles of port such as rubies, tawnies and colheitas.

But I guess that only time will tell...

Alex

[Derek T.]

A very interesting thread and some very sound opinions offered so far.

I welcome the SQVP's with open arms. They are often as good if not better than some true vintage declarations and I think their existence can only be good for introducing people to the world of VP. This week I bought 12 bottles of SQVP from a UK supermarket for £11 per bottle, the same price as a premium ruby or a filtered LBV. When I tell you that these were Taylor's Vargellas and Dow's Bomfim the price looks even more impressive.

I think one question that the producers need to ask themselves is what the long term effect will be on full declaration VP prices. The port drinking world is rapidly becoming used to buying mature SQVP's at prices which are around 25% of the price of a newly released "real" VP. Sooner or later people will start to question why they should pay this huge price differencial for wines that are often only marginally better and cost the same to produce as a good quality SQVP.

Here is a question to ask yourself: If you had £200 to spend would you want 12 bottles of Vargellas 1987 that you could enjoy now or 4 bottles of Taylor 2003 that you have to pay to store for 20 years until it is ready to drink?

Derek

[Roy Hersh]

Derek,

Give me the Vargellas.

When I tell you that these were Taylor's Vargellas and Dow's Bomfim the price looks even more impressive.

Don't tease us ... which vintage(s)?

[Derek T.]

Roy,

I've already got you some of those V87s last year

I bought the V98 and B96 for £11 per bottle delivered. Isn't that the same price you guys get it for in north america?

[Roy Hersh]

Actually that is the case price!

The shipping of the case that is. The Port is extra.

[Andy Velebil]

Great prices...I wish the good 'ol US would have the x-mas sell-a-thon where they discount the Port to those insanely cheap prices

[Todd Pettinger]

What a great thread, with the exception of Derek bragging about his stupidly-low prices on Vargellas and Bonfim. Wow... I really AM going to have to move to England!! :)

There are a lot of great points on both sides of the fence. I have to say I agree with some from both sides...

The way I look at it, is IF the SQVPs and the 2nd-label VPs (Guimaraens, etc) were priced as low as they should be (or ARE) in other markets, I would probably be much happier, much more broke and with much more "VP" experience. As I happen to live in a market where many of the SQs and 2nd labels from the major producers are as expensive, if not MORE expensive, than some regular VPs from smaller producers (as an example, look at Ferreira VP which is typically between $50 and $75 in my market vs the Taylor Vargellas, which I have not seen for below $110C.)

I know that my market is not typical of what else is out there to be found in the US and UK, so it almost is unfair of me to comment based upon these criteria, but c'est la vie.

I think SQs and 2nd label VPs certainly have their place in the market. I like the fact that I shoudl be able to crack open a typical bottle of SQ at a relatively 'young' age of 10-15 years and have a wine that is somewhat nearing its peak (or at not horribly closed.) I would drink more of these if they were available more often at reasonable prices in my area, or if I did a lot more travelling and could manage to get more than a couple bottles across customs at a time without getting horribly raped with import taxes, duties and fees out of the experience.

Maybe I just need to plan more trips TO the US and UK and do a lot more drinking while I am there???

Todd

[Roy Hersh]

I know that my market is not typical of what else is out there to be found in the US and UK, so it almost is unfair of me to comment based upon these criteria, but c'est la vie.

Your opinion is always valid and appreciated Todd, but given the Canadian regulations when it comes to all wine buying/importing by the Provinces, it makes things very uneven to make any real comparisons. Given that and the absolutely crazy pricing schemes of Port througuout Canada (especially the SAQ!) it is even more amazing how much Port is purchased by Canadian consumers, and the special categories in particular.

You really do need to save your valued Canadian dollars for a good buying trip down to the USA.

[Jay Powers]

It seems like many are concerned with the proliferation of SQVPs, price points, and the fact that the producers may be hurting themselves by potentially ending up with lower prices for VP...

...But thats a good thing for the consumer! If the quality of VP remains the same (and SQVP for that matter), and prices go down because of the abundence of choices, I find that a difficult argument from the consumers perspective to stop making any SQVPs, unless perhaps I am the producers accountant.

But I also assume that the producers, some of whom at least must be pretty savvy buisnessmen, are not worried about it or they would not be doing it in the first place. Sounds like they have a much bigger problem to deal with with their Ruby Ports.

Jay

[simon Lisle]

I don't mind SQVP's but the quality varies vastly from year to year even from the same mark but in general the price does not.I would like the shippers to put them out only when the quality is there.