Better at 30 than 40?

[Tom Archer]

Watching the evolution of VPs as they have recently moved from 30 to 40 years - 75, 77 and now 80 - and a little further back, 66, 70,72 - can I identify any that were better at 30 than 40? - I don't think I can name one.

I thought I might have a candidate with Churchill '82, which a decade ago was full and fruit driven, and over the past three years was beginning to look tired and disordered, but after opening a bottle yesterday realised that is was merely moving to a higher level.

I'm sure someone can pinpoint an exception to the rule - somewhere.. - but it does seem to be a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of VP has only one way to go in it's fourth decade - a decade that often sees ugly ducklings morph into swans..

[Andy Velebil]

1980 Fonseca / Taylor’s? Lol.

[Glenn E.]

I tend to agree, though like Tom I'm sure there are exceptions.

I've always thought that "checking in" on Vintage Ports at 20 years old isn't doing them any favors. The better VPs are still in their "teenage funk" at that point, and even the less-than-best are barely emerging. None of them are anywhere near mature. Sure, you might be able to start identifying VPs that you're going to want to drink sooner rather than later, but you can do that by tasting them at 30 years old, too, because just about every VP is going to continue to improve until it reaches 40.

Sure, if you're Roy or some other professional wine journalist, you should probably check in on them at 20. It's what you do. But for the rest of us? Nah... leave them be until they're 30.

Put another way, the 1980s are just now 40 years old. Would you call any of them over the hill? Doubtful. There are probably some that are done improving, so yeah go ahead and drink those up now. But the best still have some potential left, and that's from a "merely" 3-star Vintage.

A 5-star Vintage? Well, as a whole I'd say that the 1970s present younger than the 1980s. Possibly roughly the same age. I bet if we re-did the "Best of the 80s" tasting and slipped in a few of the better 1970s that no one would notice.

[Tom Archer]

I've always thought that "checking in" on Vintage Ports at 20 years old isn't doing them any favors.

Totally agree. For some time my minimum age for drinking VP has been 24yrs, but this is only at an investigative level. Of the 72 bottles of VP I allocate for drinking at home or socially each year, only four now are under 30. Sixteen bottles are currently allocated between the ages of 30 and 40, but I'm thinking about dropping it to twelve.

[Andy Velebil]

I've always thought that "checking in" on Vintage Ports at 20 years old isn't doing them any favors.

Totally agree. For some time my minimum age for drinking VP has been 24yrs, but this is only at an investigative level. Of the 72 bottles of VP I allocate for drinking at home or socially each year, only four now are under 30. Sixteen bottles are currently allocated between the ages of 30 and 40, but I'm thinking about dropping it to twelve.

With more "SQ" VP's and new producers with new products, 20 years is probably a good time to check in and see if they've entered their prime drinking windows. One thing I've noticed is people saying it still looks young or has fruit so it's not ready. Often times this leads to a failure to look at the overall picture and realize just fruit or color alone isn't what it needs to keep aging. I've had VP's in the 20-30 year mark that have good color and fruit but often lack complexity, have excess heat, lost tannins and otherwise becoming too simple to keep aging in a good way. While technology is helping, a good amount of VP's reach their peak in that 20-30 year range.