For The Love Of Port

I don't think anyone would argue that the generally declared "classic" Vintage Ports are worth more than the off vintage Single Quinta VPs and second label or even single vineyard VPs. Now that we've all agreed to that ...

In whatever currency you'd like to discuss this in: how much do you think the vintage Ports from "off vintages" like 2004 and 2005 should cost? How much more should a well-known name like Quinta do Bomfim cost versus a name like Quinta do Ventozelo (just as an example)?

Your thoughts on the pricing issue would be most appreciated!

I think the answer very much depends on whether you are buying a bottle to drink or a case to lay down. For laying down I would expect to pay the equivalent of up to £15 (GBP) per bottle for the likes of Bomfim, Malvedos, Vargellas etc. If I was buying a single bottle to drink I would expect to pay around £20. When it comes to lesser known shippers I would expect these prices to decrease by around 25%.

Now that I have answered the question I will, of course, disagree with the opening statement that generally declared classic vintage is "worth more" than SQVP's. I'm sure you would expect nothing less from me, Roy

Purely from a quality perspective I entirely disagree with this premise. In the UK, prices of SQVP's are thankfully contained to reasonable levels because the port buying public simply would not pay more for them. Classic VP, on the other hand, has a very much more limited audience and very often the difference in quality does not justify the dramatic increase in price. Put simply, would you prefer 4 bottles of a 2003 at £50 per bottle or a case of 12 SQVP's from the same house that had been aged 10 years in bottle before release for less than £200?

Add to this that many SQVP's are very much better than many "Classic" VP's and I think this idea that classic years are always best just does not stand up to scrutiny.

Derek

Now that I have answered the question I will, of course, disagree with the opening statement that generally declared classic vintage is "worth more" than SQVP's. I'm sure you would expect nothing less from me, Roy

Well my friend, actually I miss this type of discussion which has been sorely missing for some time now.

Add to this that many SQVP's are very much better than many "Classic" VP's and I think this idea that classic years are always best just does not stand up to scrutiny.

I did say "worth more" not better, which is a huge contextual difference in this case. I do believe that there is greater value in all sense of that word, in owning classic VPs rather than SQVPs. That said, I am speaking of a "classic" like a 1992 Taylor vs. a 1995 Vargellas. I know which I'd rather own (Vinha Velha aside).

I don't agree with your statement that 'MANY SQVPs are very much better than MANY "Classic" VP's.' Are you comparing apples to apples when making such a statement as that? If you choose a 'weakest link' "Classic VP" and compare it to a great SQVP, I don't think that makes your point. So I will patiently await for some comparative examples to better understand this.

Also: "I think this idea that classic years are always best just does not stand up to scrutiny." I don't disagree with that at all, but there are very few generally declared years that are bested by what some refer to as "off vintages." Debating "ALWAYS BEST" is not for me. Often best, yes ... imo. Always, heck no! There are lots of fine examples of vintages like 1980, 1987, 1991 and 1995 to name just a few recent examples, where if certain economic dynamics or close proximity to vintages viewed as "better" by the Port trade had not been in place, would possibly/probably have been generally declared.

Refreshing discussion points, thanks Derek!

Roy , I notice you consider 2005 an "off vintage", 2004 as well .
For argument sake , are you putting both in the same boat in terms of quality ?
In Quebec , we have very few 2004's ( Q.de la Rosa )
and 2005's ( . Q. de Roriz ) . I may be missing a few . . .
Niepoorts 2005 is the only one I've tasted ( IDVP tasting in Montréal )

That exchange between Roy and Derek had me smiling to. I used to log on an enjoy reading such things. Always felt I learned more when you two disagreed an were trying to explain your points of view! Got me quite nostalgic. (mind you, I liked your squabbles more!!!)

Alan.

Luc,

An argument can be made, that any vintage that is not GENERALLY declared, is an "off vintage." Others may say that really terrible vintages like 1993 and 2002 (to name just two recent ones) are what should be considered "off vintages." So, it really depends on what you believe constitutes an "off vintage." I'll stick to the first definition.

Therefore, since neither 2004 or 2005 was generally declared and the traditional Port producers only released their SQVPs and 2nd label VPs, I would consider both "off vintages." That doesn't mean they are bad vintages or are unworthy as I mentioned in my most recent post in this thread.

This past weekend, I had the 2004 Quinta de la Rosa VP (over a 3 day evaluation period) for the very first time. My TN will appear in next week's FTLOP newsletter, along with 10 more 2005 VPs that did not appear in last month's article. I'm sure you've already seen my TNs on the Niepoort and Roriz that you mentioned.





Alan,

There is a ton to be learned from well thought out discussions, whether folks agree or not. I very much respect Derek's palate and opinions as I think you know and also enjoy having his (and other's) posts that provide great debates on our favorite wine topic. I miss them too and hope we'll have more in the future. If Port related, all is fair. Non-Port related "squabbles" OTOH are best left for emails and PMs only.

Now a question for you: What do you believe constitutes "an off-vintage"?

Roy,

I'd say that the purists answer is any year were the House does not declare in accordance with the IVDP rules. (Still waiting for that Official list we know they keep!)

I would however acknowledge the argument given that its the rare times (In fact are there any?) when a House does not declare, does not have its reknown secondary, or a famous SQVP.

But I favour the Purists answer.

Alan

Roy Hersh wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that the generally declared "classic" Vintage Ports are worth more than the off vintage Single Quinta VPs and second label or even single vineyard VPs. Now that we've all agreed to that

I guess that it also depends on how you define worth. Is a bottle of Mouton Rothschild 2005 worth £400 a bottle? Absolutely, that is what some people are paying today for this wine. Would I pay it? No way!

So, I've come to the conclusion that I can really only comment on my perceived worth of classic ports compared to second label ports. And that perceived worth is against other relevant benchmarks.

While I like to have a handful of the big names from the big vintages in my cellar, I am being put off by the prices that I am being asked to pay for these. But is it worth more to me than second label port? Perhaps, but not by as much as the current price differential. Based purely on quality and drinking enjoyment (either now or in a decade or two) I probably split my money 80:20 in favour of the second label wines. I find better personal worth in these and get almost as much enjoyment from them, choosing to keep the big names that I have for special occasions.

In whatever currency you'd like to discuss this in: how much do you think the vintage Ports from "off vintages" like 2004 and 2005 should cost? How much more should a well-known name like Quinta do Bomfim cost versus a name like Quinta do Ventozelo (just as an example)?

I look for a price for the second label or single quinta wine to be in the £10-15 mark. At that level I am comfortable buying a bottle or two and experimenting to see if I like it. I rarely will buy a bottle of Vargellas these days as it is priced at over £22 at UK retail and that is too much for my taste where the wine is (a) too young to be enjoyable and (b) often of lower quality than some of its competitors. I compare the prices of the port that I buy to table wine that I might be tempted to buy as an alternative and £15 a bottle is about right, for my pocket.

Plus we have the benchmark of plenty of Morgan '91 swirling around in the UK at the moment, priced at around £10. Why would I want to take a gamble on an unknown port (classic or second label) when I have the assurance of a known quality standard at a very attractive price?

Alex

So, I've come to the conclusion that I can really only comment on my perceived worth of classic ports compared to second label ports. And that perceived worth is against other relevant benchmarks.

While I like to have a handful of the big names from the big vintages in my cellar, I am being put off by the prices that I am being asked to pay for these. But is it worth more to me than second label port? Perhaps, but not by as much as the current price differential. Based purely on quality and drinking enjoyment (either now or in a decade or two) I probably split my money 80:20 in favour of the second label wines. I find better personal worth in these and get almost as much enjoyment from them, choosing to keep the big names that I have for special occasions.

All well and good Alex, solid points for sure. But I guarantee if I were to evaluate your cellar of all VPs prior to 1994 (no reason to debate semantics, so I will even go back to 1985 if you'd like) that your collection would be reversed with an 80:20 ratio in favor of the classics. The reason I am pretty certain of that? Obviously the SQVP "movement" did not gain momentum and had little effect prior to that. So your (or anyone's) purchasing of VPs up until the past 5 (or so) generally declared vintages WAS "classic" by nature.

If in the meanwhile you have now changed your buying habits to turn that ratio upside down due to your aforementioned reasons, I can absolutely understand and respect your choice. Whether looking at worth as value for money or the other definitions you used above, your choice and reasons for buying whatever Vintage Ports you do, is a very personal decision.

However, I look at worth in another way, as you have defined it as it relates to you. When collecting wine for future drinking pleasure, the majority of us are out to obtain the best quality we can find, stored well and sold at the best price available. At the same time, many of us post about value for money too.

Well if "worth" can also be defined by the value of our VPs if we were to resell them, (because that is also a sound measure of their worth ... or value, in a very real monetary sense) then hypothetically, the "classics" which most often sell for a significant premium above SQVPs, would be well worth buying and collecting. That could be true even if one's goal was hedonistic consumption and not the consideration of purchasing with resale in mind. THIS was how I considered "worth" when I used the word in my post a few days ago to start out this thread.

As you have clearly shown, there are many meanings for the word "worth" and I appreciate the opportunity to clear up mine, which was initially vague. Most assuredly, even if you disagree with all the rest of my premises in this thread, we do agree that the prices of recent vintages (especially the classic VPs!) are no longer looking like the bargains that many of the recent past vintages (1990s) were. That is just one reason I encourage folks to look at the SQVPs in years like 2004 and 2005 to name the most obvious and recent examples (through a long and painstaking process) in order to share with the consumer, what I perceive to be great values in Port today. After all, not everyone started buying Vintage Ports when you and I did.

That said, compared to the fine wine market pricing, I still feel virtually all Vintage Port represents solid value for money. We can quibble on that point over a great bottle or two, but when I see where 2005 Burgundy, Bordeaux and even German Riesling prices stand today, it is hard for me to believe that I have paid too dearly for the Ports in my cellar (and I include 2000 and 2003s). Of course, if they were $5-15 lower per bottle, I'd like it even better, but I don't want to see more consolidation within the Port trade.

Roy Hersh wrote:All well and good Alex, solid points for sure. But I guarantee if I were to evaluate your cellar of all VPs prior to 1994 (no reason to debate semantics, so I will even go back to 1985 if you'd like) that your collection would be reversed with an 80:20 ratio in favor of the classics. The reason I am pretty certain of that? Obviously the SQVP "movement" did not gain momentum and had little effect prior to that. So your (or anyone's) purchasing of VPs up until the past 5 (or so) generally declared vintages WAS "classic" by nature.

If in the meanwhile you have now changed your buying habits to turn that ratio upside down due to your aforementioned reasons, I can absolutely understand and respect your choice. Whether looking at worth as value for money or the other definitions you used above, your choice and reasons for buying whatever Vintage Ports you do, is a very personal decision.

Roy - you are absolutely right. If you look back at what I was buying a decade ago, it was all the classic names from the classic declarations with a handful of single quintas thrown in. These days, I will buy occasional bottles of the big names from mature vintages but new or recent releases are almost all single quinta or second label. But, you've made me think, perhaps this is also because we haven't had a major declaration since 2003.

Well if "worth" can also be defined by the value of our VPs if we were to resell them, (because that is also a sound measure of their worth ... or value, in a very real monetary sense) then hypothetically, the "classics" which most often sell for a significant premium above SQVPs, would be well worth buying and collecting. That could be true even if one's goal was hedonistic consumption and not the consideration of purchasing with resale in mind. THIS was how I considered "worth" when I used the word in my post a few days ago to start out this thread.

I can't argue with this idea at all! If you define worth as resale value then I would wholeheartedly agree that the classic names in the classic vintages are likely to sell for a higher price per bottle than the single quinta / second label wines. This may change over a number of years as some single quintas start to develop their own reputations for quality and longevity (Noval comes to mind as a single quinta that has achieved this), but not today.

Most assuredly, even if you disagree with all the rest of my premises in this thread, we do agree that the prices of recent vintages (especially the classic VPs!) are no longer looking like the bargains that many of the recent past vintages (1990s) were. That is just one reason I encourage folks to look at the SQVPs in years like 2004 and 2005 to name the most obvious and recent examples (through a long and painstaking process) in order to share with the consumer, what I perceive to be great values in Port today. After all, not everyone started buying Vintage Ports when you and I did.

That said, compared to the fine wine market pricing, I still feel virtually all Vintage Port represents solid value for money. We can quibble on that point over a great bottle or two, but when I see where 2005 Burgundy, Bordeaux and even German Riesling prices stand today, it is hard for me to believe that I have paid too dearly for the Ports in my cellar (and I include 2000 and 2003s). Of course, if they were $5-15 lower per bottle, I'd like it even better, but I don't want to see more consolidation within the Port trade.

I agree with this as well !!

But I do have a suspicion that what we might see develop is a generation of port drinkers (as opposed to wine investors) who turn to the single quinta and second label ports because of the price of the classic ports. I also believe from my personal experience that the single quinta and second label ports are, in general, such good ports that they will easily hold for 30-50 years in good vintages and will be rivals for the dollar in your pocket that you might otherwise choose to spend on a classic vintage. (The 1967 Vargellas is drinking well this year, the 1978 Roeda is very good, a Martinez Crusted from 1968 was lovely earlier this year.) It comes down to the perception of the buyer - which would bring me most enjoyment, a single bottle of Taylor 1927 or several bottles of Guimaraens 1987? If we do see a generation of single quinta drinkers then we may see these prices firm while the resale prices for the classics stagnate.

Of course, all of this could be completely changed by a new geographic market developing a taste for port. Any new market is likely to go straight for the classic names from the classic vintages and prices will soar for these while us drinkers will have to be content with the single quinta and second labels.

I wish I hadn't written this now - I feel quite depressed

Alex

A very well thought out premise. Hopefully there will continue to be room for both classic and SQVPs, even if the market dynamics that move each are different.

But I do have a suspicion that what we might see develop is a generation of port drinkers (as opposed to wine investors) who turn to the single quinta and second label ports because of the price of the classic ports.

Let us both pray that the wine investors continue to glom onto Bdx, Burg, Rhones, Champagne et al while ignoring for the most part, Vintage Port. My mission with FTLOP is to share my passion and opinion about Port and help educate consumers. In doing so and providing information on non-generally-declared vintages, I aim to provide reasonably priced alternatives to those looking to afford Vintage Ports. They deserve shelf space for all levels of Port collector and by that I mean, novice and expert, as well as those folks of limited budgets and rich people alike.

SQVPs are here to stay, just as the red and white DOC wines from the Douro are here to stay too! I don't know if the gap between SQVPs and classic VPs will narrow if/when 2007 VPs are declared, but I doubt it. It may in fact, be a specific strategy of some traditional big Port players to have a specific differential between their 2nd label and SQVPs versus their classic VPs. Who knows?

I can say with certainty, that in discussions I have had with members of the Port trade re: their pricing of recent releases, they DO believe that their classic VP price increases have been modest, justified and are in line with the world's wine market pricing. We can shake our collective heads and agree ... or agree to disagree.

I am not so sure that what the serious Portophiles on wine bulletin boards and forums across the planet have to say about their pricing schemes means a hill of beans to them, regardless of our buying power. After all, we are still a minute portion of the overall marketplace in which they sell their goods.

Fascinating thread.

One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages? Other than Vesuvio I've not really tried that many and on that basis I find Vesuvio pretty consistent with a few standout years. How does this compare with other SQVP? Clearly I will need to try more...shame!

Adam F wrote:Fascinating thread.

One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages? Other than Vesuvio I've not really tried that many and on that basis I find Vesuvio pretty consistent with a few standout years. How does this compare with other SQVP? Clearly I will need to try more...shame!

This is actually a very good question - one which I obviously cannot provide answer to as my own status as amateur portophile who has just recently (in the big scheme of time) started trying a lot of the different vintages, and some of the relatively few SQVPs that are available in my market.

I will say, however that while I can see how many think that the classics are worth the money, the ones that I have been privileged enough to try have not blown me away to the point where I would mortgage my house to buy cases of it. I have not had that proverbial epiphany when it comes to 'classic' VPs. (Yes, my experience has been extremely limited, this may be why.)

My market makes it tough to get ahold of and afford the classic Vintages. Roy describes the '85 Fonseca as a wonderful vintage that is a great value. It would be if I could get it near the US price of ~$85-105. However, even with our strong dollar, bottles of this that have just been brought inn to Edmonton are priced at $200C. Unreal. And disappointing, because I would love to try it. But is it worth spending $200/bottle on? Not at this stage of my life. Perhaps if I ever achieve a higher income bracket that I am seeking, or get to another stage in my life where debts and mortgages are paid off and I have a lot more disposable income, $200 will not seem like a massive hit to the old Port budget. But at the moment, it makes me shake my head and take a pass.

Todd

Al B. wrote:But I do have a suspicion that what we might see develop is a generation of port drinkers (as opposed to wine investors) who turn to the single quinta and second label ports because of the price of the classic ports.

This is precisely how things seem to be leading for me right now. As mentioned in my last post in this thread, my financial situation at the moment is not exactly conducive to spending huge dollars on Vintage Port, from a leading producer or otherwise. Leaving the prices here in Edmonton out of it for a minute (which can be nothing short of ludicrous, even taking into account the artificially inflated prices by the gov't of Canada's silliness in taxing fine wine,) the leading producers still seem to be sitting on the shelves at a 10-20% premium to all other brands. Sometimes as much as 35-40%. Take the 2003 Vintage, which would make most of you cry: the prices for a typical bottle of VP from 2003 is roughly $100. That is really all the "lesser tier" producers. Noval and Vesuvio are $110. (10% inflated)
Taylor's are around $120 (20% inflated from the mean)
Fonseca is the real killer at $133-145/bottle depending upon which of the 4 or 5 merchants that carry it you are buying from. 33-45% inflation over the mean.

Even at the ridiculously inflated price of $100C a bottle ($100.75US at the moment, and £51/€70) the inflation over these prices reflects a market that is certainly leaning to pricing a lot of people out of the bigger, classic producers. It certainly ensures that I cannot afford it, much as I would like to.

Roy makes a good point about which producer's juice you would rather have in your cellar, and while in general, I'd like to say I would prefer to have a cellar full of the Novals, Taylors, Fonsecas and the likes, it simply is not financially viable for me to do so. Hey, I'd love to have a cellar full of Nacionals too, but I doubt very much that I will ever be able to even justify the cost of a single bottle, never mind a case, or a cellar full. Would it be 'worth' it? Likely. Can I justify this worth?? Very unlikely.

Al B. wrote:I also believe from my personal experience that the single quinta and second label ports are, in general, such good ports that they will easily hold for 30-50 years in good vintages and will be rivals for the dollar in your pocket that you might otherwise choose to spend on a classic vintage.

As Alex indicates, if many of the SQVPs and even 2nd-labels/lesser known producers are indeed producing such good juice, it is going to turn into a no-brainer as to whim my Port dollars are directed in the future.

Todd

Fascinating thread.

Yes, one of my favorites in a long time. I wish that Derek had returned to add to his earlier post but so be it. I think some of the most educational threads on this Forum have come from posts where debate is civil and backed by strong opinions/facts.

One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages? Other than Vesuvio I've not really tried that many and on that basis I find Vesuvio pretty consistent with a few standout years. How does this compare with other SQVP? Clearly I will need to try more...shame!

Have a look at the 2003, 2004 & 2005 Vintage Forecasts in the article archives and you can do the math. Of course these are just my opinions, but regardless of my actual scores for the wines ... my range is quite consistent and you can at least judge by that. I think that the SQVP quality continues to improve. This is due to changes in the growing of the grapes, the education of the new generation of young Portmakers in the Douro and some new techniques employed in the actual winemaking. All of this leads to better Port and far more consistency.

Quinta do Vesuvio although it is a SQVP, has more depth of vintages, (1989) experience and sheer investment (with the Symington's behind it) as well as a property that has always been considered one of the gems of the entire Douro ... once owned by Dona Antonia Adelaide Ferreira. What more can I say except I genuinely have been a major Vesuvio lover and my impressions of their cask samples over the past decade as well as TNs looking back during verticals and other tastings, show this is one of the finest VPs made ... not just SQVPs.

So where oh where is Derek?

In a traffic jam on the M1.

Will be back to the debate soon

Adam F wrote:One question I often have is how consistent are SQVP across vintages?

I've tried the Malvedos and Vargellas from quite a few different years going back as far as the 1967 Vargellas. I would summarise my experience by saying that I see no difference in the variability of these ports from year to year as I see in the variability between the declared vintages. You get some vintages which are better than others - from both types of port - but you probably get more weaker SQ ports than classic ports simply because they are made more often!

Alex

Therefore, since neither 2004 or 2005 was generally declared and the traditional Port producers only released their SQVPs and 2nd label VPs, I would consider both "off vintages." That doesn't mean they are bad vintages or are unworthy as I mentioned in my most recent post in this thread.

That being said, i have 2 cases of Quinta do Noval 2004 and i am confused now. I think we all consider Noval as a traditional Port producer. However, their biggest product is, and please correct me if i am wrong, a SQVP, the Quinta do Noval. They considered 2004 to be worthy enough to produce a VP instead of their 2nd brand the Quinta do Silval. Only 1000 cases were produced and that is one of the reasons i bought 2 cases with an option on a third one.

So the term 'off vintage' has a negative meaning to me, like ok, it is a vintage but not a 'real' vintage. My point is, if a big and famous producer like Noval releases their premier brand onto the market it can't be a wrong buy simply because they can't afford to do that.

Same goes for the Niepoort 2005 by the way. Luckily both vintages were proven worthy by some well known wine critics

And yes, you will always pay more for a well-known producer because you pay for the name, not only in Port but with all products you buy. Well known cant be wrong is the generally aclaimed opinion. I remember a old Elvis record title: 50.000.000 Elvis fans can't be wrong and same goes for the well-known Port houses.

Erik Wiechers wrote:That being said, i have 2 cases of Quinta do Noval 2004 and i am confused now. I think we all consider Noval as a traditional Port producer. However, their biggest product is, and please correct me if i am wrong, a SQVP, the Quinta do Noval. They considered 2004 to be worthy enough to produce a VP instead of their 2nd brand the Quinta do Silval. Only 1000 cases were produced and that is one of the reasons i bought 2 cases with an option on a third one.

So the term 'off vintage' has a negative meaning to me, like ok, it is a vintage but not a 'real' vintage. My point is, if a big and famous producer like Noval releases their premier brand onto the market it can't be a wrong buy simply because they can't afford to do that.

Same goes for the Niepoort 2005 by the way. Luckily both vintages were proven worthy by some well known wine critics

Erik,

I think you are right in that there is a blurring of vintage and "off" vintage, of SQVP and classic VP with Noval and Vesuvio being two quintas leading the creation of the confusion.

Personally, I have the confidence that both Noval and Vesuvio will only produce vintage port if the quality justifies a release. I trust them that they will vary the quantity produced and not compromise on the quality and this has been supported by my personal experience. For this reason I will buy and will continue to buy Vesuvio in every vintage.

However, you may well find that in years to come if you need or choose to sell one of these cases of '04 Noval that you have, you may not get as much for it as you would for a case of the '03 even though they are of very similar quality. It is a reflection of the potential second-hand buying market and not the quality of the port from Noval.

Alex