I just discovered we could create polls with this forum, so lets inaugurate this option.
Lets discuss of our choice in this thread.
I chose 2000 because of course I did not tasted any 2003. I find them an ideal balance between 1997 and 1994. Having in part the full body character and jammy fruit the 1994 had in its youth and sharing some of the elegance and balance the 1997 have.
Your favorite vintage of the last 10 years
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
-
Frederick Blais
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
- Location: Porto, Portugal
Your favorite vintage of the last 10 years
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
Fred,
Thank you for being the first to post a poll on this site. I think it was well done and should make for some excellent debate.
Having tasted the 2003 cask samples, I would give a slight nod to the 2000 vintage over the 2003 and also the 1994. One correction though, there were actually 3 perfect scores of 100 points given out by James Suckling when first evaluating the 1994s. You mentioned two of them, but the Quinta do Noval Nacional, also earned 100 points.
I have had it a few times and my most recent TN for this beauty was only the 2nd time in my life that I have given ANY wine a perfect 100 pt. score. Additionally, this is the only VP I have ever scored a perfect 100 points.
Back to vintage discussion though. 1994 is a great vintage and having 3 100 point wines certainly helps the overall view. There are other fine Vintage Ports in the upper 90 point range, but across the board consistency is my benchmark for judging an entire vintage on its merits.
That said, the 1994 does not have as many high flyers as does the 2000 vintage and I believe that has to do with some of the new advances in the Douro. The 2000 vintage gets my nod over the 2003 vintage as well. I think the 2003 vintage will be looked at as a classic too, but again, there is quite a bit of variation. There are many very fruit forward 2003s with sub-structures that require patience to be able to discern. While there are almost as many that are extremely tannic and powerful upfront. So there is a large divergence within the vintage in this dynamic. 2000 is the most consistent of these 3 which I would put at the top of the list for the past 11 years.
Thank you for being the first to post a poll on this site. I think it was well done and should make for some excellent debate.
Having tasted the 2003 cask samples, I would give a slight nod to the 2000 vintage over the 2003 and also the 1994. One correction though, there were actually 3 perfect scores of 100 points given out by James Suckling when first evaluating the 1994s. You mentioned two of them, but the Quinta do Noval Nacional, also earned 100 points.
I have had it a few times and my most recent TN for this beauty was only the 2nd time in my life that I have given ANY wine a perfect 100 pt. score. Additionally, this is the only VP I have ever scored a perfect 100 points.
Back to vintage discussion though. 1994 is a great vintage and having 3 100 point wines certainly helps the overall view. There are other fine Vintage Ports in the upper 90 point range, but across the board consistency is my benchmark for judging an entire vintage on its merits.
That said, the 1994 does not have as many high flyers as does the 2000 vintage and I believe that has to do with some of the new advances in the Douro. The 2000 vintage gets my nod over the 2003 vintage as well. I think the 2003 vintage will be looked at as a classic too, but again, there is quite a bit of variation. There are many very fruit forward 2003s with sub-structures that require patience to be able to discern. While there are almost as many that are extremely tannic and powerful upfront. So there is a large divergence within the vintage in this dynamic. 2000 is the most consistent of these 3 which I would put at the top of the list for the past 11 years.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
I vote for 2000 as well. I have no experience with 03, 95, 97 and limited experience with 01 and 94. As has been mentioned I appreciate 00 for the consistency amoung a large group of producers. Having some "lower tier" VPs such Infantado, Quarles Harris, Pocas (which I've thought were amazing values and excellent glasses of VP in their own right) gives me a very positive impression of the vintage overall.
I need to buy some 00 Taylor and Fonseca. I'm ticked I missed the 00 Niepoort at $58cdn when it was released here in Ontario.
I need to buy some 00 Taylor and Fonseca. I'm ticked I missed the 00 Niepoort at $58cdn when it was released here in Ontario.
I've decided that I'm not qualified to vote. Believe it or not, I have only ever tasted wines from '95 and '96 out of these last ten years. Although I own plenty of wines, they are all in storage and it will be a while before I get them delivered. 
On my limited tasting, I would say that I prefer the '96 to the '95. In other words, the '96 Malvedos was a little better than the '95 Bomfim out of the only two relevant wines!!
Alex
On my limited tasting, I would say that I prefer the '96 to the '95. In other words, the '96 Malvedos was a little better than the '95 Bomfim out of the only two relevant wines!!
Alex
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
-
simon Lisle
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 am
- Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom - UK
I haven't tried the 2000 vintage yet, but I can tell you some about 1994. It was the 1994 vintage that has gotten me completely hooked on Vintage Port. Here's the Story:
It was 1996 and I had just turned 21. A friend and I had a fascination with wine, and brandy, and cognac and cigars and everything you could think of that was new and cool and fun at 21. We bought TONS of bottles of wines, built a wine rack and were preparing to "cellar" mostly crappy wines that we could barely afford at $12/bottle. This friend of mine became hooked on Italian wines; appropriately so since he was able to find some good 1990 bottles at still reasonable prices. My thing, however, was to sample a few wines from as many countries as I could find. Most of the stuff we drank was crap; I'll never forget this $8.99 Barolo that had tannins so strong it took a day for my tongue to re-emerge. Or a VSOP cognac that we assured each other was amazing as we winced trying to keep it down. (while puffing on cheap cigars) Sometimes we had good luck such as when we discovered the 1990 Ruffino Chianti.
Not long after starting, Portugal's turn came up and I splurged, buying a $29 bottle of 1994 Warres. Knowing absolutely nothing about port, I popped the cork not long after arriving home and (without decanting) dutifully poured a glass. Keep in mind it was 1996 and this stuff had barely spent a couple months in the bottle.
You chaps in the UK miss out if you never try this every once in a while. Young vintage port is friggin amazing and this '94 Warres delivered in a life-altering way. I went back to the store and maxed out my first credit card on a case of the stuff, and between then and now I've amassed a pretty nice collection. I'm not drinking many ports that young; most of my port that I purchase now have my retirement in mind. But something tells me I will not regret having started to collect this at 21. My wife, who hates dessert anything is beginning to enjoy all the various nuances of each different type of port from Vintage to LBV to tawny.
1994 is my vote for the best vintage.
It was 1996 and I had just turned 21. A friend and I had a fascination with wine, and brandy, and cognac and cigars and everything you could think of that was new and cool and fun at 21. We bought TONS of bottles of wines, built a wine rack and were preparing to "cellar" mostly crappy wines that we could barely afford at $12/bottle. This friend of mine became hooked on Italian wines; appropriately so since he was able to find some good 1990 bottles at still reasonable prices. My thing, however, was to sample a few wines from as many countries as I could find. Most of the stuff we drank was crap; I'll never forget this $8.99 Barolo that had tannins so strong it took a day for my tongue to re-emerge. Or a VSOP cognac that we assured each other was amazing as we winced trying to keep it down. (while puffing on cheap cigars) Sometimes we had good luck such as when we discovered the 1990 Ruffino Chianti.
Not long after starting, Portugal's turn came up and I splurged, buying a $29 bottle of 1994 Warres. Knowing absolutely nothing about port, I popped the cork not long after arriving home and (without decanting) dutifully poured a glass. Keep in mind it was 1996 and this stuff had barely spent a couple months in the bottle.
You chaps in the UK miss out if you never try this every once in a while. Young vintage port is friggin amazing and this '94 Warres delivered in a life-altering way. I went back to the store and maxed out my first credit card on a case of the stuff, and between then and now I've amassed a pretty nice collection. I'm not drinking many ports that young; most of my port that I purchase now have my retirement in mind. But something tells me I will not regret having started to collect this at 21. My wife, who hates dessert anything is beginning to enjoy all the various nuances of each different type of port from Vintage to LBV to tawny.
1994 is my vote for the best vintage.
OK. I'm convinced. I'll try more young VPs in the future.
I have really enjoyed the '96 Malvedos and the '95 Bomfim has been pretty good - much better than I had been expecting.
Just to demonstrate that I'm convinced, I have got a bottle of '94 Vesuvio out of the cellar. That will probably get drunk sometime between now and Christmas (its competing for attention with 2 bottles of Grahams '80 and various bottles of South African wine and port).
Alex
I have really enjoyed the '96 Malvedos and the '95 Bomfim has been pretty good - much better than I had been expecting.
Just to demonstrate that I'm convinced, I have got a bottle of '94 Vesuvio out of the cellar. That will probably get drunk sometime between now and Christmas (its competing for attention with 2 bottles of Grahams '80 and various bottles of South African wine and port).
Alex
-
Derek T.
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
- Contact:
I have tried younger ports (Fonseca 2000 being the youngest) but for me they are too heavy and not close to being as smooth and enjoyable as an older bottle - although I have to confess I did enjoy them 
My main grumble with all of this is that I subscribe to the view that a VP should only be considered a "Classic" when it has proved itself through standing the test of time. I haven't counted but there do seem to be more 5 star vintage years being declared than history suggests is possible or likely. If you read a range of views on recent vintages you will find 1994, 1997, 2000 and now 2003 all being declared as exceptional quality. Maybe I'm just an old synic but I can't imagine that all of these will still be considered "Classic" vintages in 40 years time. What is most concerning is that these are the only general declarations since 1985 and all of them seem to have been given the 5 star treatment on release.
My second grumble is the price of these wines - I can't see why a 2 year old wine should be priced the same or higher as one that has been cellared for 20 or 30 years and is known to be excellent. Perhaps my second grumble is a direct result of my first in that it suits the industry to have 5 stars against their young wines to keep the price up regardless of whether or not they have the legs to last for decades.
Grumble over - enjoy your port at whatever age you drink it
Derek
My main grumble with all of this is that I subscribe to the view that a VP should only be considered a "Classic" when it has proved itself through standing the test of time. I haven't counted but there do seem to be more 5 star vintage years being declared than history suggests is possible or likely. If you read a range of views on recent vintages you will find 1994, 1997, 2000 and now 2003 all being declared as exceptional quality. Maybe I'm just an old synic but I can't imagine that all of these will still be considered "Classic" vintages in 40 years time. What is most concerning is that these are the only general declarations since 1985 and all of them seem to have been given the 5 star treatment on release.
My second grumble is the price of these wines - I can't see why a 2 year old wine should be priced the same or higher as one that has been cellared for 20 or 30 years and is known to be excellent. Perhaps my second grumble is a direct result of my first in that it suits the industry to have 5 stars against their young wines to keep the price up regardless of whether or not they have the legs to last for decades.
Grumble over - enjoy your port at whatever age you drink it
Derek
Derek, I share your grumbling about prices.... With many of the 2003s starting off at $70+ per bottle it makes case purchases nearly unobtainable. And while the port market has grown and demand has grown I have to wonder whether or not there's some artificial inflation here too.
AND, I too was suspicious about the number of "spectacular" vintages declared since the sudden discovery of port by the world in 1996 (for the 1994 vintage). So I've taken the time to chart the vintages (using Roy's now ravaged chart
) Have a look:
(this worked in the preview.... URL is: http://www.alec.com/vintagechart.htm
What I've noticed is a similarity between 1994, 2000, 2003 vs. 1935, 1945, 1948 as well as 1963, 1966, 1970. So it has happened before.
I totally agree with your point that these new vintages need to stand the test of time, but I can't wait until they do then purchase them at $325/btl. There's got to be some speculation involved....
--A
AND, I too was suspicious about the number of "spectacular" vintages declared since the sudden discovery of port by the world in 1996 (for the 1994 vintage). So I've taken the time to chart the vintages (using Roy's now ravaged chart
) Have a look:(this worked in the preview.... URL is: http://www.alec.com/vintagechart.htm
What I've noticed is a similarity between 1994, 2000, 2003 vs. 1935, 1945, 1948 as well as 1963, 1966, 1970. So it has happened before.
I totally agree with your point that these new vintages need to stand the test of time, but I can't wait until they do then purchase them at $325/btl. There's got to be some speculation involved....
--A
Last edited by alec on Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
I agree with Derek here.
There is no doubt that 2003 is a good year, but only time will tell just how good - most commentators seem to rank it behind the 2000's, which in turn is ranked behind the 1994's.
So probably a four star year rather than a five star.
So a general comparison with the vintage of 20 years previously - 1983 - does not seem too wide of the mark.
But look at the prices - they are almost exactly the same!
If one takes as a fair cellarage cost the figure of £0.50 per bottle per year, and allow 2% p.a. capital appreciation (over and above inflation) then the current 1983 prices would indicate an en primeur price for the 2003's of around £13/bottle - less than half the price demanded.
Taking the calculations forward 20 years, it would suggest that the 2003's should be commanding a price (in today's money) of around £55/bottle in 2025 - or over $100 in the US.
If it develops into the vintage of it's generation, then this is reasonable, but if stays in the second division, as seems more likely, then this price level is very unlikely to be realised.
In short, it looks seriously overpriced!
There is no doubt that 2003 is a good year, but only time will tell just how good - most commentators seem to rank it behind the 2000's, which in turn is ranked behind the 1994's.
So probably a four star year rather than a five star.
So a general comparison with the vintage of 20 years previously - 1983 - does not seem too wide of the mark.
But look at the prices - they are almost exactly the same!
If one takes as a fair cellarage cost the figure of £0.50 per bottle per year, and allow 2% p.a. capital appreciation (over and above inflation) then the current 1983 prices would indicate an en primeur price for the 2003's of around £13/bottle - less than half the price demanded.
Taking the calculations forward 20 years, it would suggest that the 2003's should be commanding a price (in today's money) of around £55/bottle in 2025 - or over $100 in the US.
If it develops into the vintage of it's generation, then this is reasonable, but if stays in the second division, as seems more likely, then this price level is very unlikely to be realised.
In short, it looks seriously overpriced!
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
Totally agree - but I've said the same thing on other threads so won't drone on again. The good news is that Taylor and Fonseca '03 which (unless I missed a deal) opened in the low thirties (of pounds) per bottle can now be got for under £30.Derek Turnbull wrote:My second grumble is the price of these wines - I can't see why a 2 year old wine should be priced the same or higher as one that has been cellared for 20 or 30 years and is known to be excellent. Perhaps my second grumble is a direct result of my first in that it suits the industry to have 5 stars against their young wines to keep the price up regardless of whether or not they have the legs to last for decades.
Grumble over - enjoy your port at whatever age you drink it
Derek
It seems to have taken over 30 years for all us port lovers to find out that, at maturity, 66s are better than 63s despite decades of the opposite opinion, so I won't be holding my breath on them. I haven't tried enough of the young ones to vote and don't intend to. I'm just dipping my toe (or nose?) in to the 94s and they seem v. good to me.
However, I still agree with that last point and respect the tastes of others.
Stuart Chatfield London, England