The 1987 vintage ... why wasn't it declared?

[Roy Hersh]

With so many fine bottlings around today, one has to wonder why 1987 was not generally declared. I certainly have my opinion but would love to hear yours. I believe it was better than 1995 and even 2005. So why no declaration?

[Alex R]

maybe because of 80,83 and 85 where all ready declared :blah:

[Tom Archer]

Close proximity to two previous declarations, '83 and '85, made it an unlikely call, but during the summer of '87 there was huge buoyancy and optimism in the markets, and confidence in the economies of the principal consuming countries.

On August 26th, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

"In a market like this, every story is a positive one. Any news is good news. It's pretty much taken for granted now that the market is going to go up."

With that much confidence in the consuming markets, coupled to benign growing conditions, and it being a 'lucky seven' year, there is little doubt that the producers went the extra mile to separately vinify their best grapes and be more ruthless on the sorting table, in order to produce the best possible vintage lotes - ready for a declaration.

Unfortunately, no sooner had the wines been made, on October 19th, 'Black Monday' - the markets crashed and the economic boom began to unravel.

The producers had to recognise that having already had three declared years in the eighties, a fourth was not going to sell.

But by then they'd already made the effort to make the best possible wines - which we can now enjoy at sensible prices..

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

That would be a good guess by me to. Being only in high school by the time it would have been declared in 1989 I wasn't exactly paying attention to the worlds events and economies. But IIRC the US economy was good, the fall of communism was just around the corner, and Pete Rose was banned from baseball (ok, so maybe Pete that didn't have anything to do with it ) There really was no reason that I can think of, other than already declaring 3 vintages that decade, to not declare it.

[Roy Hersh]

But by then they'd already made the effort to make the best possible wines - which we can now enjoy at sensible prices..

Tom,

By the way you've written this, you make it sound like this "effort" is out of the ordinary. Don't you think the Port producers and even the growers have incentive to make the best Ports they can, year in and year out regardless of whether or not they will be able to declare a vintage?

[Tom Archer]

By the way you've written this, you make it sound like this "effort" is out of the ordinary. Don't you think the Port producers and even the growers have incentive to make the best Ports they can, year in and year out regardless of whether or not they will be able to declare a vintage?

At the risk of stirring a hornet's nest, I will answer the question in simple terms as.. 'No'.

It is much nicer to think of the port producers (and indeed, all of the non-industrialised wine-makers) as friendly folk who are inspired by passion, and not money.

It is an outlook that the wine producers (be they in Bordeaux, Napa, The Douro, or just about anywhere else) like to foster, because it builds reputation, and reputation in the wine making business means profit.

Wine-making is a business, and the bottom line rules...

When it comes to a port harvest, the producers have to balance the prospects for the harvest against their labour costs, both in picking and treading, and the cost of discarding grapes at the sorting table.

They are also very aware of the competition. In a declared year, the wines are compared rigourously, and the winners can command a significant market price premium. In a non-declared year, the interim SQ'a get very little critical attention, and there is little variation in price.

In an interim year, the Sym's will lose little sleep if the Vargellas is showing better than the Malvedos, because few will notice.

On the other hand, if the Graham's LBV is clearly inferior to the Taylor LBV, the alarm bells will be ringing loud and clear.

So, are the interim SQ's the best possible wines from the year in question?

Answer, not always.

I suspect that in the case of Vargellas, they do make a very serious effort, as the wines sometimes embarass adjoining declared Taylor vintages - '91..?

But for most producers, business is business, and the romance is left to the marketing dept.

Tom

[simon Lisle]

That makes sense Tom if the single Quinta's started beating the generally declared years in quality it would make the pricing a nonsense although in some cases they do.

[Derek T.]

Tom,

I can't agree with some of this theory. At the time of the harvest it is simply not possible to know whether or not that vintage will end up as a classic vintage, an SQVP or be blended away into lesser juice. Yes, people will have a gut feeling as to how likely it is that the wines will be of great quality but until it is in the winery and they start to analyse and taste them they just can't be sure. So, given that absence of certainty, why would the pickers and the people working at the triage tables, in lagars and in the winery not simply follow the same process year in and year out to make the best possible juice they can from the grapes made available to them? I think this escpecially true for the larger Quintas like Vargellas, Malvedos, Bomfim etc which provide the backbone to the classic vintages.

Your theory also seems to ignore the fact that the best wines spend the first year to 18 months of their lives as completely separate unblended lots. I can understand that commercial decisions will hugely influence what to do with these lots once they are ready to be properly evaluated and the volume of quality components is known but in that first 18 months I can't see why any winemaker would make a concsious decision to dumb down the quality of these individual lots.

Having met a number of wine makers and Quinta owners over the past few years I would say that they are invariably passionate wine makers first and commercial animals second. When grapes are being picked and the juice is flowing out of the lagars I just don't sense that any of them are concsiously thinking about finance. They are thinking about making wine that is better than their last one and better than their neighbours. What the blenders and marketing guys and do with those wines 2 years later is anther question, but, IMO, not the question that Roy asked here.

Derek

[Tom Archer]

Derek,

There are two factors here.

Firstly, market conditions, the period since the previous declaration, coupled to the weather and growing conditions, mean that the wine-makers have a pretty good idea at harvest time whether or not a declaration is a prospect.

If it's a possibility, they will want to be sure that the very best fruit gets segregated and vinified separately. This means slightly higher labour costs and more wastage on the sorting table - not a radical deviation from the norm, but going the extra mile.

Secondly, when the wines have been made, they need to make decisions as to how to blend and market the lotes to best effect. If it's going to be an SQ year, they need to balance the need to have a respectable SQVP with the need to have competitive Reserves and LBV's.

If a blender finds that producing the very best SQVP will leave him struggling to create a competitive LBV, he's likely to compromise; because most producers have more to lose from an unbalanced LBV, than they do from making an SQVP that could have been half a notch better.

Tom

[Derek T.]

Tom,

We are in agreement when it comes to decisions about what to do at blending time. Where we disagree is at the point where the wines are actually made. I just don't see the incentive to avoid making the best wines you can at that stage in the process, even if all you plan to do with them is raise the quality of your LBV blend 4 years later! The grapes arrive in batches from different parcels of vines and these guys know what is good and what is not so good based on the history of using those vines and what they see at the triage table. At that point in time it seems senseless that a winemaker would decide to chuck the good and bad together. The quantity set aside as potential VP is always small in comparison to the entire vintage and those grapes are dealt with differently from the bulk of the production. It's not until later in the process that they would potentially come together.

Perhaps this is a good question for the trade?

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

Tom,
I also partially agree with you. What I disagree with is exactly what Derek mentioned. When the grapes are picked, then treaded, and then fortified, they are done in lots and kept as seperate lots until its time to do the blending...for whatever the final end product will be. That could be a VP, a SQVP, a Colheita, ruby, etc. Even in not so great years, where its quite easy to tell the vintage will not be as good (i.e. 1993), things are still vinfied and stored seperately until the wine makers can figure out what they intend to do with the juice. During that process they treat it the same as any other year. From what I've seen its all treated the same at the outset, only later does it earmarked for different things based on its quality.

[Roy Hersh]

An excellent discussion and ergo, the provocative question to Tom above.

He wrote: Wine-making is a business, and the bottom line rules...

Isn't that typically the case? Without my romanticizing of the Port Trade (occasionally guilty, yes! ) let's explore some more. IMO, there are two key discussion points that arise from this quote.

1. The first is the thought that profits come before the quality of the Port that winds up in the bottle. I realize this is not exactly what Tom said, and it is very possible that it is a stretch to even allude to this as what he was referring to. However, one can not read that quote without thinking that considerations to quality would be compromised if they would upset the bottom line. This goes against everything I have ever seen in my visits to the motherland. This can be an entire separate discussion if you'd like, as it is pertinent if not important to understand many of the underlying realities that take place behind the scenes which we are not privy to. So let the topic continue or split it off in another thread?

2. Overlooked is the second discussion point, at least, from my point of view. Port Shippers (as we think of Taylor, Graham, Sandeman, Cockburn etc... ) may still drive the Vintage Port market, but these powerful enterprises no longer make up the majority of Port producers. There are a bunch of medium sized as well as MANY small and little known producers of Port, including VP, that together make up a much larger number than Shippers. They may not export as much, nor have the sheer power, but their numbers are very considerable ... even though the quantity of hectares under their control pales in comparison to the likes of some of the giants that control 90+% of the Port vineyards planted.

That as a given, it is vital to understand that the entire process begins with the quality of the grapes. I realize this is a very simplistic statement, but there are nuances important to glean from this. This will segue back to Tom's quote nicely, I promise! OK, the vast majority of grapes that make up a Vintage Port ... even those from the aforementioned major Shippers (and all but SQs of course) come from purchased grapes, NOT those grown on their own Quinta properties. Surprised by this? I am sure some reading here ... are, especially those who have not been to see this in person.

More critical, is the fact that these growers who own typically less than 5 hectares apiece; who live in one of the most remote wine regions in the world (there is NOT A SINGLE INDUSTRY IN THE 100+ mile REGION beyond wine and a new and fledgling tourism effort) have NO other way to make a living than by growing grapes. Their parents also grew grapes and their grandparents did and so on and so on and so on ... going back centuries. In other words, these are not winemakers per se ... they are subsistence farmers. Yes, I realize this gets down to a very touchy subject in Portugal, but there it is.

These grape farmers have no choice but to put every possible piece of blood, sweat and love into their grapes. If the sun don't shine and the rain falls and a harvest is lost, how will they feed their family next year? I will avoid going into "the reason why co-ops exist ... and some even thrive ... in the Douro" as it takes us too much off course and into a truly financial direction (not to mention why many growers became Port and Douro wine producers themselves!). I prefer to slowly drive back towards Tom's quote though. :hello:

So these grape farmers who sell their grapes (or in rare instances, their fermented Port juice) to the larger Port shippers, have a great incentive for putting forth the BEST QUALITY grapes they can produce. It is money, so Tom is right that profits rule the day. However, it starts much earlier in the process than others above had suggested. It starts with the growing of the grapes, although of course, it does not finish there. Back to the growing and the fact, that the grape farmers are paid an "incentive" or higher price per hectoliter of grapes sold, for delivering grapes at a higher Baume (same as Brix in the USA) simplified as residual sugar (RS). For those not sure, 1 hectoliter of grapes per hectare produces approximately 133 bottles or 11.1 cases of table wine and this varies with Port due to the fortification process, adding 20% Aguardente). I won't get into specifics of pricing, but suffice it to say, that sweeter grapes bring the farmer more money and the difference will typically equate to something quite considerable for the typical Duriense family.

My circuitous spewing is almost complete. Given that the only way to earn a living is by selling grapes, and that extra money can be earned by delivering a higher quality grape to the Port shipper that WILL (either contractually or much more often ... on a handshake) ALWAYS deliver this "bonus" to their growers ... why would the Port Shipper then NOT make the very best Port out of these grapes every single time they can?

Beyond tradition ... which should not be overlooked ... there is CONSISTENT QUALITY, as the mantra of the Port Shipper. It is not "bottom line" PROFIT as suggested in the aforementioned quote. They take the best grapes they can grow themselves, supplemented by an ocean of purchased grapes and put them into their Ports each and every year. What good does it do the reputation of the "brand" if quality is not stable and at a high level? Whether that is a Ruby Reserve, LBV or even the critical Vintage Port, I am convinced to my core ... that there is no incentive or bottom line pressure to ever let anything but the very best Port make its way into the bottle. The decision is not about the bottom line ... as the Shippers know that specific dynamic will take care of itself if they put the best Port possible to the marketplace. Of course I am over-simplifying things with that last statement, as market forces of all kinds, come into play. However, the crux is still valid.

Port makers and growers, can and do make mistakes and bad weather can and does happen, so that can certainly change the quality of Port from a single harvest. But the consistent high quality over the years, decades and centuries is what builds tradition AND profits in the Port trade.

A long winded and simplistic view.

[Andy Velebil]

(there is NOT A SINGLE INDUSTRY IN THE 100+ mile REGION beyond wine and a new and fledgling tourism effort)

Well, not entirely. Lets not forget about the cork industry

[Roy Hersh]

The cork industry, although important to the Port trade, is not located in the Douro and especially not the cork forests themselves. :help:

[Andy Velebil]

the trees aren't but there sure is at least one factory within that "100 mile REGION."
Someone has to give you a little grief

[Frederick Blais]

Not sure I wrote this on the forum before, but I think it is interesting to write it. I will not name him, but he is the Port maker for a very reputable Port making company in Douro/Gaia. I quote him "If you are looking for a very good deal on Port, look for this ***** VP 2001. For this house, 2001 is way better than 2000 but could not being declared as 2000 flooded the market".

[Derek T.]

There is also a thriving taxi industry - ferrying half drunk port fans from Quinta to Quinta

[Frederick Blais]

There is also a thriving taxi industry - ferrying half drunk port fans from Quinta to Quinta

points his finger at :help:

[simon Lisle]

Hold on a minute Fred I was once working outside a famous horse trainers stables and he gave me a certain tip for a race that day but what he should have said is keep your money in your pocket.

[Carlos Rodriguez]

I agree with Tom & Simon. If they are a lot of Vintages. What's S.Q. sence?