For The Love Of Port

I've been looking at prices for some future purchases, and am amazed somewhat at the variance from year to year. I know the good years are really good, but what about those off years where just a few houses declare? Presumably they were able to declare and not rejected by the IVDP. Were they optimistic, and the end results not so good?

Here's an example for your consideration: Vesuvio. I was looking at 1994, which I've had and know is delicious. Best price I can find is around US$ 60 for a single bottle. Well, 1995 pops up in my searches, $40. And 1996, an amazing $25 bottle. Is the 1994 really that much better than 1996? Perhaps this isn't a great example since Vesuvio seems to declare just about every year, but it isn't the only example I've found.

Just curious what people think.

-Eric

In a word, no they aren't all that bad in off years. But it's a bit more complicated than that...this is Port after all :blah: I've had a number of wonderful bottles from "off years" that would easily stand up to many from a fully declared year. The hard part is there isn't many TN's from reviewers about these "off year" Ports. So you either have to try them yourself or rely on your fellow 'rs that have had them.

At the reduced prices I quite enjoy the "off year" bottles as I can drink them regularly without having to spend $100+/bottle. When I can pick up a fully mature 1978 VP for $35-40 dollars that is drinking nicely then I am happy. Sure it's not a 100 pointer, but we can't drink those everyday ( I know, we'd all like to LOL) But I've found many a great values, mostly by trial and error, in these other years. I encourage people to check them out and give them a go. The 1996 vesuvio is a very nice mid-term drinking bottle that I'd buy for that price no problem.

One thing to remember, and like anything there are always exceptions, is that most of these "off year" VP's will mature earlier than their fully declared counterparts. IMO thats a good thing as you have something to drink while the big boys age.

There have been very few "off years" that I have tried that I did not think they were worth the reduced price. Actually, it's worth going for off years, just as Andy has mentioned.

How many times have you had good vintages that weren't so great? The opposite is true with the off years.

It's interesting to think about why the "off-years" were only declared by some houses. Sometimes - on a very few occasions - it was because generally the wines which were made that year were quite weak. Sometimes it's because the weather conditions meant that there was not sufficient volume for a full declaration - years like this mean that the quality is often very good.

In other years it is because a full declaration was made very " as you can so that you can make your own mind up. I will happily buy some off years, but will generally avoid others. It's a matter of personal taste in the end.

What post war vintages are we considering as "off years"?

Moses Botbol wrote:What post war vintages are we considering as "off years"?

Anything not considered a fully declared year.

Al B. wrote:It's interesting to think about why the "off-years" were only declared by some houses. Sometimes - on a very few occasions - it was because generally the wines which were made that year were quite weak. Sometimes it's because the weather conditions meant that there was not sufficient volume for a full declaration - years like this mean that the quality is often very good.

In other years it is because a full declaration was made very " as you can so that you can make your own mind up. I will happily buy some off years, but will generally avoid others. It's a matter of personal taste in the end.

Good way to sum it up Alex.

It is matter of personal taste which is why I can be a little hesitant at times to recommend older ones to people unless I know what their likes and dislikes are with Port. Some of the older "off years" can be lighter in body, show a little more spirit, and can have some bottle variation depending on storage, initial quality, etc. So it's often "safer" to recommend a VP from a fully declared year and avoid any potential problems..unless I know the drinker real well.

But since these can usually be found substantially cheaper than their fully declared counterparts, they can make perfect "daily drinkers."

Doing ones homework on how the overall vintage was is the key here.

Andy Velebil wrote:

Moses Botbol wrote:What post war vintages are we considering as "off years"?

Anything not considered a fully declared year.

Which is the biggest off year then?

Candidates would have to include 1987 and 1997.

By Andy's definition, I don't think 1997 qualifies , as it was pretty well declared. Out of about 22 major brands, the only ones that I can't find a VP for are Croft and Sandeman, and they did make SQVPs for that year. We could argue Andy's definition, but that's pretty much what I was thinking.

Eric Menchen wrote:By Andy's definition, I don't think 1997 qualifies , as it was pretty well declared. Out of about 22 major brands, the only ones that I can't find a VP for are Croft and Sandeman, and they did make SQVPs for that year. We could argue Andy's definition, but that's pretty much what I was thinking.

That is my point. What an "off year" is not that obvious or something that we are 100% in concert with. We assume we are all in agreement on what an off year is; yet there is some debate to what they are...

I'm probably just mis-remembering the year... I could have sworn that there's a late 90's year that wasn't generally declared, but is generally appreciated. Perhaps it is 1999 instead?

At any rate, 1987 still qualifies.

I'd have to go with those generally declared by most houses...such as 2007, 2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1991/2, 1985, 1983, 1980, 1977, 1975, 1970, 1966, 1963, 1960, 1955, etc.

I did leave off some like 1967, 1987, 1999, etc as even though some declared and there are some very good bottles in those years, they are not considered a "major or general declaration." A major declaration would be one where the majority of houses declared a VP for that year, such as the examples above.