For The Love Of Port

Looking back no farther than the 1960s, almost a half century of Vintage Ports, which specific generall declared vintage do you think was the most over-hyped year for VP, and why?

Conversely, which vintage do you think missed the boat that should have received much greater attention, and why?

I don't know what the "hype" was at the time but in terms of performance since release I would sy the one vintage that has underperformed all others would be 1975 and the dark horse would be 1966.

The '75 vintage was a mistake in purely VP quality terms but a necessity at the time for economic reaosns. But those reasons do not change the fact it is probably the worst quality generally declared vintage in history.

1966 has lived in the shadow of 1963 for decades and only 3 or 4 years ago could be purchased for as little as 50% of the price of the older sibling. However, in my experience, the 66s now out-perform the equivalent 63s in terms of longevity. Almost all 63s are now fully mature or beyond. Some 66s aren't even close to that and many are at their peak now. Sometimes it is good to live in the shadow of greatness

Derek

'75 was initially sold not just as a declared year, but as an exceptional declaration, so that has to take the prize.

That said, at release, every declaration gets presented as the greatest thing since sliced bread; and it's only with the passage of time that the truth emerges.

Looking back over the last half century, it is interesting to observe the change in attitude to vintages.

'75's star, having fallen very low, is now enjoying a slight ascendancy.

'66 was always a respected year, but played second fiddle to '63. In recent years the '63's have started to wane, while the '66's are generally holding up much better. Three years ago the 40th birthday market revealed just how little '66 stock was in circulation, and the auction prices rocketed.

'97 is also a vintage that is living in the shadows, with 5* wines from that vintage realising as little as £15/bottle at auction.

'70 is another underestimated year; a top vintage that has never really been anointed as such.

However, the most undersold vintage has to be '87 - a very declarable year that wasn't.

Vintages that have been over-sold include '94; a very sound year, but not one that is likely to eclipse 2000 in the longer term.

'92 was hyped heavily at the outset, as Taylor sought strenuously to argue that their tercentenary had nothing to do with it, yet the wines get few compliments today, and auction prices are falling. However, I have a hunch that the wines may come right given time.

'77 was genuinely believed to be a sterling vintage; until the colour began to fade, while the tannins didn't. Not everyone is up to speed on this evolution, and the auction prices vary dramatically.

It will be interesting to see how the recent vintages develop. There are very few concerns over either 2000 or 2003; a tough act for subsequent vintages to follow.

Tom

1975 has to win the prize for most overrated, while I think 1987 wins for most underrated.

To me, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1977, and 1994 all get a reasonable amount of respect. Some are probably over, some are probably under, but they're all within reason. 1994 is still pretty young to be judging, but at 15 years old it is probably safe to begin drawing conclusions.

The early 80's are tough for me. They don't seem to get much respect, but from my limited experience they don't seem to deserve that much either. So they're probably about right.

2003 seems like it could be a stellar vintage to me, but it is so young that it doesn't deserve respect yet no matter how good it might be. 2005 sits in that same "too young to rate" boat to me.

1997 and 2000 are getting close, but still seem too young to me. They both already get quite a bit of respect, though, so they appear to be on track to being properly rated. 2000 might be a bit underrated even at that, though, as I think a lot of people worry that it is overhyped due to the millenium and so end up underrating it just to be conservative.

I did like some 1987 VP a lot, and they still being go wines.

I'm going for 1994. Not because the vintage gets more praise than it should, nor do the wines disappoint, but this is the year that really started the massive wave of American attention for vintage port, which changed the market since.

Ronald Wortel wrote:I'm going for 1994. Not because the vintage gets more praise than it should, nor do the wines disappoint, but this is the year that really started the massive wave of American attention for vintage port, which changed the market since.

Can you elaborate on that?

Andy Velebil wrote:

Ronald Wortel wrote:I'm going for 1994. Not because the vintage gets more praise than it should, nor do the wines disappoint, but this is the year that really started the massive wave of American attention for vintage port, which changed the market since.

Can you elaborate on that?

Oh-oh!! - Is this the start of the next Gulf War :devil: :help:

Derek T. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:

Ronald Wortel wrote:I'm going for 1994. Not because the vintage gets more praise than it should, nor do the wines disappoint, but this is the year that really started the massive wave of American attention for vintage port, which changed the market since.

Can you elaborate on that?

Oh-oh!! - Is this the start of the next Gulf War :devil: :help:

Nope but maybe the Anglo-Zanzibar War

As far as the most over-hyped I'd say that the crown goes to 1975. Without a doubt , all of the hoopla surrounding that declaration was not at all justified considering the quality of the VP that was produced. I would probably say that '82 would come in a distant second.

Andy Velebil wrote:

Ronald Wortel wrote:I'm going for 1994. Not because the vintage gets more praise than it should, nor do the wines disappoint, but this is the year that really started the massive wave of American attention for vintage port, which changed the market since.

Can you elaborate on that?

The 1994 vintage marked the importance of the US as a port market. The direct effect was a sharp increase in price of VIntage Port. There are two other, lesser obvious effects:

- Because the focus of the US was mainly on premium ports, caterories as LBV and Ruby Reserve, but also Single Quinta Vintage Ports have gained in importance for producers.

- The tendency of US consumers to drink their Vintage Ports younger than the classic UK market, producers have introduced brands that are meant to be accessible when young (e.g. Vau, Secundum) and have even indicated that the main blends should perhaps be made in a more accessible style.

So you could say that the hype the 1994 vintage caused in the US (with two ports scoring 100 WS points and being joint No.1 in the WS100) had some big consequenses.

Over hyped? Perhaps 1977 as I find some bottles like Dow to really vary in quality. I would've said '63, but Sean and I had '63 Graham and '63 Taylor last weekend and the Taylor was just epic! I had this T '63 4-5 times, but this time it really blew me away. The Graham showed quite well. I find most post war vintages live up to their vintage in most cases. Be interesting to see how '94 ends up being.

We also had '50 Sandeman, '55 Sandeman 375 ml, and '75 Taylor... not to mention '34 Ch. Latour

As for darkhorses, I'll go with '80. Every '80 vintage I had so far as been excellent, yet little talk about it. '66 is my second pick, but more people are realizing that this is great vintage that can compete with '70 and '63.

Ronnie is right about the 1994 really being the first vintage that mainstream wine drinkers paid attention to Port in the USA. I remember the price increases from 1991/1992 and even buying 1994 on first tranch from London and CA, the change was big at the time.

Ronnie made other very salient points too, although I believe 1994 became so popular due to the cigar craze which really drove people to explore with Port. Weird timing but it was those mid-90s "excellent economic scene" days that had people drinking the 1994s in restaurants throughout the USA, as soon as it hit the market. It was THAT specific dynamic, which has given Europeans and especially Brits the notion that all Americans drink their Ports young. It was true then and somewhat true now ... but there are many more savvy collectors who began back then.

Then you have the next wave, like many on this Forum who started AFTER 2000 drinking Port with any regularity. They don't remember the hype that Ronnie is talking about. But I must mention one correction in his facts ...
So you could say that the hype the 1994 vintage caused in the US (with two ports scoring 100 WS points and being joint No.1 in the WS100) had some big consequenses. In actuality, although just the Fonseca/Taylor 1994 duo shared the coveted WS co-wines of the year (in a 1997 issue of WS) ... there were in reality, THREE VPs from 1994 to receive 100 point scores from Suckling, Quinta do Noval Nacional was the other!

I'd also have to say 1975. Considering three times as much VP was produced, it sure can be hard to find these still the market place. But as Derek correctly mentioned, it was produced out of necessity. Without such the Port grower side of the industry probably wouldn't have survived into what we know it today.

Runner up would have to be 1983. With a couple exceptions this isn't far behind 1975. Actually 1975 wasn't a bad year for the grapes, but with so much produced things got a bit diluted. I don't know what happened here, but most '83 are already peaked or past their peak....for most, not one that will ever be remembered as a great declared vintage.

I've been a proponent of the 1987 vintage for some time, easily the most over looked vintage. This should have been declared instead of 1983, but hindsight is 20/20 as the old saying goes.

Roy Hersh wrote:It was THAT specific dynamic, which has given Europeans and especially Brits the notion that all Americans drink their Ports young.

Roy, that is slightly unfair.

We actually believe that only 99.99997% of Americans drink their ports young.

Derek T. wrote:We actually believe that only 99.99997% of Americans drink their ports young.

I'll have to crack open another 2003 Noval in your honor.

I've already packed my 2007 cask samples to bring to London for some blind tasting in October!

Andy Velebil wrote:Runner up would have to be 1983. With a couple exceptions this isn't far behind 1975. Actually 1975 wasn't a bad year for the grapes, but with so much produced things got a bit diluted. I don't know what happened here, but most '83 are already peaked or past their peak....for most, not one that will ever be remembered as a great declared vintage.

Andy - you and I rarely disagree, but this is just plain wrong. Having tasted a fair number of 1985 and 1983 alongside each other, I can tell you that I have always found the 1983 to be younger, more lively and more full of fruit and tannins than the 1985 ports. Sometimes, I have been very surprised at the difference I have seen. One day, I'll have to throw a blind 1985 / 1983 tasting at you and challenge you to identify which is which.

C'mon man, defend yourself!

Roy Hersh wrote:I've already packed my 2007 cask samples to bring to London for some blind tasting in October!

Roy,

After my encouter with the 2007 vintage in recent weeks I can honestly say that would be a very enjoyable tasting to attend. I'm not yet converted to the idea of working my way through cases of young VP in their infancy but tasting them very young is an extremely enjoyable experience.

The good news is that I'm heading to the Douro on Thursday for a whole load more

Derek