The Greatest Decade For Vintage Port In The 20th Century
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
The Greatest Decade For Vintage Port In The 20th Century
This may be a topic in which there are a great variety of opinions. To make this fairer, you can go by what you've read and not solely by what you've tasted ... as long as you can support your answer with at least one reason why the decade you pick, should qualify.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Derek T.
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
- Contact:
On experience alone I would have to go for the 1960's. I have only tasted 2 bottles that pre-date 1963 and neither were good enough to judge as they were leakers.
I have had the oportunity to taste the 63 and 66 from Taylor, Graham, Fonseca, Sandeman, Borges and Warre. I have also tasted a few random bottles from lesser years (eg 65, 67 and 68). All of the wines I have tasted from those 2 classic years have been absolutely superb and about half of them probably have a few decades left in them. The wines from the lesser years were obviously on a down clope but by no means gone and, if you learn how and when to decant and drink them they can be very, very enjoyable.
From 1970 and/or 77 I have recently tasted Dow, Warre, Quarles Harris, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor and Sandeman. For me, none of these came close to the best of the 1960's wines and, as a group, there are more distinctly average bottles than in the group from the previous decade.
I have probably had more VP from the 1980's than any other decade. This is what I would have been drinking before I started being serious about port so can't remember specifically what but based on where I purchased them it would have been mostly Dow and Taylor SQ stuff. More recently of any note I have had Smith Woodhouse 83, Graham 85, Fonseca Guimaraens 87. Noval Nacional 87 and a variety of SQ's. Unsurprisungly from that bunch, only the Noval Nacional 87 and Graham 85 stand out for me in my whole experience of the 80's. I eagerly await my recent purchase of Fonseca 85
The we come to those children from the 90's. I have had lots of SQ's but no full blown VP's. The SQ's I have had recently are still too young for me so I do not intend opening anything better just yet. Looking forward to the Vesuvio vertical for this very reason, amongst others, off course.
The 00's are still babies. I have had VP's from Fonseca and Croft from 00, Calem from 02 and Portal, Portal+ and Sandeman from 03. I did not enjoy any of these as purely drinking wine as they are far too young for my palate. I did enjoy the experience and they do taste superb, but I have no way of knowing whether or not they have the legs to stand beside a 1963 Fonseca in 40 years time. My bet is the 63 Fonseca would probably still outshine all of them at 80 years of age 8)
So, my selection is the 1960's for these reasons:
>>staying power
>>overall quality across a wide and fairly diverse range
>>both of the above achieved without the stricter bottling regulations and advances in technology that the other decades have "benefited" from
Oh, and a final reason is - the 1960's gave me to the world of Port
Derek
I have had the oportunity to taste the 63 and 66 from Taylor, Graham, Fonseca, Sandeman, Borges and Warre. I have also tasted a few random bottles from lesser years (eg 65, 67 and 68). All of the wines I have tasted from those 2 classic years have been absolutely superb and about half of them probably have a few decades left in them. The wines from the lesser years were obviously on a down clope but by no means gone and, if you learn how and when to decant and drink them they can be very, very enjoyable.
From 1970 and/or 77 I have recently tasted Dow, Warre, Quarles Harris, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor and Sandeman. For me, none of these came close to the best of the 1960's wines and, as a group, there are more distinctly average bottles than in the group from the previous decade.
I have probably had more VP from the 1980's than any other decade. This is what I would have been drinking before I started being serious about port so can't remember specifically what but based on where I purchased them it would have been mostly Dow and Taylor SQ stuff. More recently of any note I have had Smith Woodhouse 83, Graham 85, Fonseca Guimaraens 87. Noval Nacional 87 and a variety of SQ's. Unsurprisungly from that bunch, only the Noval Nacional 87 and Graham 85 stand out for me in my whole experience of the 80's. I eagerly await my recent purchase of Fonseca 85
The we come to those children from the 90's. I have had lots of SQ's but no full blown VP's. The SQ's I have had recently are still too young for me so I do not intend opening anything better just yet. Looking forward to the Vesuvio vertical for this very reason, amongst others, off course.
The 00's are still babies. I have had VP's from Fonseca and Croft from 00, Calem from 02 and Portal, Portal+ and Sandeman from 03. I did not enjoy any of these as purely drinking wine as they are far too young for my palate. I did enjoy the experience and they do taste superb, but I have no way of knowing whether or not they have the legs to stand beside a 1963 Fonseca in 40 years time. My bet is the 63 Fonseca would probably still outshine all of them at 80 years of age 8)
So, my selection is the 1960's for these reasons:
>>staying power
>>overall quality across a wide and fairly diverse range
>>both of the above achieved without the stricter bottling regulations and advances in technology that the other decades have "benefited" from
Oh, and a final reason is - the 1960's gave me to the world of Port
Derek
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
If you asked the port producers, they might pitch for the 1920's or 1940's for the most climatically friendly decade.
But of course the 40's were commercially dire, and the 20's started off with promise, but ended with huge unsold stocks - thanks to the great depression.
The decade that probably gave the best combination of market conditions and climate was the 1990's
- I think
Tom
But of course the 40's were commercially dire, and the 20's started off with promise, but ended with huge unsold stocks - thanks to the great depression.
The decade that probably gave the best combination of market conditions and climate was the 1990's
- I think
Tom
-
Gustavo Devesas
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:37 am
- Location: Porto, Portugal
Interesting topic!
As Roy said, there will be many different opinions for this interesting question.
I think to answer this question,first we've to go back for what is the concept and definition of Vintage Port (wich is the only Port type that really gives us all signs of quality or not of a specific year/harvest.
And to answer this question, my experience says me to try to understand what is a good VP year?
- :arrow: Is it a year with more then x producers with VP?
- :arrow: Is it an exceptional year, with exceptional climate conditions,exceptional grapes and exceptional harvest?
- :arrow: Is it a year with less then x producers declaring VP?
- :arrow: Is the Port Institute forgeting or increasing the standard judgements to declare the VP samples from the producers?
- :arrow: Is the market claiming for a reajustment of the VP concept?Due to the overall increase of declared VP in the market?
So all I want to say is that, this all depends on how deep we go to search the answer...
But, in a quick and simple answer I would say that the 60's are perhaps the best decade altough I always like to answer that the best year/decade is still to come...always!
:twisted:
As Roy said, there will be many different opinions for this interesting question.
I think to answer this question,first we've to go back for what is the concept and definition of Vintage Port (wich is the only Port type that really gives us all signs of quality or not of a specific year/harvest.
And to answer this question, my experience says me to try to understand what is a good VP year?
- :arrow: Is it a year with more then x producers with VP?
- :arrow: Is it an exceptional year, with exceptional climate conditions,exceptional grapes and exceptional harvest?
- :arrow: Is it a year with less then x producers declaring VP?
- :arrow: Is the Port Institute forgeting or increasing the standard judgements to declare the VP samples from the producers?
- :arrow: Is the market claiming for a reajustment of the VP concept?Due to the overall increase of declared VP in the market?
So all I want to say is that, this all depends on how deep we go to search the answer...
But, in a quick and simple answer I would say that the 60's are perhaps the best decade altough I always like to answer that the best year/decade is still to come...always!
:twisted:
Together we fall, united we stand.
I see you folks were taking me quite literally and not thinking out of the box. 
For my money, the best 3 decades of Vintage Port in the 20th century are listed below with the first place winner, responding to the original question in this thread.
First place would go to the four incredibly strong, generally declared vintages between 1994-2003 which includes:
1994
1997 stronger than 1980 or 1967 (below)
2000
2003
My second place would be between 1977 and 1986 which included these four very solid vintages:
1977
1980
1983
1985
In third place would be from 1963 -1972 which includes only three generally declared vintages ... all of them great):
1963
1966
1967 ... the weakest link of the four otherwise strong vintages.
1970
For my money, the best 3 decades of Vintage Port in the 20th century are listed below with the first place winner, responding to the original question in this thread.
First place would go to the four incredibly strong, generally declared vintages between 1994-2003 which includes:
1994
1997 stronger than 1980 or 1967 (below)
2000
2003
My second place would be between 1977 and 1986 which included these four very solid vintages:
1977
1980
1983
1985
In third place would be from 1963 -1972 which includes only three generally declared vintages ... all of them great):
1963
1966
1967 ... the weakest link of the four otherwise strong vintages.
1970
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
By decade, I was thinking the third digit in the date...
I ruled out the 60's, because despite two excellent years (63 & 66) and one very respectable year (60), the rest of the decade was pretty lame.
Recent years need to be assessed with caution - there have been some remarkably low prices for 94's and 97's recently...
Tom
I ruled out the 60's, because despite two excellent years (63 & 66) and one very respectable year (60), the rest of the decade was pretty lame.
Recent years need to be assessed with caution - there have been some remarkably low prices for 94's and 97's recently...
Tom
Recent years need to be assessed with caution - there have been some remarkably low prices for 94's and 97's recently...
Tom,
Please elaborate why the recent vintages need to be "assessed with caution"? Are you referencing 1985s early hype or that of '77 when young?
When you say the prices of 1994 and 1997 have been seen recently at remarkably low prices, do you believe this has anything to do with the quality of the vintage or wine in particular? For example, the 2000 Fonseca recently sold at $42.95 in the USA for a week and others then took it up to $52.95, still a great price for one of the top 3 wines in nearly every single major opinion maker's opinion. So in that case, the price decrease (lower than first tranch) had to be caused by markety dynamics without any correlation to quality. So please share what you mean.
Very interesting!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
Because it is very hard to assess the long term status of young wines, and there is a more rapid evolution of opinion.Please elaborate why the recent vintages need to be "assessed with caution"? Are you referencing 1985s early hype or that of '77 when young?
Judging by the market, the 2000 vintage seems to gaining status at the expense of the 1994 - where there is now a huge price gulf between "the best" and "the rest".
The 1977 vintage still seems to be commanding higher prices than it deserves, while prices for the 1985's are currently in the ascendant.
There are some interesting trends with shippers as well - Fonseca has commanded very high prices of late, while Dow is in the doldrums. No-one was interested in Warre last summer but now the market is very robust - despite large volumes coming up for sale.
- Interesting to watch!
Tom
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
I think it important, as Tom says, to decide whether by decade we mean 60s 70s etc or any ten year period.
Roy is right that nature has been kind with four successive good (or better) vintages, each separated by three years since 94. If we go for the latter option, this period must rank high.
Tom is right that recent vintages are static or falling here. (97s and 2000s particularly). I have yet to see cheap 94s though
That one seems to be holding up.
I think that is an economic thing, though, not quality. I'm not a good judge on young wines, but I think the 97s are going to be the best long-term bet (especially price-wise as they are lower than 00s). 94s may be holding up in price better because there seems less about at market. Maybe they've all been drunk
(even I can't resist them :twisted: )or maybe investors are still holding them
However, as we've dicussed before, the current situation may be market dynamics as many older wines, presumably held for investment, are coming to market now so we're all turned off paying over the odds for new releases and immature vintages even though we know they're good.
I'm not sure what Tom means by assess with caution, except that I will assess them with caution too - until I see they are better value than the older ones. However, that will come with time.
All being said, I'd go for the 60s where there are three proven good or great vintages.
Yes, three OK vintages in the 80s, but every port lover I know has a different opinion, so they are not universally lauded. I know no-one who thinks 80, 83 and 85 are all good or great.
Roy is right that nature has been kind with four successive good (or better) vintages, each separated by three years since 94. If we go for the latter option, this period must rank high.
Tom is right that recent vintages are static or falling here. (97s and 2000s particularly). I have yet to see cheap 94s though
That one seems to be holding up.I think that is an economic thing, though, not quality. I'm not a good judge on young wines, but I think the 97s are going to be the best long-term bet (especially price-wise as they are lower than 00s). 94s may be holding up in price better because there seems less about at market. Maybe they've all been drunk
(even I can't resist them :twisted: )or maybe investors are still holding them However, as we've dicussed before, the current situation may be market dynamics as many older wines, presumably held for investment, are coming to market now so we're all turned off paying over the odds for new releases and immature vintages even though we know they're good.
I'm not sure what Tom means by assess with caution, except that I will assess them with caution too - until I see they are better value than the older ones. However, that will come with time.
All being said, I'd go for the 60s where there are three proven good or great vintages.
Yes, three OK vintages in the 80s, but every port lover I know has a different opinion, so they are not universally lauded. I know no-one who thinks 80, 83 and 85 are all good or great.
Stuart Chatfield London, England
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
uncle tom wrote: No-one was interested in Warre last summer but now the market is very robust - despite large volumes coming up for sale.
Tom
You'll make me smug - I got heavily into Warre "futures" (well 70s, maybe they're "pasts"!) last year and the one before, at the same time as I got into the Japan stock market. Maybe time to sell both
Your reply got in just before mine - you did mean that 97 etc. is too young to judge and opinion is evolving. I couldn't agree more, which is why I now sit out the release market.
Last edited by Stuart Chatfield on Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stuart Chatfield London, England
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
Re: this one - simple (if I understand your point) - in my opinion Dow was the most consistent performer in the 80s, when Fonseca made a succession of unspectacular wines. Now (90s and later) Fonseca is back to the top of the tree, where it was in 66 and 70. It shows that the writing on current releases does have an impact on the whole market.uncle tom wrote:
There are some interesting trends with shippers as well - Fonseca has commanded very high prices of late, while Dow is in the doldrums.
Tom
Re: the 77/85 thing I think it is just that more people like us are in the wholesale/auction market. We know that 85s were underpriced and 77s over-priced. The same thing is making 66s catch up with 63s - the lemmings who pile into 63s due to their past history used to dominate - we're now leaving the 63s to them and putting pressure on the 66 market.
Stuart Chatfield London, England
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
For example, at next month's Christies sale, Taylor 94 has an estimate of 600-700 per case, whereas the 97 has an estimate of 240-300.
All reputable writers give high and similar marks for both of these. MB gives 5* for both, JR actually rates 97 higher (18/19 compared with 16 for the 94 in the notes I can find)
I think there is a "94 factor", all else being equal.
All reputable writers give high and similar marks for both of these. MB gives 5* for both, JR actually rates 97 higher (18/19 compared with 16 for the 94 in the notes I can find)
I think there is a "94 factor", all else being equal.
Stuart Chatfield London, England
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
Personally, I think the '94 prices are held up because other people are buying them for current drinking. I've got to admit that I recently shipped 3 cases of '94s off to Octavian to get them out of my reach. I find them absolutely delicious at the moment and I am buying to drink now.
The '97s are more tannic and will probably be better wines in the future, but I find the '94s are so fleshy and opulent today that they are (almost) irresistable.
Alex
The '97s are more tannic and will probably be better wines in the future, but I find the '94s are so fleshy and opulent today that they are (almost) irresistable.
Alex
... is right that recent vintages are static or falling here. (97s and 2000s particularly). I have yet to see cheap 94s though That one seems to be holding up.
You price watchers are making a leap when evaluating price performance at auction, or even retail and equating that with the quality of a particluar vintage Port. I think that type of locic is fraught with inaccuracy. Valuations are based on what the market will bear and that is not directly tied to how a VP drinks.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Stuart Chatfield
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 am
- Location: London, England
Roy Hersh wrote:... is right that recent vintages are static or falling here. (97s and 2000s particularly). I have yet to see cheap 94s though That one seems to be holding up.
You price watchers are making a leap when evaluating price performance at auction, or even retail and equating that with the quality of a particluar vintage Port. I think that type of locic is fraught with inaccuracy. Valuations are based on what the market will bear and that is not directly tied to how a VP drinks.
I think we agree with you - it is just that this has drifted off-topic. We were making the point that it is absurd that 94 has gone so far above 97. Whilst 94 is a great year, it is not 3x as good - as the market suggests. We talk about prices here, not because we think it is a mark of quality in itself, but because the differences are so great.
I'm just saying "would I like a case of Taylor 94" - answer yes. But "would I rather have three cases of 97 for the same price" answer also yes. As I'm no millionaire I look at prices to get the best value and ensure I have enough to drink. That's why I leave the 94s on the shelf in favour of 97s and the 63s in favour of the 66s etc.
Stuart Chatfield London, England
Stuart,
Fair enough and well stated! Honestly, I'd prefer one case of the '94 but that is just me. I went very light on the '97s and have less than 4 cases total. At the very top of the vintage (top 5) there are some excellent wines, but below there ... some that I was not fond of as cask samples and beyond. Will they be able to age, absolutely. Will they have any sort of balance? Many did not as babies and that worried me.
Your point though, lends credence to why I was so bullish on folks buying 2003 right out of the gate. I paid $38 per bottle for my 1994 Fonseca and Taylor on first tranch. I paid $28-34 for all the rest of my '94s at the same time.
Although the market may be depressed at the moment, more than likely in 5 years it won't be. I have been doing the Port thing long enough that I do remember a few of the ups and downs with pricing in the past two+ decades. I remember '77 Fonseca at $49 for three consecutive years, then jumping to $59 for a month and then to $79 thereafter, followed by $99 all within one year! At that time, those were monumental price increases. Heck I thought that $79 was insane after buying it up at under $50 during the 1991-1994 stretch.
So, for those of you that question the prices of the EXCELLENT bottles of 2003 that are around ... all I can say is that provenance and the unpredictablity of prices is the reason to buy early. Yes, of course I understand you can pay the same money for the '85 Fonseca as the '03 version and that is crazy ... but neither price will hold for long. I say, buy both.
Fair enough and well stated! Honestly, I'd prefer one case of the '94 but that is just me. I went very light on the '97s and have less than 4 cases total. At the very top of the vintage (top 5) there are some excellent wines, but below there ... some that I was not fond of as cask samples and beyond. Will they be able to age, absolutely. Will they have any sort of balance? Many did not as babies and that worried me.
Your point though, lends credence to why I was so bullish on folks buying 2003 right out of the gate. I paid $38 per bottle for my 1994 Fonseca and Taylor on first tranch. I paid $28-34 for all the rest of my '94s at the same time.
Although the market may be depressed at the moment, more than likely in 5 years it won't be. I have been doing the Port thing long enough that I do remember a few of the ups and downs with pricing in the past two+ decades. I remember '77 Fonseca at $49 for three consecutive years, then jumping to $59 for a month and then to $79 thereafter, followed by $99 all within one year! At that time, those were monumental price increases. Heck I thought that $79 was insane after buying it up at under $50 during the 1991-1994 stretch.
So, for those of you that question the prices of the EXCELLENT bottles of 2003 that are around ... all I can say is that provenance and the unpredictablity of prices is the reason to buy early. Yes, of course I understand you can pay the same money for the '85 Fonseca as the '03 version and that is crazy ... but neither price will hold for long. I say, buy both.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Since when was 2003 in the 20th Century?
However, I have to agree with the sentiments of 10 years being a decade. There was an advert for Radio 1 saying "Five decades of bringing you the best new music" or something like that. It started in 1967, so not even four decades - muppets.
Technicalities have to be adhered to, so Roy - you can't have 2003
However, I have to agree with the sentiments of 10 years being a decade. There was an advert for Radio 1 saying "Five decades of bringing you the best new music" or something like that. It started in 1967, so not even four decades - muppets.
Technicalities have to be adhered to, so Roy - you can't have 2003
I'm telling you - Port is from Portugal.