For The Love Of Port

Does it ever happen that a single shipper declares vintages in two successive years? for example declaring in 1982 and again in 1983? I appreciate that, on average, port vintages are declared only every three or four or more years. Still, it seems to me there is nothing statistically unusual in the event of two back-to-back exceptional vintages -- just as statistically flipping a coin and turning up heads four times in a row is not unheard of (there is a calculable probability of this event, and it isn't exceptionally minute -- this will happen about once out of every 16 opportunities[where "an opportunity" is four successive flips of the coin]). Certainly it is known that Bordeaux has produced two successive exceptional years (I think 1975 and 1976 is an example).

If not, why not? Is this a matter of only having a limited market for one's vintage ports and producing vintage ports in successive years is going to flood one's own market? Is it a matter of needing to maintain other stocks of wine -- such as one's tawny ports, ruby ports, late bottled vintage ports?

Yes it does happen. Generally speaking, shippers that might not have a great reputation for VP might declare more frequently than others. Another factor to keep in mind is that shippers don't actually declare their intent to produce a VP until well after the harvest (over a year later) which gives them the opportunity evaluate that vintage against the most current vintage. If the more recent vintage is more promising, the shipper might bottle the earlier vintage as a Single Quinta VP instead of a full-blown VP.

Marc

It is more a British Port Shipper tradition that prevents back-to-back declarations, known in the trade as a "split declaration" from taking place with the likes of Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor, Warre and some others.

The good news is that presents a great buying op with the very fine years that may take place, for example 1978 or 1987 or 1995 (to highlight one from each of 3 successive decades). Anyway, there were some that ignore that "tradition" and do declare both ends of the splilt and Ferreira, Sandeman, Ramos-Pinto are just three examples of older houses who have all maintained their independence in terms of making declarations. Remember this is a house by house decision and not one made by the IVDP or the trade as a group.

There is lot more to this, but you can search for split declarations and I am sure you'll find several great discussions on this. Or folks are certainly free to pursue further discussion right here.

Roy Hersh wrote: Anyway, there were some that ignore that "tradition" and do declare both ends of the splilt and Ferreira, Sandeman, Ramos-Pinto are just three examples of older houses who have all maintained their independence in terms of making declarations.

Just the houses I was thinking of.

Roy Hersh wrote:It is more a British Port Shipper tradition that prevents back-to-back declarations, known in the trade as a "split declaration" from taking place with the likes of Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor, Warre and some others.

The good news is that presents a great buying op with the very fine years that may take place, for example 1978 or 1987 or 1995 (to highlight one from each of 3 successive decades). Anyway, there were some that ignore that "tradition" and do declare both ends of the splilt and Ferreira, Sandeman, Ramos-Pinto are just three examples of older houses who have all maintained their independence in terms of making declarations. Remember this is a house by house decision and not one made by the IVDP or the trade as a group.

There is lot more to this, but you can search for split declarations and I am sure you've find several great discussions on this. Or folks are certainly free to pursue further discussion right here.

I may have the wrong end of the stick here but to me the term "split declaration" applies to vintage pairs such as 1966/67 and 1991/92 where some shippers chose to declare one vintage and the others passed in preference for declaring the following vintage. By way of example for those not familiar with this phenomenon, the 1991 vintage was declared by all of the Symington brands and many others whilst Taylor, Fonseca and Croft chose not to declare 1991 and chose 1992 instead. That is what I understand a split declaration to be - i.e. a split decision by the majority of shippers, albeit that some brave souls may choose to delcare both.

In order to have a true back-to-back declaration the majority of the best known brands would have to declare both years. As far as I am aware that has not happened in the past 200 years and, from what I can see, it isn't likely to happen in our lifetime.

Derek

Of course it won't happen Derek. Never.

One quick correction though:
By way of example for those not familiar with this phenomenon, the 1991 vintage was declared by all of the Symington brands and many others whilst Taylor, Fonseca and Croft chose not to declare 1991 and chose 1992 instead.

Actually, the 1991 Croft was a fantastic Vintage Port. The others are all correct. Split declarations are not only about the quantity of producers that choose one year vs. the other, but that certainly does come into play and Derek has the numbers from his research to illustrate that point.

Of course Derek is correct and brings yet another nuance to the wonderful topic of split declarations. However, if ONLY TFP chose to make Taylor and Fonseca in 1992, it would have been considered a split declaration and really has less to do with the "majority" and in some ways, arguably, not even quantity of shippers at all. The years you mention are certainly correct and a good argument could be made for others. As you are the master of the vintage list though, you know this, but I will elaborate for others .. and feel free to disagree with me and continue the discussion on the vintages I put down here as some might be considered, "controversial" and others, not.

a. 1934 vs. 1935 "reverse" (vs. typical)
b. 1947 vs. 1948 "reverse" split
c. A very solid case can be made for the "typical" split declaration as I like to call it: 1977 and 1978, 1994 and 1995, as well as the one Derek mentioned, 1966 vs. 1967 ... another which is a great example of the typical type, where the former vintage is better than the latter one of the split. But back to the reverse for an interesting one ...
d. 1982 vs. 1983 "reverse" where I believe more shippers actually declared 1982 but there's no way it is better than 1983 overall, in my opinion. Those that chose 1983, made the better decision. Interesting to see the quantity of producers who happened to choose both in those years.
e. 1999 vs. 2000 - this is not what I'd call a real split declaration, but a good number of non-SQVPs were declared in 1999 and had not the 2000 vintage had 3 zeros at the end (and both been in tank at the time of the decision) there was no way that the VAST majority were goint to forego the 2000. 1999 is pretty darn solid from some of the fine names that produced VP that year, although it is not a long list. So this is the split that isn't.

Keep on talking about one of the many truly fun topics of Port. I am sure Uncle Tom would share some brilliance too if he chose to weigh in here and he should.

Croft 1991 - Doh!

As a penance for my crime, I'll dig the big spreadsheet out and post some stats later on the splits Roy has mentioned

Derek

After the above post it occurred to me that an easier way to show who declared what in the vintages mentioned by Roy above was to post a link to the AEVP Vintage Declarations Chart. This only includes shippers who are members of the AEVP but it demonstrates the general trends in declarations nicely.

Enjoy!

Derek

Derek,
It has happened within the past 200 years, in fact, fairly recently. Smith Woodhouse (a Symington brand), declared back-to-back in 1991 and 1992. I know it doesn't show up on the chart you referenced, but Smith Woodhouse did produce and market a Vintage Porto in both years. Not clear whether they were under the Symington umbrella back then though.

Kurt,

Some shippers do that quite regularly. Sandeman and Offley have been serial back-to-back declarers for a century or more. What I was saying is that there have not been 2 generally declared vintages back-to-back in the past 200 years. There are occassions when a few of the major shippers declare two years in a row or where some declare one year and the others declare the next. What hasn't happened is all or even a large number of big shippers declaring two consecutive years.

Derek

Derek,
I'm reading between the lines here. Are you saying that the major vs. minor shippers handle the situation differently re: releasing/declaring ports in consecutive years?

Kurt Wieneke wrote:Derek,
I'm reading between the lines here. Are you saying that the major vs. minor shippers handle the situation differently re: releasing/declaring ports in consecutive years?

At a guess, major shippers have a reputation to protect; small/new shippers have a market to attack.

Peter W. Meek wrote: At a guess, major shippers have a reputation to protect; small/new shippers have a market to attack.

I think it's a bit more complex than that, but I agree with what Peter says. The smaller producers are more than happy to declare when the wine meets the standard expected of a vintage port. In today's world you can't build a reputation for a new high quality brand by only using it 3 times a decade. However, the major houses have a reputation built over 100, 200 or more years that allows them to be more selective and to keep their product at the top of the tree by not declaring in years that they do not believe are outstanding. It would be very interesting to jump in a time machine and visit 2110 to see if some of the newer Vintage Port brands will have attained similar status and reputation as Taylor, Fonseca, Croft, Graham, Dow, Warre, Ferreira, Ramos Pinto, Sandeman, Cockburn etc enjoy today. Will the strategy of declaring 8 or 9 times per decade allow such a reputation to be built? I think probably not.

I think some of the smaller and newer shippers are working with a different business model, more like most of the French brands where most vintages are produced, and good ones command a higher price. As others alluded to, it might not be possible to follow a different path as a young company today where banks, shareholders, etc. are worried about the next quarter and can barely think past the next year.

On the other hand, if I were one of the big shippers with the established pattern of declaring three times a decade, I wouldn't change that. The reputation of the big names is worth something. I have no doubt that when one of these names declares, they will be putting out a quality product, and my money will be well spent buying it. I can't say the same for an off-year bottle from a lesser name. I'll buy both, but expect to pay less for the latter.

Eric Menchen wrote:The reputation of the big names is worth something. I have no doubt that when one of these names declares, they will be putting out a quality product, and my money will be well spent buying it. I can't say the same for an off-year bottle from a lesser name. I'll buy both, but expect to pay less for the latter.

I think the interesting thing is that when there is a general declaration you will probably still pay substantially less for the VPs of the shippers who decalre year-on-year compared to the big guns who declare 2 or 3 times per decade. I'm not convinced that is all down to a difference in quality, and is more likely to be a function of the premium that the old style tradition and centuries of good reputation attracts. To be blunt: if Quinta do Crasto produced a Vintage Port of higher quality than Fonseca in a generally declared vintage, the Fonseca would probably still cost 2 or 3 times more than the Crasto. Whereas in an off vintage year the price differencial between the Fonseca Guimareans and Crasto would be negligible. This is the barrier that I think the small shippers will find difficult or impossible to break through. Unless, of course, the Port-buying public decides over time that the three-times-in-ten tradition has had its day. That will not happen quickly, but one day it might.

Please note that the shippers mentioned above were chosen for no other reason than to demonstrate the point

Michael Hann wrote:Does it ever happen that a single shipper declares vintages in two successive years?

I just re-read Michael's original question and realised that I have been off on a tangent talking about successive General Declarations rather than the pattern of declarations of "a single shipper".

In answer to your original question, Michael: Yes, that happens quite frequently with the newer small producers but not very often with the big producers. For most of the biggest names amongst the British shippers, it just never happens.

Threads heading off on tangents? What's next!?!?!

Roy Hersh wrote:Threads heading off on tangents? What's next!?!?!

Anyone have a good peanut butter and jelly sandwich lately

Derek T. wrote:I think the interesting thing is that when there is a general declaration you will probably still pay substantially less for the VPs of the shippers who decalre year-on-year compared to the big guns who declare 2 or 3 times per decade. ...

I agree (in principal, although the relative numbers might be different from my US perspective). To pull arbitrary numbers out of the air, in the US I expect that a VP bottle from the big 3x per decade shipper to run around $60-75. A bottle from the ~8x per decade shipper might run $30-60 in a generally declared year, and off-years will be even less.