Glenn wrote:
As things stand right now given their current practice, it is possible (note that I'm not saying it has happened, just that it is possible) for one of the better years to get passed over simply because the major shippers seem to have an aversion to declaring back-to-back years. It is also possible for them to declare a merely "good" year (possible examples: 1980, 1991) simply because they feel that they need more product and the year is "good enough."
I agree with Tom that less restrictions would be better. I am even pro-4x a decade if the quality is warranted, 5x if the marketplace will see some "pass through." However, in a niche market with declining sales of Port throughout the majority of the world (for nearly an entire decade), how does increasing the number of general declarations make any sense except "in theory?" Of course, the counter argument is ...
get rid of general declarations altogether.
That is not a new idea or discussion on FTLOP. But let's just follow through for a moment. From 2010 let's take a hypothetical look for a moment:
2010, 2013, 2016 & 2019
wind up being declared. Obviously we have to take a momentary suspension of the fact that 2011 begins the next decade, but we
can say over a 10 year period, the above 4 declarations are made by the majority of houses and are considered by the masses, as "generally declared." Would that have any negative affect on the trade? That all depends on how sales have been going. If 2003 and 2007 VPs are still on retailer's shelves, 4 declarations seems to make no sense and certainly a waste of Euros. However, if market conditions change and Asia gets on board the Port train, all of a sudden we could hear a loud sucking sound and that is not a vacuum sucking all of the Port out of the market, but hundreds of thousands of new mouths sucking Port out of their glasses. Then 4 general declarations looks like a stroke of genius. And Asia is just one possibility. Port may find a way to all of a sudden appeal to the next generation. Rose Port, White Port with an indication of age, improved quality for Ruby Reserve Ports, the IVDP spending their sustained war chest on education and promotion in both key traditional markets as well as expanding new ones. If some of those things start to generate significant panache for Port, then we may see those dynamics changing the face of declarations, with as much vigor as Douro wines have changed the face of the Douro region's grape emphasis.
I guess I am all for
market driven and
qualitative grape dynamics deciding whether there should be more or less VPs declared. Heck if there is a place to sell them, why not declare 5x in a decade, or certainly ... back-to-back vintages ... IF the above two qualifiers are sated. Great!
Conversely, if things get worse for Port sales on a global basis, what if only 2 declarations were to take place, and VP then resembles the rather bleak times, like in the 1950s? Remember which vintages were declared then?
If boom times are ahead, I would expect that there'd only be two major companies that would continue the age old tradition of 3x/decade, whilst the rest of the Port producers would make the best decisions for their own companies (as they do now) and declare at will.
Now quickly to Glenn's quote above:
1980 came three years after 1977 (
) and three years before 1983. Anyone who has tasted enough 1982 VPs, knows that the correct year was chosen and 1984 was even more modest than 1982 in terms of overall quality. 1985 was the next "great" year ... depending on your point of view. So there were literally 3 declarations in a six year spread ... or half the years were declared. That seemed to CLOG the shelves with VP, even though sales were seemingly robust and improving at the time. 1987 we all agree,
should have been the 4th declaration of that decade; but it was passed over, due to how much Port was around. If it was me, I would have declared, made my 6,000 cases and released 1,500 for the world and held the rest for later releases when demand was stronger. But instead, with some significant Port companies in financial trouble ... the trade held off from 1985-1991, a rather long span indeed. 1991 was deemed very good when it came around and the only argument was ... would 1992 be even better. That same question remains to this day with supporters on both sides of the split. That's my historical take. YMMV.
There is one other consideration which must always be taken into account and that is the law of thirds (lei de terco, which I have written about in the newsletter and has been discussed here in the past on several occasions). It can not be ignored. Understanding how it works, is another intricate layer that is factored into everything a Port company decides. But this is just the enamel on the teeth of the discussion. However, it is certainly a (financial) factor when it comes time to make important decisions, as is the economic climate. But remember, 2007 could not have come at a worse time in that regard, and yet the trade felt the quality was definitive and beyond reproach.