Time to abandon "Generally Declared" Vintages for Port?

[Roy Hersh]

You will read my op/ed on this later in the week, however, what is your take on this topic?

Should the Port trade move away from the 3 times-per-decade unwritten rule of declaring vintages, in lieu of each producer making their own declaration whenever they feel they have something exceptional to bottle? Or should they even produce a Vintage Port that is good (or better) every year and leave it up to the consumer to decide which year is best, as is done with most other wines from other regions across the globe?

[Moses Botbol]

I would prefer to leave it as is or go the other way... This tradition is elemental to vintage port and I'd hate to see this tradition cast aside simply to sell more port. Vintage port is supposed to be really special only coming out only in the best years.

I would rather reduce the amount of SQVP and elevate VP to an even higher pedestal product than it is today. There's plenty of business in the categories of port to fill in that spot.

[Glenn E.]

I'd like to see each Producer make their own decision based on their own product. If it turns out that a majority of Producers declare in a given year, then that year becomes a generally declared vintage. But if not, then maybe it's a partially declared vintage or something.

I see "generally declared" as an ex post facto label, not one that should be arranged ahead of time. Some of the rumors that I've heard about 2015 are... very strange. Either your Port is good enough to declare or it isn't. What some other Producer is doing shouldn't have any bearing on your decision.

[Mahmoud Ali]

I would prefer to leave it as is or go the other way... This tradition is elemental to vintage port and I'd hate to see this tradition cast aside simply to sell more port. Vintage port is supposed to be really special only coming out only in the best years.

I'm inclined to agree with Moses. I thought "Generally Declared" was merely a descriptor to refer to a year where many or most port houses declared a vintage port, not a technical term. Also the three-times a decade is nothing more than an observation of the past not a requirement. Assuming that declarations are made when the quality meets the vintage port standard of the port house, a yearly declaration would be tantamount to producing inferior port.

Cheers .................... Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

I don't care how many times they "declare" so long as it is of an outstanding quality. What I wish would change is the fact that if two companies don't "declare" then it's not a "generally declared" vintage. So if 50 producers declare and two don't then it's not a "general declaration"....that I have issues with.

[Roy Hersh]

I think my article which I started in May and have added drips and drabs in recent months may be a bit controversial without intent, now that I read what people have said here. The topic is going to likely be my year end Question for the Port Trade too, so there will be multiple opinions on this if those in the trade are willing to go on the record. We shall see!

[Mahmoud Ali]

What I wish would change is the fact that if two companies don't "declare" then it's not a "generally declared" vintage. So if 50 producers declare and two don't then it's not a "general declaration"....that I have issues with.

I did not know that. Does that mean that neither 1991 nor 1992 were generally declared vintages?

Mahmoud.

[Mahmoud Ali]

This just found on Christian Seely's Blog:

"I am not aware of any particular rule about the definition of a general declaration, but my own view is that it is exactly what it says, a Vintage that is generally declared by everyone. Or at least nearly everyone: sometimes there will be one or two producers who don’t but this would not be enough to stop it being considered a general declaration."

Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

What I wish would change is the fact that if two companies don't "declare" then it's not a "generally declared" vintage. So if 50 producers declare and two don't then it's not a "general declaration"....that I have issues with.

I did not know that. Does that mean that neither 1991 nor 1992 were generally declared vintages?

Mahmoud.

91/92 is considered a "Split declaration" because in 1991 the Symington's declared and in The Fladgate Partnership did not. Then in 1992 the opposite happened. If both of these two companies don't declare, as they did for 2015 VP's, then it's not considered a "classic declaration" despite everyone else declaring. Did you notice there wasn't as much talk about 2015's? If the above two had declared then there would be a ton of media hype behind the declaration and sales would be through the roof.

[Moses Botbol]

I am good with Taylor and Symingtons deciding whether the it is a Generally Declared Vintage or not. Simple as that.

[Roy Hersh]

Andy is absolutely correct. Even though I agree (empirically) with what Christian Seely wrote, what Andy said was exactly what the Port trade agreed to in one of our segments of: A Question for the Port Trade.

As Andy mentioned it really does boil down to what TFP and SFE decide to do in terms of a declaration. Also, the final "say so" goes to the Chancelor of the Confraria do Vinho do Porto (currently: George Sandeman). The Confraria Chancelor actually gets to decide and hold a serious event in Porto (not usually in Gaia!) to announce the full fledged declaration of a specific year for Vintage Port. All companies come together for this celebration and official declaration. But I don't think the Chancelor has ever gone against the decision of the two aforementioned companies.

[Al B.]

It's a difficult topic for us to really debate between us because we're all more sophisticated than your average port buyer.

Personally, gone are the days when I pay any attention to whether a vintage is a general declaration or not. I buy what I like, or what I want to add to the cellar to keep verticals going.

I have the impression that a "General Declaration" is a very Anglophone thing. We assume that a general declaration can only exist when the two largest English-speaking companies decide to make a full range of full vintage ports. I suspect that this is because the press we read is largely the English language, which naturally lean towards the material provided by TPF and SFE. When those two groups both choose to declare (as they did in 2011) it seems to generate a storm of English-language press publicity, with the press calling it a general declaration.

In years when only one declares (2009, 2015) the English-language press coverage is much less and in years when neither make a declaration of their portfolio it is usually just a couple of paragraphs or the odd page in Decanter.

But I don't read the Portuguese press or German or Dutch. What happens in a year when, say, Sogenvinus and Sogrape both declare full vintages? Does the Portuguese press consider this to be a general declaration?

And the time when independent producers looked to TFP and SFE to know whether to declare or not are behind us. Quevedo and Niepoort declare when they feel their wines are good enough. So does Vesuvio, Tedo, Wine & Soul and many other owner-managed companies. I love the diversity and the fact that certain producers in certain years really hit a home run. Anyone looking to buy a big, grown up 2015 vintage port should take a good look at Murcas...

[Eric Menchen]

Quevedo and Niepoort declare when they feel their wines are good enough. So does Vesuvio, Tedo, Wine & Soul and many other owner-managed companies.

Ahh, but you snuck Vesuvio, owned by SFE, into that sentence. I think Vesuvio is something of them experimenting with a different model, perhaps hedging for the future.

[Moses Botbol]

Quevedo and Niepoort declare when they feel their wines are good enough. So does Vesuvio, Tedo, Wine & Soul and many other owner-managed companies.

Ahh, but you snuck Vesuvio, owned by SFE, into that sentence. I think Vesuvio is something of them experimenting with a different model, perhaps hedging for the future.

Releasing a VP every year is something that associated to Vesuvio IMO. They are new player to the market in the scheme of Port.

[Roy Hersh]

Why shouldn't Quinta de Vargellas follow the lead of Vesuvio and declare nearly every vintage unless it is a total mess? Leave Vinha Velhas for the great years; Taylor for their major declarations.

What do you think of that suggestion.

Is it safe to assume you've read the Op/Ed in newsletter #94, right before the 2015 Vintage Port Report?

Feel free to discuss that here, (the Op/Ed) ideas, regardless of for or against.

[Moses Botbol]

Why shouldn't Quinta de Vargellas follow the lead of Vesuvio and declare nearly every vintage unless it is a total mess? Leave Vinha Velhas for the great years; Taylor for their major declarations.

What do you think of that suggestion.

I am all for it, considering where each property is located, it would make sense. Would be fun to do a vertical of each side by side.

[Roy Hersh]

This has zero to do with their close proximity, Moses.

[Al B.]

Why shouldn't Quinta de Vargellas follow the lead of Vesuvio and declare nearly every vintage unless it is a total mess? Leave Vinha Velhas for the great years; Taylor for their major declarations.

What do you think of that suggestion.

Is it safe to assume you've read the Op/Ed in newsletter #94, right before the 2015 Vintage Port Report?

Feel free to discuss that here, (the Op/Ed) ideas, regardless of for or against.

Not yet, but I will!

[Paul C. Metman]

........... I love the diversity and the fact that certain producers in certain years really hit a home run. Anyone looking to buy a big, grown up 2015 vintage port should take a good look at Murcas...

Interesting, that you mention and recommand Murças VP '15! I visited Murças this year May and the winemaker told me they were very proud of their VP '15. I was surprised (and a little bit disappointed ) not to find the Murças VP '15 in Roy's review in Newsletter 94. Do you have any idea why not?

[Andy Velebil]

Perhaps someone can clear this up. But I've been told that the "Classic Declaration" that we know of today is something that only came about fairly recently, as in post WW2. Prior to that there was no such thing, it just so happened that great years were harder to come by than today (the whole advancements in winemaking, etc) and people tended to all make Vintage worthy VP in the same year. And if you look back to the 1800's there are plenty of consecutive years produced in the late 1800's.

If so, That would make sense as Port types as we know them today only came about (standardized) in the late 1940's. Prior to that there was no set bottling times after harvest, etc.