Drink hold strategy

[WJ Evans]

I have hundreds of bottles spread across '91, 94, 97, '2000, '03, '07, '09, '11, '12, and '16 vintages. Probably about equally split between 375's and 750's.

I've been slowly drinking my '94s, since I had quite a few and it's one of my oldest, but if I look at the vintage charts, it's usually listed as a hold.

I also know the newer ones drink better early. Based on my age (closing in on 60), I stopped buying new releases at '16, but that was based on thinking I should hold for 20-30 years, and back filled my collection from Benchmark and other retailers that have gotten older vintages.

I have so many, I'll probably only selectively add going forward. So, now my focus is on the best way to start/keep enjoying them to optimize what I have.

Any and all suggestions/guidance would be appreciated.

[John M.]

1994s are going to last a very long time---I'd hold off on those and hit the 91s and 97s. Those should be a better spot now.

I'm about the same age, but have been buying and drinking lots of late 70s and 80s as the 90s seem too young still.

[Moses Botbol]

I would look to buy from the 70's and 80's when you can find them so opening either doesn't require any deliberation.

[Mike J. W.]

Good advice from both John and Moses. John's right that the '94's are maturing slowly, so hitting the '91's and '97's would be the way to go in general.

You can still find some pretty good bargains on 70's and 80's Port at auction, you simply have to be patient and scour the auctions houses routinely. Acker's, Zachy's, WineBid, Spectrum Wine, Brentwood Wine (very high shipping costs, but some good bargains), and Heritage Auction are the ones I usually buy from, although I'm not buying as much these days.

I'd also drink more of the 375's as they seem to mature faster. It's also a good way to give you a general idea of how a particular Producer from a particular year is maturing without opening a larger bottle of the same if the Port turns out to be "sleeping". You could even use this strategy on some of the younger Ports to check their progress.

[Eric Menchen]

I think the advice to drink the 1991 and the 375s, particularly the older ones, is good. There are a lot of big 1994s that I would hold onto, and probably the same can be said for many of the 1997s. I would consider the producer when picking bottles. I've been drinking some of my 1994 Martinez, and should probably hit the Burmester and some of the other lesser names. But the Taylor, Fonseca, Noval ... no reason to touch those unless you want to include them in a horizontal tasting of 1994s or something.

[WJ Evans]

Being pretty inexperienced when I started this, I stuck to only what I thought of as the big names. Mostly Dows, Grahams and Taylor, which were the names known to me, and then I started to all add Croft, Fonseca, Quinta Do Vesuvio and Cockburn. Mostly 2000 and more recent on the latter four.

To be honest, of those listed, do Croft, Quinta and Cockburn all fit in the bigger names to hold off on, or do they fall in the lesser name category, like Martinez?

For '91, as example, are 11 Dow 750's. My '94s are Croft, Taylor, Graham and Dow with the majority being Graham.

I bought two Fonseca '70s, which I haven't tried. I'll start to work harder to find some of the older stuff at auction as recommended, and only sparingly touching the newer stuff, and when I do, focusing on the 375s (couple dozen '94 Grahams). When I could, I bought quite a few 375's, mostly due to the fact that it's often my wife and I drinking, and it's a nice size for the two of us.

[Glenn E.]

Personally, I consider Croft and Cockburn to be Tier 1.5 or so right now. They were formerly top tier producers, but both went through hard times, had some really poor years (or decades), and fell off. They've now been acquired by TFP and SFE respectively and so are likely on their way back to top tier, but at least for now I don't see them as being at quite the same level as Dow, Graham, Warre, Fonseca, and Taylor. Nevertheless, their "modern" releases (since the mid-1990s) should hold easily for 30, 40, or even 50 years in most cases.

Quinta do Vesuvio is an interesting case, as it's a single estate that operates somewhat differently within the SFE umbrella. Like Noval, Vesuvio tends to declare just about every year and lets nature determine the expression for the year. Unlike table wines, Ports in general are blends from multiple estates and strive to maintain a "house style" every time they are declared. Noval and Vesuvio are more like table wines in that respect - they declare in all but the very worst years, so their Ports can vary slightly, stylistically, from year-to-year. But I consider Vesuvio (and Noval) to be a top-tier producer. We don't actually have sufficient knowledge of how long Vesuvio will hold, though, as the modern iteration of it only started declaring Vintage Ports in 1989. (And the first few releases - '89, '90, and '91 - were held in the Douro instead of Vila Nova de Gaia and so can often exhibit signs of "Douro bake" due to the higher storage temperatures for those first 18 months.) Will Vesuvio age for 40 or 50 years? Probably, but we don't really know for sure yet because none of them are that old yet.

375s are indeed pretty perfect for a couple, and the stockpile of '94 Graham that you have in 375 will be wonderful for 10+ years. 1970 Fonseca is a pretty epic Port that you can either drink now (it is very nicely mature) or hold for 20 or 30 more years. Yeah... it's that epic.

[WJ Evans]

Thanks to all for such great information.

So that I don't dip too quickly into the vintage ports, I often have LBV's or a 10 year old Tawny.

I've been nervous about buying from auction sites, not knowing that quality I will get, but have been buying from Benchmark. Not sure if it's any more likely that there wines will have been stored better than what I can buy at auction, and I'm likely paying more. I'm going to start dipping into the auction market and try and buy some of the port years suggested above that are ready to drink now, rather than continuing to drink my '94 or others that based on the FTLOP vintage chart are still in hold territory. Most of what I have are listed as hold on that chart, while some other charts put them in drink window.

[Mike J. W.]

Thanks to all for such great information.

So that I don't dip too quickly into the vintage ports, I often have LBV's or a 10 year old Tawny.

I've been nervous about buying from auction sites, not knowing that quality I will get, but have been buying from Benchmark. Not sure if it's any more likely that there wines will have been stored better than what I can buy at auction, and I'm likely paying more. I'm going to start dipping into the auction market and try and buy some of the port years suggested above that are ready to drink now, rather than continuing to drink my '94 or others that based on the FTLOP vintage chart are still in hold territory. Most of what I have are listed as hold on that chart, while some other charts put them in drink window.

Personal preference comes into play as far as how long you want to hold a Port before drinking it. If you like your Port fresh and fruity then younger Ports are going to be your thing. I prefer my Ports with a good 25 to 40 years of age on them before I'll drink them routinely, because I find them to be better integrated and a smoother drinking Port. But even there, it depends on the producer, the vintage and of course the condition of the bottle. There are some older Ports (with good provenance) that drink young today (1977 Smith Woodhouse & Gould Campbell, 1980 Dow & 1985 Fonseca for example). All four of those are finally drinking nicely, but they also drink a hell of a lot younger than their age. And 1994 was one of the great years for Port, so they seem to mature slower than the norm. With all of that being said, I'll still pop open a younger Port every once in awhile to see how it's doing. The same applies to LBV in that I like about 20 years on them at least, but I will pop open younger ones to check in on them. In the end though, it's all what you like in your Ports as every palate is different.

You may or may not know this, but Brentwoodwine.com is a sister company of Benchmark. They run weekly auctions, one from D.C. and one from California. They and Winebid are where you'll usually find your best bargains, but Brentwood has high shipping costs just like Benchmark. Winebid normally has the best variety of Ports and they usually have pictures so you can look at the bottle as well as read their condition description. The other websites, you can find good bargains from time to time, you just have to keep an eye out for each individual auction. When I bid on something at an auction, I determine what I want to pay all in for a bottle or an auction lot. This includes adding in the bid fee, taxes, any credit card fees and shipping costs. I work out what that total cost is and then work backwards to the bid price maximum that I want to set. I try to stick to that number religiously and realize that I won't win them all. If there's a certain auction lot that I REALLY want that philosophy can be stretched a little but I try to maintain auction discipline so I don't get caught up in having to have a bottle at any cost and therefor overpaying for it.

[Glenn E.]

When I bid on something at an auction, I determine what I want to pay all in for a bottle or an auction lot. This includes adding in the bid fee, taxes, any credit card fees and shipping costs. I work out what that total cost is and then work backwards to the bid price maximum that I want to set. I try to stick to that number religiously and realize that I won't win them all. If there's a certain auction lot that I REALLY want that philosophy can be stretched a little but I try to maintain auction discipline so I don't get caught up in having to have a bottle at any cost and therefor overpaying for it.

This is a really solid strategy, and is what I (try to) do as well. Don't be afraid to max your bid, too. By which I mean, figure out what you're absolutely willing to pay, and work backwards from there. If you try to figure out what you think is a "fair" price and someone out-bids you, you might go back and re-bump the bid, and that's what leads to over-paying for the lot. Figure out your number, log the bid, and then (try to) forget about it until you're notified of the result. I often get the lot for less than my maximum bid... but let the auction site do that for you rather than trying to repeatedly do the math in your head while doing it manually in real time.

As Mike said, though, make sure you include the buyer's premium in your calculation. Many of these auction websites have buyer's premiums of 20%, 25%, or even more. So that bottle you were willing to buy for $200 just unexpectedly became $250.

[Eric Menchen]

They and Winebid are where you'll usually find your best bargains ...

I think winebid falls in the middle for quality and price, not usually the best for bargains. There are plenty of smart people watching winebid. Acker is where I have found some of the lowest prices, but also some of the lowest quality bottles as well. I would put TCWC on the other end, with even some of their caveat emptor bottles being pretty nice; but the prices can be higher as well. We could go on, but I think that's a subject for another thread.

Like Glenn and Mike, I usually figure out a max amount all in I'm willing to pay all-in in an auction, put in the corresponding bid to start, and then forget about it. Besides avoiding the emotion of raising your bid more than intended, this also has the benefit of winning in the case of a tie. If you bid $100, and it starts at $20, as the bids go up and up it might reach that point with someone else's bid. But as I recall, all of the auction sites I've used will give the earlier bid (and a max bid counts) priority in that case. This is more relevant for auctions with distinct coarse bid increments, where collisions are more likely.

[Roy Hersh]

There is lots of excellent advice offered above from a variety of enthusiasts.

I would purchase some 1992's if you can find them reasonable. Most are for future consumption. But a beauty for drinking over the next 10-15 years is 1992 Quinta do Infantado, which is often overlooked. Similarly with 1991, one not mentioned here, which can rival some of the TOP contenders from that fine Symington Vintage, (although I love 1991 Vargellas!) would be to grab whatever you can afford of 1991 Croft. As Glenn mentioned it was one of the brands that had a tough run in the 1970s and 1980s. The first year after 1966 or 1970 to a lesser degree that is excellent was the 1991 Croft. Three hour decant and you have a phenomenal VP in front of you. They are still quite affordable too. Especially great if you like some chocolate in the finish of your Port. Great balance and the ability to drink well for another 20 years. What's not to love.

I stopped buying from auctions quite a while ago. But I still pay some attention ... and while the GM is a friend, (for transparency) Heritage in CA does a great job, imo. I am also aware of the possibility of a LARGE stash (NOT mine) of Vintage Ports that may show up there at the end of the year or beginning of next. Impeccable bottles. Anyway, Christie's does a fine job too, but their pricing can be erratic, but HDH is also a solid option.

Meanwhile, go grab a case of the 1991 Croft!

[Moses Botbol]

Meanwhile, go grab a case of the 1991 Croft!

Crazy to think these already over 30 years old!