The decade of the 1990s: "Most 'under-appreciated' vin

[Roy Hersh]

A case can be made for many of these vintages, but you only have one vote. More importantly, let's get the discussion going as to WHY you believe in your choice. Thanks!

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

I have very little experience of the 1990s, but wish to be informed when others reply to this thread. Hence this content-free post.

Edit following post below: doh! I just hadn’t seen that link.

[Todd Pettinger]

Off topic because I have tasted very few 90's, but Julian, I noticed that there is a link at the very bottom of the thread page to "Watch this topic" without having to post. :)

Of course, I clicked on it and so now, if I copy and paste it, it now states "Stop watching this topic"

On topic though, I am also interested in this topic as there are a few 90s Ports available in my area, particularly 97. The majority of other vintages is sold out or are no longer in ready supply. I am learning that one of the reasons VP prices do appear to be a bit high in my area is that the Port lovers in the area seem to snap everything up very quickly. There is not a ready supply of much in the area with the exceptions of 2000 and 2003, which like I understand in other areas, seem to be sticking around for longer than normal due to what may be pereived as inflated prices on the young vintages.

Todd

[Tom Archer]

You can read this question two ways -

1995 had the misfortune to follow 1994. If a similar vintage had occurred in 1989 - say - it would probably have been declared, so in that respect it got my vote.

However, '95 does seem well appreciated as an SQ year, so you could argue that it is not under appreciated. Looking at it that way, I would have pitched for 1990, which (from LBV's) I have found very impressive.

Tom

[Al B.]

I'm going to choose not to answer the question as, when I was looking through my tasting notes, I realised how little port I have drunk from the '90s other than 1994.

So I guess my vote goes for 1994 - why bother drinking from other vintages when 1994 is so good?

Alex

Note to self - drink more '90s wines other than '94

[Jay Powers]

I voted 1995.

94 and 97 can certainly not be described as underappreciated, and the 91/92 is well thought of as well. There are some nice wines in 96 (like the Malvedos), but I think 95 is the most under appreciated with perhaps more underappreciated (and often lower priced) wines. Most recently I have had the 95 Quinta do Crasto, a very nice wine.

Jay

[Roy Hersh]

So I guess my vote goes for 1994 - why bother drinking from other vintages when 1994 is so good?

Alex,

You can say MANY things about the 1994 vintage for Port, but no way will you ever convince us that it was under-appreciated. Great to drink? Absolutely, but from day one there was a ton of hype surrounding 1994.

I think Jay is on the right track here.

[Al B.]

Roy,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince anyone that 1994 is the most underappreciated vintage of the '90s.

Well, actually, maybe I am. Despite all the hype surrounding the 1994 vintage my experience so far is that it deserves all the hype and more. I have yet to have a poor '94 port. After 13 years of development, I can say that '94 is heading in the right direction to be the 1927 or the 1948 of my lifetime.

Were 1927 and 1948 hyped to the extent they should have been with the benefit of hindsight? Is 1994 better than all the hype that surrounded it on release? Was 1994's hype any different from 1991/2 or 1997 or 2000 or 2003?

Now I know I am being deliberately provocative here and my tongue is firmly in my cheek. But I will come back to my last point - why drink anything else from the '90s when the '94s are so good? My daughter has a port that she will be able to drink for the rest of her life.

Alex

[David Spriggs]

I think it's pretty easy to say 1995, so I won't. Personally, the 1995's I've had recently have left me flat. Now granted they are probably closed, but still, it is clearly not up to the level of 1994.

On the other hand there are some legendary ports from 1992. Taylor's and Fonseca made great ports. And many of the Single Quintas are stunning. Some are better than their decalred 1991's, but not all. The 1992 Quinta do Infantado VP is great. It's their best effort ever .... except for their very special 1991 100% Touriga Nacional VP. So I would say that other than the Taylor, the 1992's get no respect and are extremely good.

-Dave-

PS. Another favorite sleeper "Non-declared" year is 1999. Some very solid wines made that year.

[Andy Velebil]

Although I've had very few Ports from years other than 1994 and 1995, I've really enjoyed the VP's, Colheita's, and LBV's that I've had from '95.

So for across the board scoring, my hat is off to 1995.

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

A slight grumble question about the question. It asks about “most under-appreciated”, which allows people with the same view on the ports to disagree about other people’s opinions of the ports. Would “best value for money” have been a crunchier and more useful question?

[Todd Pettinger]

Would “best value for money” have been a crunchier and more useful question?

The answers to this question would certainly have more value for a guy like me, with limited experience with the 90's (Ferreira '97 being my only VP of the 90s tasted to date).

Although a few 94s and 97s are available in my area, they are a lot more pricey than the few that are available from other years than these two Generally Declared Vintage years.

If anyone wants to chime in, it sounds like 95 is a good wine to try to track down, if it is available. Any others that provide great value for the money?

Todd

[Roy Hersh]

David and Alex,

There is no question as to what is the BEST vintage of the 1990s, but I don't think that was the talking point.


Alex wrote:

Were 1927 and 1948 hyped to the extent they should have been with the benefit of hindsight? Is 1994 better than all the hype that surrounded it on release? Was 1994's hype any different from 1991/2 or 1997 or 2000 or 2003?

I realize that these are nearly rhetorical questions, but they are valid for those that may just be wanting to learn from a historical perspective ... and history of Port is probably the area I enjoy studying most ... especially reading about and drinking OLD vintages. So here goes:

1927 was not only a great vintage, but it was one of the largest ever produced to that point, in terms of sheer volume of liters. Amazing stocks were held. This was first released, almost simultaneously with the onset of the Great Depression (check the dates!). Therefore, all of this great juice became almost unaffordable at the prices that today would buy a half glass of cheap table wine at a restaurant. Nobody was buying VP even though the word out of Portugal in 1927 was that it was the greatest Port ever made. Sadly, the extraordinary amounts of 1927 that was then moved to UK agents' warehouses, became a tragedy later on (when the German's Luftwaffe bombed said warehouses and the vast majority of the UK stockists supply of 1927 VP was destroyed ... with Port running down the streets). Coming on the heels of the 1927's huge production, very few Shippers declared 1931 VP for the very reason ... that there was so much on hand with the Depression now firmly in place in 1933 when they would have "declared" and the USA (a small market at the time) having just declared "Prohibiition." I could write a detailed chapter on this very topic, but you get the gist.

1948 was released at a point in time when 1945 VP was very popular due to its cache as a great wine and also promoted as the "Peace Vintage." Not only that, but enough declarations (yes a split vintage declaration) in 1947 that some Shippers did not want to gamble, financially speaking, by also putting out a '48 and as great as that vintage has proved to be ... there were only a handful of VPs released in 1950/1951.

That was a rather dull period for sales of Port in the UK and the rest of the world, as the economy of post-WWII was not conducive to Port purchases. That has a lot to do with why between 1948 and 1955 we see one of the longest stretches (7 years!) between major declarations in the entire 20th century. As the world economy and certainly that of the Port trade was in the toilet at that point, we don't see another major declaration for 5 more years with 1960. You can tell when there are only 2 vintage releases in 12 years that there is an economic problem. This placed undue hardship on many growers and Shippers at the time. Ergo the sales of some companies while others folded their tents and things did not improve until the early-1970s and by then, those smaller operations that were hanging on, were in serious shape, while some of the majors consolidated through acquisition (Graham's in 1970 is just one glaring example).

So to make a long story short, the hype of 1927 and 1948 can not rightfully be compared to the major media machines in place in 1996/1997 when 1994 VP came to market. Don't forget the WS which was just emerging as a major wine magazine in the height of the "new" wine frenzy in the USA ... during the peak VP buying daze (augmented by the popularity of cigar smoking believe it or not!!!) -- Suckling declared 3 100 point VPs from 1994 (Taylor/Fonseca/Nacional) and touted Taylor/Fonseca their first ever ... "Co-Wines of the Year" in their 1997 Mag, which I will always keep as a momento. Bruce Guimareans who turned over full time winemaking duties to his son David with the 1994 vintage was a very proud papa, but when the grapes were picked in 1994, he went on the record and declared the harvest one of the greatest he had ever seen and it was destined to make fantastic Ports. Others in the trade were also quite vocal as this was the first generally declared vintage since 1985 a whopping 9 years, with over 40 companies producing VP (1991/1992 were true split declarations).

Is 1994 better than all the hype that surrounded it on release? No, as good as the Ports really are, never had so much media attention focused on ANY Vintage Port release ever before. The reason was that it was the first MAJOR VP to be sucked up in serious quantities by the newly enamored Americans who were drinking all they could get their hands on between 1997 and 2000, committing infanticide, especially given the vast quantites were just the foil for their enjoyment of cigars. For the very first time in history ... the USA surpassed the UK market for dominance in the procurement of Vintage Port. This coincided with some of the most uber-wealthy growth times since the 1920s in America's economy, with Wall Street on first and the Dow Jones Industrial average quadrupling in just a few years. So it was literally impossible for the '94s to surpass their own hype, imo!

Was 1994's hype any different from 1991/2 or 1997 or 2000 or 2003?
Yes definitely. The economy was on fire, the Port market was at its all time healthiest and growing significantly. In 1991/1992 the USA market had not caught on yet and very few people I knew, gave a darn about VP in those vintages which sold for low to mid $20 range with Taylor/Fonseca costing $26 pre-release here in the USA. There was a MAJOR jump to $38 and $40 respectively in 1994 because of the aforementioned socio-economic dynamics in place with the latter vintage + all of the cocophony created by media attention. As far as 1997 and 2000/2003 ... the former and latter just don't compare whatsoever. The 2000 did receive a lot of hype, much of which was tied into the first VP ever with 3 zeros at the end and the fact that it was a great Bordeaux vintage as well as for VPs. By the time 2000s were released in late 2002 and early 2003 in a post 9-11 world economy and the downfall of the Tech market and muni-bond scandals, along with the passing of the cigar fad ... the sales of 2000 were vastly underwhelming. There is no denying the qualty of any of these 3 vintages though the hype was not even close to 1994.

Just one man's perspective.

[Ronald Wortel]

Never tried a 1990, but did taste ports from every other vintage on the list. My vote goes to 1992. One can argue whether it is really an under-appreciated vintage, but given that IMO the most solid ports were produced that year, and that it is stated in the list, it deserves my vote. A good second is 1995. But some of the wines from that vintage seem to be developing a bit quicker than I expected a couple of years ago, therefore the honour goes to 1992.

[Al B.]

Roy,

Great response to my provocation and an extremely interesting read. Thanks for going to the effort of writing it!

Alex

[Derek T.]

Why is 1997 not on the list?

Derek

[Alex K.]

Why is 1997 not on the list?

Derek

Same reason as 1994?

[Derek T.]

Probably, but I think for some 1997 is a contender for this poll. It has taken some criticism that the wines may not last the pace and has also been on a downward spiral in terms of price. Some here may disagree with the markets perception of this vintage.

1994 has been universally acclaimed since release with no evidence of it being anything other than a classic. That said, Alex has the right to vote for any vintage begining with 199

Some of us also have samples of the one and only 1993 VP to be released. However, as 1993 is not on the list we can't tell you whether or not it is a 100 point classic and therefore underrated due to the lack of competion in its year.

A true democracy would allow voters to choose from all available options thereby allowing them to express there views and register their vote without the Returning Officer unilaterally excluding candidates from the process :?

Derek

[Eric Duprey]

I voted for 1991, because I'm defining 'under-appreciated' as 'a great wine that is often ignored'. I think the 1992's definitely had a good deal of popularity and publicity, and the 1995's are readily available and relatively inexpensive these days, so I wouldn't call either of them under-appreciated. But it seems to me that the 1991 vintage almost fell off the face of the earth. I've had 3 excellent 1991's (Vargellas, Vesuvio and Warre) but I've noticed that this vintage is nearly impossible to find at retail.

[Todd Pettinger]

I guess "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Derek, I think Roy, in creating the poll, is defining under-appreciated as anything other than the two big years of the 1990s. Go into any wine shop worth the money and ask them which two or three Vintage years for VP are the best from the 1990s... What will be the universal answer? 1994 and 1997.

Perhaps they are maligned slight for (in the case of 97) likely not being able to hold out for the long term, but it was still a generally declared year that most salespeople would know about! :)

Maybe I'm out to lunch, but I wouldn't count 94 or 97 among the under-appreciated vintages of that decade.

Again, if he had said, which is the BEST "vintage of the decade" I would agree with your assessment that every year from 1990 to 1999 should be on there.

Just my

Todd