Top fifteen vintages of the last 50 years

[Tom Archer]

OK, looking through the comments and TN's of various writers, coupled to my own observations, I've made a little league table.

It's quite difficult to compare the recent vintages with the older ones, and it is likely that over time the standing of some of the recent vintages will change - for better or worse.

Some of them are also a very close call - some of you, I am sure, will prefer a different order!

So here it is:

1963
1994
1966
1955
1970
1992
2000
1977
1997
1983
2003
1985
1980
1960
1991

- Please beg to differ!

Tom

[Stuart Chatfield]

V. interesting post - good idea. Here is my league (with differences from yours in brackets - therefore the bigger this number, the more controversial!)

1977 (+7)
1966 (+1)
1985 (+9)
1955 (=)
1963 (-4)
1994 (-4)
1997 (+3)
1970 (-3)
1960 (+5)
1975 ("new entry" as Jimmy Saville would say - now then now then )
1980 (+2)
1983 (-1)
1991 (-3)
1992 (-88)



I can't comment on the last two declarations as I've only tried a very few 2000s and no 2003s. I know you say you have taken account of others' reviews, but if I was to average out mine and others' they all be equal as I find my views invariably diametrically opposed to most reviewers!

Our main differences are that I obviously much prefer 60, 77 and 85 to you. I'd have thought that an average view would put 77 much higher than you say, but my liking of 85s is not common so you're probably right there. In my view 85 is the only really good year between 77 and 94. (That'll start some arguments! :twisted: ) Or maybe I just don't like "middle-aged" port, between the ages of 11 and 28?

I'm yet to be convinced by 92. I wonder if Taylor, not being so lucky in their tercentenary as Warre and declaring it anyway, plus the Parker thing has caused some auto-suggestion here. A "cool" emoticon has appeared after this entry - I've tried to edit it out but it won't go....honest.

Just edited and made a "new entry" having read Nick's reply, below, about current pleasure. I wouldn't invest in them for the future but 75s have brought much good value pleasure to me recently.

[NickA]

Uhmm, just shows how difficult and subjective such wide generalizations are - just from the difficulty in ordering them personally! Anyway, I'm game, but my definition is a 'random pick from the main port houses of the day, bought and drunk today':

1994
2000
1966
1970
1991/2
1985
1997
1963
1983
1977
1955
1980.

You'll note the older vintages are low down on my list - that represents the few wines I've had, and the relative pleasure they provided. I'm sure in their day they would have been much higher, and one or two examples are among the great wines still - but today give me the pleasures of younger wines in general, if just a random pick from the vintage.

[Tom Archer]

Fascinating response (so far!)

I felt the only real challengers for the top spot were '63 and '94. Recent notes suggest that the 63's are slipping past the tipping point, but that is not unreasonable at age 42. Some notes suggest the '94's are a little too forward to stand the test of time, but they may yet usurp the '63's

Although I am inclined to defend the '75's, the tail end of my table (which I didn't include) had them trailing the '67's and '87's, and they are probably behind the '95's and '01's also.

Placing the '92's was difficult, but their seems to be a growing consensus that the split vintage was better called by Fladgate ('92) than by Symington ('91).

I think that with hindsight, the Symingtons probably regret not declaring '87 - by '91 they were desperate for a vintage and couldn't wait another year.

Placing the '03 year was also difficult - the consensus of the commentators so far suggests "good, but not that good"

- Time will tell!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Placing the '03 year was also difficult - the consensus of the commentators so far suggests "good, but not that good"

Balderdash. I don't know where you get this "consensus" you speak of? How many of these have you tried for yourself?

[Tom Archer]

Roy,

I don't pretend to be an expert on immature vintages. My placing of the 03's was based on various comparative commentaries, taking into the account the perennial tendency to speak over-highly of the latest offering.

It is perfectly possible that the '03's will emerge as a blockbuster year, but my personal interpretation of what has been written to date suggests that this is not expected - three years ago there seemed to be much more excitement about the 2000's than there is about the 03's today - but as I said before, only time will tell!

Tom

[Stuart Chatfield]

the perennial tendency to speak over-highly of the latest offering.

Tom

Spot on :!: :!: :!:

Maybe its something about the atmosphere, or some sort of osmotic suggestion from the producers (and I don't think there is an intention to deceive.) However, we need to bear in mind that the only VP the producers sell is the latest vintage. We buy and sell the older stuff to each other. (Also bearing in mind the high price we have to pay for the youngsters relative to the older ones). I'm sure it makes "independent" reviewers more excited than they otherwise would be. Couple this with the modern tendency for instant gratification. I think we should discount their scores by 5% in the first year.

We need a time machine to compare young '03s with young '63s.....or Michael Broadbent. Have we heard his view on the '03s yet?

[alec]

... the perennial tendency to speak over-highly of the latest offering.

YES, I have to agree with Tom on this one. When you can find fine aged ports for the same price as a new release something is wrong. Sure for a "vintage of the century" (read 1994) that might be normal with all the press, but I was buying 1994 Warres 750ml for $35/bottle when released. Since 1994, nearly every vintage has been lauded as the "Best since XXXX" and "Don't miss out". The 2003 vintage brought the largest number of pre-arrival offerings I've ever seen.

And why not? If I were a port shipper I'd tell you that the 2003 Simonson is the best damned vintage port you'll ever lay eyes on. Who can blame them? The 1994 vintage was a spectacular display of how media attention can create a frenzy. Everyone wants that back.

As for the reviewers, they have not that much to lose as well. If they tell their readers that the vintage is the best since 1948, they've made a "discovery" before their collegues have and have scooped the story. And if 2003 starts to fade in 15 years, nobody will remember or care.

The fact is that despite my cynicism, I blame neither party. The wine industry is hard and if I worked in it I'd capitalize on it as much as the next guy.

--A

PS: Anyone else notice the sudden price drop of the 2000 vintage over the last couple months?

[simon Lisle]

I agree with Tom on this one

[NickA]

... the perennial tendency to speak over-highly of the latest offering.

PS: Anyone else notice the sudden price drop of the 2000 vintage over the last couple months?

Not just the 2000s, most of the 90s ports are cheaper today than 4-5 years back. I've recently bought '97s at less than en-primeur pricing, and can buy back some '94s a) for less than I paid soon after release or even b) for less than I sold some for 5 years ago!

[Stuart Chatfield]

I've recently bought '97s at less than en-primeur pricing

I think 97s are a good buy - I look out for "lost" vintages wedged between hyped ones and I think they'll stay in this category for a while. That's why I've often lauded the 60s, 66s, 85s etc. (Unfortunately, the 66s now seem to have been discovered because in the last year they seem to be fetching 20% more than the one before, thereby narrowing the gap with 63 . I think Roy and MB were almost alone in saying the 66s would outlive the 63s and the market is now catching up. Good job I got in before, I suppose, but I have not got enough yet!)

I'm going to spend the budget I saved for '03 on '97. I feel like a broken record on this one, but not until you get back to 1977 :!: does the auction price of older vitages exceed the 00 and 03 prices. Is every intervening vintage worse, and by so much so you can also discount a decade of storage? :?

[Tom Archer]

The possibility that '97 will emerge as another '66 can't be ruled out.

Prices are keen and the TN's good - one to lay down!

Tom

[NickA]

The possibility that '97 will emerge as another '66 can't be ruled out.

Prices are keen and the TN's good - one to lay down!

Tom

My take on the '97s currently is that they are now more in sync with the '85s - and in the middle arena (rather the top of the class) don't quite have the dimension of those wines. Prices I think relect where this vintage is currently considered overall and remain fair rather than great (I bought Grahams and Dows at £21 a bottle, but then the excellent '83 Smith Woodhouse is that sort of money, as was the nicely drinking Warre's 91). However, that does not rule out a turn-around - but I suspect the '97s will remain 'cheap' until the evidence in the bottles support top tier port (on which this vintage is increasingly pinned to only a few exceptional wines).

[Roy Hersh]

Have opinions evolved over the past six years since this was originally discussed? What is your take nowadays?

[Andy Velebil]

The possibility that '97 will emerge as another '66 can't be ruled out.

Prices are keen and the TN's good - one to lay down!

Tom

Interesting comparison and several years ago I would have agreed. After a recent little mini-crusade of mine picking the minds of Port producers and trying a fair amount I'm not so sure that 1997 will live to be as great as originally thought. Not that it's bad, as I've bought a decent amount over the past couple years. Now more with the intention of drinking them at a younger age, as I feel they won't live to be super old bones. But I don't see these becoming highly acclaimed later in life.

Tom,
Curious if you're view of the 1997's have changed or stayed?

[Al B.]

I missed this post first time round, and certainly have a lower impression of the 1997 ports than I did 5 years ago - they seem to be maturing much more quickly than I expected. But this seemed like a great provoking post, so here goes my thoughts on the "top" 15 vintages from the years 1955-2004 defined by me as meaning the 15 that I would most like to have decent stocks of in my cellar.

1966
1994
1970
1955
1963
1976
1977
1985
2003
1987
1967
1992
2000
1980
1983

[Jeff G.]

1966
1970
1985
1994
1955
1963
2003
1992
2000
1977
1997
1983
2007
1980
1960



tho i think i'm skewed a little by fonseca

[Rob C.]

I'll agree that 66 is in a really sweet spot right now and for me it is the top generally available (1955+) vintage for current drinking, but will it still be drinking better than 70 in 5-10 years? Side by side the 66s seem noticeably more evolved.

So my list would be:

1. 1970 (across the board quality, will last for many years yet)
2. 1966 (my favourite wines of the moment)
3. 1963 (some now seem to me to be fading, but still amazing quality in this vintage)
4. 1994 (i've had a few amazing ports, but i'm mainly going on faith in others' expertise at this stage - i personally find many to be still very awkward)
5. 1955 (i like ports in the earlier stage of maturity, but these are still thoroughly acceptable! Do the best compare with the best of the 30s or 40s though? Not sure - perhaps Graham. Need to try more to determine....!)
6=. 1977/1985 (1985 as i think there are two truly fantastic ports and a couple on the rung below that are great drinkers, 1977 i am slowly coming round to)
8. 1980 (some really nice ports in this vintage that still need more time. If we look back at this thread in 10 years, my money will be on this vintage as the one which climbs up the rankings the most)
9=. 1987/1976 (I've only had a couple from each vintage, but have been impressed)
11. 1992 (some good QPR available on ports that are already drinking well)
12. 1967 (not many from this vintage, but i have really enjoyed the Nacional, Cockburn, Roeda and Martinez.)
13. 1997 (i have had very enjoyable wines from this vintage, but the big names seem to be in a rather unattractive phase right now - not a good time to be judging them.)
14. 1982 (principally on the basis of really nice bottles of Croft and Churchill, and some enjoyable Sandemans. In my port-drinking experience, i have had more pleasure from this vintage than 1983...though reliability can be a problem)
15. 1995 (only had a few times, but they seem rather enjoyable as an earlier drinking vintage).

2000/2003/2007/2009 - going by my experience of the 94s and 97s going to be another 10-15 years before i'm going to be able to get any proper impression of how i rate these!

- 1960 is not appearing particularly high on any list - . I've only had two bottles that i can recall, so don't feel like i have a firm opinion on it yet. Is it really held in such low regard though?

[Eric Menchen]

I like 1983 over 1985, and 1960 over 1963 and 1966; but admit that these are based on pretty small sample sizes. I should buy more 1970s, as I would put that near the top of the list.

[Tom Archer]

Ho hum - how things change!

I recently tried several '97s, and frankly wasn't greatly wowed - most seemed too light and approachable for their years. A new '66? - I think not.

Top dog of the last half century now goes firmly to 1970 IMO, and for the recent vintage that shows the greatest promise to follow in its footsteps, with a broad field of very sound wines, my vote goes to 2003.

The '63's are mostly showing oh-so-tired now, but the '60's were written off before their time, and it is possible the '63 vintage will find a second wind.

The '66's are finally coming to full maturity, and in recent years the slightly more forward '67s have shown remarkably well, but are now looking to have peaked (perhaps!)

Most '75s are drinking acceptably well, despite the vintage's reputation (as are the '82s) Most '77s seem short of steam, as do many '85s, but both vintages have notable exceptions. '83 I rather like, but for current drinking rather than the next generation. Both '80 and and '91 are curate's eggs - good in parts..

'92 is beginning to show good form, and the '94's are delighting those with a taste for the young stuff.

- but will they consolidate and last well?

When Roy digs this thread out again in 2017, we'll have a better idea!

Tom