Roy,
You mentioned this in your newsletter of the 2003 tasting notes with regard to the 2004 in the barrel.
Just curious what it means...
Tim
What is a "split" vintage?
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
Tim,
Nice to see you here as it is has been since the Port tasting a year ago. So welcome to FTLOP!
A split vintage, better known as a split declaration is when the majority of Port Shippers and producers "generally declare" two back-to-back vintages. Generally declared vintages take place when there are many Shippers/producers that have the quantity and quality of grapes that are worthy of going into Vintage Port. A great example of a split declaration is 1982 and 1983, as would be the case if 2004 is declared, on the heels of 2003. I may elaborate in the future, but throughout history (and I am only well-versed in all of the vintages between 1820 and present) there are a large majority of the split declarations that the latter year is the better of the 2. This has no bearing on 2004 vs. 2003, just a historical connundrum.
Nice to see you here as it is has been since the Port tasting a year ago. So welcome to FTLOP!
A split vintage, better known as a split declaration is when the majority of Port Shippers and producers "generally declare" two back-to-back vintages. Generally declared vintages take place when there are many Shippers/producers that have the quantity and quality of grapes that are worthy of going into Vintage Port. A great example of a split declaration is 1982 and 1983, as would be the case if 2004 is declared, on the heels of 2003. I may elaborate in the future, but throughout history (and I am only well-versed in all of the vintages between 1820 and present) there are a large majority of the split declarations that the latter year is the better of the 2. This has no bearing on 2004 vs. 2003, just a historical connundrum.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
I found an old answer to this question in the old archives:
I will do my best to answer your question about 1992 and why there weren't more Shipper's declaring that vintage. If you are willing to read to get to the answer, you will have a better insight. Even Nicos doesn't know this.
Back-to-back vintage declarations are known in the Port trade as a "split-declaration" and that term conotes a somewhat negative image within the trade. The reason for this stems back to the 1800s and the idea that there should only be 3 declarations per decade and that having split-declarations is confusing.
There have not been too many split-declarations in the past 200 years, from vintages that count. This means that both years have to be represented by enough "recognized" producers (first wines, not Single Quinta VPs) that the split-declaration moniker applies. Ergo, 1911 and 1912 don't count as a split-declaration even though 1912 had 25 Shippers declare (and the vintage later became a CLASSIC)... but 1911 only saw a handful declare. One other bad example of a split-declartion would be 1954 & '55 with 3 and 23 declarations made, respectively.
Please allow me to continue on this vein as my point will become evident later.
Having reasearched and written articles on this very topic and posted (although on AOL's wine message boards) about split-declarations, I will provide a brief list of the best examples (many of which I have had the opportunity to taste in comparison):
1850 & 1851, the latter was regarded one of the top vintages of the century!
1853 & 1854, the latter being far better although the Hunt's I had in 2003 was not so great. Ferreira's is still lively though.
1858 & 1859
A unique phenomenon: 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873 ... these four consecutive vintage are worth of their own article, which I will not bother with here. The renowned 1870 was the best of this quadrangle.
Onto the 20th century and the approach to the end of this riddle:
1919 & 1920 (some debate the veracity with me) as little is written on '19 but '20 was great with 23 Shippers making declarations.
1934 & 1935 - I highlighted five examples of these vintages in a tasting I held in 2003. The latter vintage was clearly the better early on and today.
1947 & 1948 - the only exception to my own rule as 1948 only had 3 declarations, but they were SO significant that this split can not be overlooked.
1957 & 1958 - since neither are well-known, I include them here just for historical perspective, (11 and 21 declarations proffered, respectively).
Although we all know about 1963, I DO NOT count 1964 (10 declarations including Taylor & Fonseca and Noval and Nacional), or 1965 which also had 10 declarations. With 1966 bridging that gap it would have been quite a string.
1966 & 1967 - now here is a duo that many people do know about, esp. 1966. 1967 though had sixteen declarations and some fine wines were made, my faves are Nacional (WOW!!!), Sandeman and Cockburn. The latter of which is now way past prime.
1977 & 1978 - this has brought on the most number of arguments from readers in the past. But with 27 declarations made in '78, it is impossible to ignore. Anyone who has ever tasted this year's Vargellas, Ferreira or Bomfim will join my camp! The lackluster Infantado became reputed for (arguably) becoming the first Single Quinta VP in '78.
1982 & 1983 - possibly the best known duo and of course, as is so often the case ... the latter vintage produced the better wine.
1994 & 1995 - say it ain't so? 46 and 42 declarations were made, respectively. Yes, most of '95 was filled with SQVPs and secondary labels... but some prominent houses declared both.
Now for those who have either skipped the history lesson, are barely hanging onto to their wits at this point OR are waiting patiently, here is the long awaited answer.
In 1991, 41 declarations were made and the Symington's led the way in this one. Don't forget they had the option of declaring 1992 (21 mostly SQVP declarations made) as well or instead. Both wines were in cask at the time and it would come down to their decision on which was the better wine.
In May of 1994, while dining with James Symington (at the Wed. lunch) at the Factory House in Oporto, I asked he and his brothers Peter and Michael, "Why did you choose the 1991 over 1992? James Suckling feels you blew the call".
I won't repeat his response to the latter half of my comment as it is not the point. Remembering his exact quote, "Time will prove that we made the right decision". Now paraphrasing very closely, he said, The 1992 is a very good vintage too, but it was declared because of "other" reasons by some houses. We tasted the two, side-by-side many times and felt that 1991 produced the better wine.
What James was alluding to in his elusive response was that 1992 was the Tercentenarry anniversary of Taylor Fladgate and of course Bruce Guimaraens was going to declare the Fonseca the same year as Taylor did.
But I spoke with Bruce about this as well as Adrian Bridge and Alistair Robertson (Managing Director and proprietor of Taylor, respectively) in the late '90s about this very topic. All told me flat out that 1992 unquestionably produced the better grapes and VP.
Some intriguing sides to this topic. 1992 was Calem's 11th consecutive declaration, which may be a record of some dubious distinction.
Some Shippers like Niepoort and Ferreira declard both ends of this true split-declaration. It is fun to taste them side-by-side.
More importantly, just when the picking started in the last week of September of '92, very cool temperatures prevailed along with intense rains. The great wines that were made, were few. Along with the two big boys ... my favorite is Niepoort.
The late rains along with other weather factors from 1992 will certainly have something to due with the low yield and extracted, tannic wines that were produced. The best of them will live long (40+ years with NO problem) and improve for decades to come.
I hope this gives a full and historical perspective about split declarations and the reasons behind the 1991 vs. 1992 decate.
--------------------
Roy
Port is essentially the wine of philosophical contemplation. It improves with age and I like it more the older I get.
I will do my best to answer your question about 1992 and why there weren't more Shipper's declaring that vintage. If you are willing to read to get to the answer, you will have a better insight. Even Nicos doesn't know this.
Back-to-back vintage declarations are known in the Port trade as a "split-declaration" and that term conotes a somewhat negative image within the trade. The reason for this stems back to the 1800s and the idea that there should only be 3 declarations per decade and that having split-declarations is confusing.
There have not been too many split-declarations in the past 200 years, from vintages that count. This means that both years have to be represented by enough "recognized" producers (first wines, not Single Quinta VPs) that the split-declaration moniker applies. Ergo, 1911 and 1912 don't count as a split-declaration even though 1912 had 25 Shippers declare (and the vintage later became a CLASSIC)... but 1911 only saw a handful declare. One other bad example of a split-declartion would be 1954 & '55 with 3 and 23 declarations made, respectively.
Please allow me to continue on this vein as my point will become evident later.
Having reasearched and written articles on this very topic and posted (although on AOL's wine message boards) about split-declarations, I will provide a brief list of the best examples (many of which I have had the opportunity to taste in comparison):
1850 & 1851, the latter was regarded one of the top vintages of the century!
1853 & 1854, the latter being far better although the Hunt's I had in 2003 was not so great. Ferreira's is still lively though.
1858 & 1859
A unique phenomenon: 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873 ... these four consecutive vintage are worth of their own article, which I will not bother with here. The renowned 1870 was the best of this quadrangle.
Onto the 20th century and the approach to the end of this riddle:
1919 & 1920 (some debate the veracity with me) as little is written on '19 but '20 was great with 23 Shippers making declarations.
1934 & 1935 - I highlighted five examples of these vintages in a tasting I held in 2003. The latter vintage was clearly the better early on and today.
1947 & 1948 - the only exception to my own rule as 1948 only had 3 declarations, but they were SO significant that this split can not be overlooked.
1957 & 1958 - since neither are well-known, I include them here just for historical perspective, (11 and 21 declarations proffered, respectively).
Although we all know about 1963, I DO NOT count 1964 (10 declarations including Taylor & Fonseca and Noval and Nacional), or 1965 which also had 10 declarations. With 1966 bridging that gap it would have been quite a string.
1966 & 1967 - now here is a duo that many people do know about, esp. 1966. 1967 though had sixteen declarations and some fine wines were made, my faves are Nacional (WOW!!!), Sandeman and Cockburn. The latter of which is now way past prime.
1977 & 1978 - this has brought on the most number of arguments from readers in the past. But with 27 declarations made in '78, it is impossible to ignore. Anyone who has ever tasted this year's Vargellas, Ferreira or Bomfim will join my camp! The lackluster Infantado became reputed for (arguably) becoming the first Single Quinta VP in '78.
1982 & 1983 - possibly the best known duo and of course, as is so often the case ... the latter vintage produced the better wine.
1994 & 1995 - say it ain't so? 46 and 42 declarations were made, respectively. Yes, most of '95 was filled with SQVPs and secondary labels... but some prominent houses declared both.
Now for those who have either skipped the history lesson, are barely hanging onto to their wits at this point OR are waiting patiently, here is the long awaited answer.
In 1991, 41 declarations were made and the Symington's led the way in this one. Don't forget they had the option of declaring 1992 (21 mostly SQVP declarations made) as well or instead. Both wines were in cask at the time and it would come down to their decision on which was the better wine.
In May of 1994, while dining with James Symington (at the Wed. lunch) at the Factory House in Oporto, I asked he and his brothers Peter and Michael, "Why did you choose the 1991 over 1992? James Suckling feels you blew the call".
I won't repeat his response to the latter half of my comment as it is not the point. Remembering his exact quote, "Time will prove that we made the right decision". Now paraphrasing very closely, he said, The 1992 is a very good vintage too, but it was declared because of "other" reasons by some houses. We tasted the two, side-by-side many times and felt that 1991 produced the better wine.
What James was alluding to in his elusive response was that 1992 was the Tercentenarry anniversary of Taylor Fladgate and of course Bruce Guimaraens was going to declare the Fonseca the same year as Taylor did.
But I spoke with Bruce about this as well as Adrian Bridge and Alistair Robertson (Managing Director and proprietor of Taylor, respectively) in the late '90s about this very topic. All told me flat out that 1992 unquestionably produced the better grapes and VP.
Some intriguing sides to this topic. 1992 was Calem's 11th consecutive declaration, which may be a record of some dubious distinction.
Some Shippers like Niepoort and Ferreira declard both ends of this true split-declaration. It is fun to taste them side-by-side.
More importantly, just when the picking started in the last week of September of '92, very cool temperatures prevailed along with intense rains. The great wines that were made, were few. Along with the two big boys ... my favorite is Niepoort.
The late rains along with other weather factors from 1992 will certainly have something to due with the low yield and extracted, tannic wines that were produced. The best of them will live long (40+ years with NO problem) and improve for decades to come.
I hope this gives a full and historical perspective about split declarations and the reasons behind the 1991 vs. 1992 decate.
--------------------
Roy
Port is essentially the wine of philosophical contemplation. It improves with age and I like it more the older I get.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Split in '04?
Roy,
Thanks for the thorough and well researched answer. With that background, it will be even more interesting to see if the '04 is declared (and by whom) and will be compare them over time to the '03s.
Tim
Thanks for the thorough and well researched answer. With that background, it will be even more interesting to see if the '04 is declared (and by whom) and will be compare them over time to the '03s.
Tim
-
Andy Velebil
- Posts: 16644
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Thanks Roy,
Darn, I thought I'd have a year or two to save some $$$ before another large purchase of VP's. I guess I better start saving now for the 2004's (just in case).
Darn, I thought I'd have a year or two to save some $$$ before another large purchase of VP's. I guess I better start saving now for the 2004's (just in case).
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
I actually wrote that piece a number of years ago when my memory on vintages was much sharper. I knew every vintage back to 1820 and circa 1994, I was pretty good with weather conditions in every declared vintage from 1900 onwards. Now my memory is a shambles compared to back then. : (
I love the "split declaration" topic. It is especially interesting to follow the patterns in the old vintages that followed one another.
I love the "split declaration" topic. It is especially interesting to follow the patterns in the old vintages that followed one another.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com