For The Love Of Port

Of the 3 of us who voted for 83, I think I am the first to reply. The first case purchase of wine I bought was the Graham 85. I have had much of it.
Maybe I like the 83 vintage better overall because it is our anniversary year but the Graham, Cockburn, Dow , Fonseca, have all been very good. The Taylor has been a little bit behind.

I think it is close cal but 83 vintage has the slightest edge.

I'm posting this reply before I vote. I thought I would do this scientifically and then see what comes out of it.

In the last couple of years I have tasted from 1980 Ferreira (90, 88), Fonseca (87), Grahams (95), Smith Woodhouse (88) and Taylors (92). From 1982, nothing at all so I clearly can't vote for 1982. From 1983 I have tried the Berry Brothers selection (89, 91), Cockburn (87), Dow (90, 92, 92), Gould Campbell (88), Grahams (95), Van Zeller (87), Warre (86, 86).

No notes from 1984. From 1985 notes on Delaforce (87, 92), Dow (86, 91), Ferreira (89), Fonseca (86), Morgan (89), Noval (87), Offley Boa Vista (93) and Warre (90). 1986 wines cover Fonseca Guimaraens (89,90) and Vargellas (87). 1987 notes from Crasto (89), Fonseca Guimaraens (90, 90), Niepoort (87), Quinta da Tua (90) and Vargellas (91).

I have even tasted one offering from 1981!

The wines that I have tasted from 1988 (85, 86, 88, 89, 90) and 1989 (72 (Cruz), 87, 89, 90, 91) are unlikely to bring either of these years to challenge for the title of "best vintage from the '80s".

So, mathmatically, the best ports from this decade that I have experienced are Graham's 1980 and 1983 (95 points) and Offley Boa Vista 1985 (93 points).

The proportion of wines with scores over 89 in each year are:
1980 - 50% (95 high, 87 low, 90.0 average)
1981 - n/a
1982 - n/a
1983 - 45% (95 high, 86 low, 89.4 average)
1984 - n/a
1985 - 40% (93 high, 86 low, 89.0 average)
1986 - 33% (90 high, 87 low, 88.7 average)
1987 - 67% (91 high, 87 low, 89.5 average)
1988 - 20% (90 high, 85 low, 87.6 average)
1989 - 50% (91 high, Cruz excluded, 87 low, 89 average)

So, on grounds of both consistency and impact of the best wines from the vintage, my vote will go to the vintage from 1980! Not what I was expecting.

Alex

You can take a man out of accountancy but you can never take accountancy out of the man

Derek

Alex,

I think that there is an anomaly in your figures. As a statistician I would say that your 1980 figures are being skewed by a single outlier. If you remove that outlier (as you did with 1989) and work with the remainder I think you will find that 1987 would probably win (I'd need the data to be sure). This would probably be followed by 1983.

I'd also like to know the number of bottles so that a Standard Deviation could be measured and a standard error calculated. Did you also include repeat bottles when you did your averages as they may also skew the averages?

Hang on - you've given them. I may do some work on it for you,

Alex

I'm waiting for the paperback version......

OK, I've put all of your figures into a spreadsheet and there are some very clear points coming out of it:

1. You like Graham's;
2. There is no consistency across vintages. You are not comparing like with like;
3. You had bad bottles of Dow and Fonseca for 1985;
4. By removing your Graham's fetish outliers, 1987 wins at a canter; By removing the bad 1985 bottles, 1985 wins;
5. You are drinking these wines too young;
6. You need to get a life;
7. So do I.

Alex,

I thought as I was going through my notes from the '80s ports that I've drunk in the last two years many of the same things that you have said. But, in the hope of stimulating some debate on topic, I will answer your points.

You like Graham's

I did wonder whether there was a bias towards Grahams or at least towards Grahams when it is 20-25 years old. Given my experience with Grahams across many vintages, I think this is probably true but don't think that it biased my ratings of the years as I have had Grahams wines from 1980 and 1983 but does perhaps highlight the fact that I need to try the Grahams 1985 (I have one in my stocks) and see if I can hunt out a bottle of Malvedos 1987 next time I am in London.

There is no consistency across vintages. You are not comparing like with like

Absolutely right, but instinct told me that I was going to rate either 1980 or 1987 as my best vintage and was curious to see how my experience would rate these vintages against each other. Even if the data was imperfect, it was the only data I had. I agree that it would have been better to have had identical wines from identical provenance for each of the years in question, but this wasn't available to me in the time or within the budget that I had at my disposal - but I would be happy to contribute to a Coventry based offline to explore this question!

You had bad bottles of Dow and Fonseca for 1985

Quite possibly, but these are the only bottles that I had in the last couple of years from this shipper and vintage. Mind you, I don't know what it is about the wines but Fonseca from 1971-1991 just doesn't really hit the sweet spot for my tastebuds. I prefer Graham every time :twisted:

By removing your Graham's fetish outliers, 1987 wins at a canter; By removing the bad 1985 bottles, 1985 wins

Interestingly, I was expecting 1987 to win. 1985 is one of those years which I categorise as a perfectly respectable year, but not the great "vintage of the century" class of 1927, 1945/8 or 1963/6 that it once once hoped to be. However, because of its reputation I tend to find that the wines are more highly priced than 1980, 1983 or 1987 and I prefer to buy those years. Having tried a few 1987s over the past 5 years, I really enjoy drinking these at the moment but I am rapidly running out of them in my wine stocks and will soon need to move on to something else.

You are drinking these wines too young

I am, its true and is the only reason that I have not opened the Graham's 1985 yet. Most of these wines still have much more to offer. I was really interested in reading the Guest's Corner article in the last newsletter. Although he doesn't say it explicitly, the implication that I draw from John Gillman's extremely well written article and tasting notes is that he feels around 50-60 years is the minimum required for a great Vintage Port to show at its best. Only another 25-35 years to wait for these vintages to peak then. The good news is that I should still be around and could carry out a comparative tasting of Vintage Ports from the 1980s to celebrate my 80th birthday

You need to get a life; So do I.

I don't know what you mean. I have a life, one which is dedicated to caring for and nurturing my children as they grow from quarter bottles, to half bottles. From half bottles to full bottles and then to become magnums or - who knows - one day they may even grow to be bigger than you or I could ever imagine.

Alex

Alex,

Try to get the Malvedos 1987, it really is a fabulous Port. No idea how much it will cost you nowadays but I got it at about £10 for a half. It easily wins the best value Port around and is a wonderful "Drink NOW" Port.

Alex

Here's a pole skewer for you. I've only had Gould '83 and Grahams '85. The Gould was pretty good but some of the Grahams were SO good I voted for 85... (and haven't opened any 85 Fonseca's yet).

Is a pole skewer used to make an enormous kebab?

I still can't get by the fact that mathematicaly was spelled mathmaticaly

Actually he spelled it "mathmatically" and it is really spelled "mathematically", so you're as bad as he is with your one 'l'. He is an accountant and is not paid for his spelling ability so I ignored it.

The correct abbreviation of Mathematics, of course, is "Maths" as it is a plural. The inelegant "Math" would be for only one mathematical discipline: silly Americans.

Killer B ,
I'm a québecois and don't confuse me with the facts :? :?

tanker wrote:Killer B ,
I'm a québecois and don't confuse me with the facts :? :?

Alex, the Quebecois speak neither English nor French. They speak Quebecois!!! (Just in case you were wondering)

Todd

It's OK, I've met bwoman (bman's wife), I got the gist then.

SeanC. and I had an '85 Portahon on Saturday. The line up was: Ramos Pinto 85, Noval Nacional 85 and Croft 85.

The Nacional had the most integrated alcohol and looked/tasted the most mature. The layers of flavor well integrated too (this is the first Nacional I have tried). Would’ve thought it was from the 70’s if I did not see the bottle; lighter color and very fine sediment. It tasted ready to drink the most out of the trio.

The Croft had toffee-like taste I associate with Croft. It tasted the most appropriate to being an 85, taste-wise. Better than the last time I had their 85 for sure. This port has some aging potential still.

Ramos Pinto was the darkest of the trio and had the most grape taste. In Roy’s review, he mentioned to drink it now, but to us, it seemed like the one that could age the longest due to its still grapey taste. Not grapey in a bad way, just that it seem to have a lot life still in it.

We were going to open the 85 Ferreira, but after 2.5 bottles gone, I thought we had had enough for one evening.

We also enjoyed an 1886 Blandy’s Madeira that was the oldest Madeira I have had; outstanding for sure. Smoked a Cuaba Diadema for any of you cigar fans…

And? Where was my invitation? R-P 1985; old Madeira; and then a smoke. A fantastic program.

jdaw1 wrote:And? Where was my invitation? R-P 1985; old Madeira; and then a smoke. A fantastic program.

When are you going to be in Boston?

I’m in New York. Boston is barely a hop, skip and a jump away. I can even bring a bottle.

PS: I have an inventory of excellent smokes.

PPS: “A woman is only a woman, but a cigar is a good smoke” — Rudyard Kipling.

This was a tough one for me to answer.

I agree that the 1980 is compelling with the likes of Dow, Graham, Warre and a few other beauties. But there are just too few in the upper end of the spectrum for my consideration.

1982 had enough entries but none worthy of making this the vintage of the decade.

1983 has enough fine VPs that it is in my top 3 finalists. As much as I enjoy the QDNN, Dow, Graham, Cockburn, Warre, Gould, Smith etc... given the quantity of VPs declared, the % of greats, is not high enough for this to finish higher than 3rd place in my book.

1985 was so compelling with two of my 3 top wines of the decade here ... with Fonseca and Graham's. The Dow, Niepoort, Nacional, Cockburn and Burmester all delivering at a very high level today and this was a large generally declared vintage. It was my runner up and arguably the greatest vintage. However, there are plenty of Port lovers (I am not one of them though) that feel that there are significant issues with this vintage. From lack of the ability to age well to qualitative issues with certain bottlings ... I've read dozens of complaints from palates I respect. I don't know why I have never experienced these issues ... but that certainly does not negate all those that do.

Therefore, 1987 received my vote and although there are certainly less declarations in this vintage than any of the others except '82, every single VP I have had from this vintage has showed me something wonderful. I can not remember ever having a 1987 that I was not enthralled with. So, to the other 3 who voted for this vintage ... although we are in the minority ... I take my cap off to you. 8)