For The Love Of Port

Although I think it will be interesting to see where the vote winds up ...

I am far more interested to read your reasoning behind the responses. I can't for the life of me, think why it took me so long to come up with this one?!?!?!

I'll add my own opinions after everyone else has had a chance to add theirs.


Please DO let me know if you think I have left out any obvious underrated vintages from this poll. Thanks!

I did choose 1995 because overall I think it is one year that we got many very good wines. It is easier today to assess that also with the good amount of single Quinta wine being produced as it was not the case earlier.

Before seeing the poll options, I would have said 1966 or 1983. Both vintages where not critically acclaimed at first because they where overshadowed by 63 and 85 respectively but as they matured they just prove that they deserved more attention upon release.

I assume you mean, Roy, that the wines were underrated by the trade and consumers.

A slightly different question would also be interesting: vintages underrated by the producer: i.e. missed general declarations.

To me the clear choice is '87 - It offers suberb value versus price. Because there were no hype generated by a general declaration, this vintage has always been somehow "out-of-fashion".

-Antti-

I shouldn't let one wine influence my choice of 1978, but I tried a 1978 Guimeraens from Fonseca over Christmas and it was stunning - soft gentle fruit, a rich caramel and cocoa flavour and a little white pepper. WOW!

Having said that at that, 1960 and 1980 are drinking SO well now and really overlooked by so many - which is good, because it means they are cheap!

Peter

Peter,

You make an excellent point and I think I probably should have mentioned the 1960 vintage, (my younger brother's birth year) but beyond 2 or 3 Shippers that made fine bottlings that year, I can't think of many great successes from this vintage.

I picked 1987, only because that is the year that I've had several bottles from different producers and have been relatively happy with the outcomes. The other years I either havn't had any yet or only had 1 (maybe 2) bottles from that year and I don't feel comfortable giving an opinion with that lack of prior tasting experiences.

A curious list - why '57? Only Sandeman played that year (I think - I don't have my books with me) - and I 've never tried one.

For my vote it was a close call between '87 and '78, but went for the 78's because they are selling for peanuts, yet are drinking superbly now.

Tom

I found this a really difficult question to answer - how do you rate the level of "underrating" of a particular vintage. I ended up asking myself the question. If there were 10 bottles in a shop, all unknown shipper but known vintage, and they were all a sensible price then which one would I choose first?

I chose 1967 because my experience with wines from that year has always been excellent. But it was very close between 1967, 1980 and 1991. There are some stunning wines from 1980 (and some very poor ones) and 1991 has been consistently good in my experience.

But, biggest question of all for me, where was 1975 in the list? Or was 1957 a typo Roy?

Alex

A curious list - why '57?

I just wanted to see if you guys were paying attention. Actually it is my birth year and outside of Sandeman, I don't own a single other bottle of Vintage Port from that year but do have some stellar Colheita from '57 to be enjoyed during my 50th vintage year.

FWIW, I voted for 1980 as I felt that the top few wines of that vintage are better than the top (2-3) from just about any of the others. Of course an argument can be made for many of the vintages looking at it from this standpoint, but the real purpose of the poll was to see what folks thought and why ... while getting them to discuss it here.

I voted for 1987, based primarily on a bottle of Vargellas 1987. It just seems to me that the 1987 vintage is very affordable and drinkable right now.

I haven't tasted enough to really know, but based on the reviews I've read, and the 2 I've tasted (SW Madelena and Taylor) I'd have to say 1995. There is a logic here as well, since 1994 was such a blockbuster, and 91/92 a split vintage, most houses were probablya bit skittish about declaring another vintage year so soon after the others.

My votes went to 1980, partly through ignorance of the others, and partly because they are far better than their price suggests.

But — to me at least — 1975 has a terrible reputation, and deserves it.

One last revival post from the past tonight as this was really intriguing. Feel free to vote if you'd like or add comments. It is fun to look back on this and see people's opinions.

I think 1980 is my favorite among the off vintages, all the 80's I've had were pretty good ..especially the Dow.

I voted for 1987, but it was a close call between that and 1995 for me. I don't have enough experience with 1978 to judge it.

To me, none of the generally declared vintages really qualify. They were generally declared, ergo they're not really underrated. I think that 1987 and 1995 were both good enough to have been generally declared had they not each followed several general declarations (1980, 1983, and 1985 for the former, 1991/1992 and 1994 for the latter.)

Andy Velebil wrote:I picked 1987, only because that is the year that I've had several bottles from different producers and have been relatively happy with the outcomes. The other years I either havn't had any yet or only had 1 (maybe 2) bottles from that year and I don't feel comfortable giving an opinion with that lack of prior tasting experiences.

Almost four years later and in that time I've had far more experience with some of these vintages. The result being that I still would chose 1987!

The more 1987's I've had the more I believe that it should have been a declared vintage, 'nuf said