For The Love Of Port

Often we hear the term split declaration. The last one to come in my mind is the 1991/1992 where Taylor group and few others did declare one in 1992 and not in 1991 as so many others did.

Now with the popularity of Single Quinta Port it is much easier to miss one great year(classic declaration) and just release SQP instead.

Many producers are saying(or maybe just gossip) that they don't declare 2 years in a row because the market is not strong enough. Instead they sell their SQP for much less and they don't get stuck with oversupply of great quality Port making the price fall.

From what I've hear and read so far, 2004 is looking like a very good year and 2005 is still uncertain, it was not acclaim like the 2000 or 2003 when the harvest was over. Would the producer be tempted to declare a second vintage in a row?

What are your thoughts on this? Would you buy classic VP from 2004 ? Would you loose confidence in the product if normally VP are only made once every 3 years or so? Would you like to make your own taste first because 2 years in a row is not usual?

I don't drink much young port, so I don't see myself getting much in the way of 2004 if it is declared a vintage year, unless as you suggest they come out with some SQP's or even an LBV down the road that are a good value. I suspect 2006 will be the next declaration year, but wouldn't necessarily have an issue with a 2004 declaration if the quality is there. From the sound of the 2005 crop it may not be up to VP standards (how I interpret it anyway). I'm FAR FAR FAR from someone who knows quite a bit about port, so this is just my opinion.

I'm in sort of a quandry, which makes your question an interesting one for me to think about though. While I don't tend to drink or enjoy a lot of young port right now, I've started really following port so recently that I fear it may be cost prohibitive for me to continue to drink the older ones, so I may at some point have to try and develop a taste for younger ports. I just wish some of the good years like 94, 00 and 03 weren't so expensive (though I've noted that 00 has come down a bit in some places). As such, I may be one of the folks who would lend an eye to a SQP from 2004 that may appear in my area.

Being more of a Tawny drinker though, I think an LBV or Colheita might interest me more than a declared 2004. Who's to say though.

Mike.

Fred,

Nice picture of what I think they call a bon-bon - Garrafeira!

The possibility of of a consecutive declaration (not split) is raised by the welcome comments of our friend at Fladgate today.

Let's not push them into a corner, and ask them to commit, but in my very humble opinion, a consecutive major declaration is not a problem!

Tom

Tom that avatar is a demijohn (not a Garrafeira) and fondly nicknamed "bon bon" too.

As I was going to write to Adrian in the other thread ... Taylor to my knowledge has never declared back-to-back vintages, so from a traditional standpoint (theirs) it is extremely unlikely. I believe the same is true of Fonseca. Of course, this does not include their SQVPs.

Roy, I also had the idea about this topic when I read Adrian reply on the other post. I'd like to see two declaration in row to really withness their statement that VP is only produced in great years, even if that mean 2 in a row.

For the Avatar, I had the idea when Andy put his, why not

Taylor to my knowledge has never declared back-to-back vintages

1872 and 1873 was the last time (I think!)

Tom

Fred_Quebec wrote: I'd like to see two declaration in row to really withness their statement that VP is only produced in great years, even if that mean 2 in a row.

V. good point. If it is quality only, why not? We might now have 6 successive bad/mediocre years like 71-76 and the 03 and 04 would be taken over time.

However, I am sure that they have to consider the retailers' immediate cashflows and other financial things. With 00s dropping in price and 03s still on the shelves at near opening prices I doubt they'd want it.

I'll lay a bet that in 25 years we'll be lauding the Vargellas 05 as an all time great and regret there was no VP!

It must be difficult for the producers. Would 75s have been declared if they'd have known how good the 77s were going to be? They need a crystal ball to get it right.

Would 75s have been declared if they'd have known how good the 77s were going to be? They need a crystal ball to get it right

Possibly not - The '77 season got off to bad start weather-wise, so their hopes were not too high at the declaration time for the 75's. '76 wasn't showing as well as '75, so their hands were pretty much tied - declare the '75's or risk going eight or more years between declarations.

The year they needed a crystal ball was '89, when they needed to make a decision on the '87's. If they'd known that '89 and '90 were not going to deliver, they would probaby have declared.

If they had, would they have passed on '91 and gone for a unanimous '92?

- I wonder

Tom

Would 75s have been declared if they'd have known how good the 77s were going to be? They need a crystal ball to get it right.

Regardless of crystal balls or otherwise, 1975 was definitely going to be declared regardless. It certainly had NOTHING to do with the quantity or quality of the grape juice. Those are normally the 2 key factors pondered when making a declaration decision.

Don't forget that there were five years between the 1970 vintage and '75. In that time, the Port trade had been rocked with scandal. No decent vintage Ports emerged and then politics came into play.

After the fall of the government in the bloodless coup of 1974, the Revolution in Portugal touched even the Port trade. The entire trade was going to be nationalized and papers were drawn and ready to be signed. The British government interceded and prevented this from happening at the 11th hour. But there was still fear that it could still happen and many of the Shippers that did wind up declaring, admitted that it was due to their angst over thinking it would be the last time they'd ever be able to freely declare a vintage.

Roy,

You should really read up a bit more about the effect of the revolution and alcohol scandal - it's quite interesting.

Given the weather and harvest, '74 should have been a declared year - but the combined effects of the scandal and the revolution probably took the shipper's eyes off the ball, and seems to have put the "special categories" out of mind. It looks probable that the good juice got blended with the regular.

The '75 juice may not have been as good as the '74, but by declaration time in the spring of '77, with political normality returned, it was too late to rescue the '74's.

Remember that this was a socialist revolution, and that for a while there was a very real threat to execute "counter revolutionaries".

To have declared a vintage - "a wine for the elite" - would not have been a wise move at that time, but when the dust had settled and the threats were lifted, the need for a vintage was pressing for commercial reasons.

The nationalisation threat was short lived, but while it lasted, who would have worked long hours to produce a VP for a communist regime to sell?

Without the scandal and revolution, I think we would probably have seen a middleweight general declaration for '74 and some good, but forward SQ's from '75.

Tom

Perhaps we could start our own Revolution to force them to give us Cask Samples

Back on the original thread, I simply do not believe that in 130 years there has not been 2 concurrent vintages that make the grade on quality and quantity. The reality is that there seem to be 3 main criteria applied in the following order:

1. Commercial viability of making a declaration
2. Quality of the juice
3. Quantity of juice

Even if 2 and 3 pass the test the wine will not be declared if 1 does not.

Anyone in the trade care to disagree?

Derek

Just thought of suggestion.

2003 seems to be a good or very good vintage that has been produced in fairly high volumes. If 2004 is good enough on quality and quantity, why not declare but limit the quantity produced to avoid flooding the market?

The price of a 2004 would presumably be relatively high but at least we would get some and the shippers wouldn't have to kick themselves in 20 years time when they keep hearing that their SQVP's and Traditional LBV's from 2004 are outstanding and everyone wishes they had declared :x

Derek

Derek,

I think much will depend on how well the 2003's have sold. If the lodge is empty, they're going to be very tempted to go for a full declaration.

Tom

Derek,

There HAVE been numerous split declarations and even ones where the same producer declared on both sides of the split. But, Fonseca/Taylor and from memory, Graham/Dow/Warre have not declared both sides at least back to Phylloxera in the Douro.

Other houses like Ferreira, Niepoort, Vesuvio, Infantado ... to name a few have done so in the past 2 decades.

Roy,

At the risk of being pedantic:

Fonseca, Taylor and Warre do not seem to have done any post phylloxera back to back declarations, but Graham did 1900 and 1901, and Dow have done two doubles - 1919 & 1920 and 1934 & 1935.

Among the great names, the most prolific "back to backer" is Sandeman, who have done no fewer than six consecutive declarations since phylloxera.

Although there are plenty of instances where the shippers have had two good years to choose between, there is no obvious occasion when there have been three vintage-worthy years in succession.

Tom

Roy,

As a winegrower I think it`s possible to have two or more consecitive declaration although some are better than others (see the exemple of Vesuvio).
To finnish I think it is comercial and markting reasons why big companies don`t declarate in row.

José Mendes

Roy,

I think it only strengthens my argument when you say that 6 of the top 10 shippers have no real history of back-to-back declarations :?

I don't think Vesuvio (or Noval Nacional for that matter) should be judged on the same rules as it is a SQVP and volumes in any year will be low compared with a full VP declaration from a major house.

Derek

Fair enough Derek.


Jose, it is so nice to see you posting here and having a very fine Douro winemaker in our midst! Melhores cumprimentos.

Good to see you posting, José! 8)

With many new members of the bulletin board, I thought this would be a very interesting topic to revive and discuss!