ThePortForum.com

Hi folks!

Where I live, I can buy 3 different vintage ports from 2016:

Quinta de la Rosa
Quinta do Vale Meao
Croft

Im thinking of buying one bottle of vintage port from that year to give to my son when he is 30 (he is born in 2016). So the port should be openned some time after 2046.... Needless to stay, the port needs potentinal for beeing stored

Any suggestions for what of these three I should buy? (Or if I need to go abroad to find a better)

You should buy one of each! I believe they are all good.

I don't have that much storage space, so Im opting for one bottle.

The internett says the Croft is slightly better than the two others, but Im hoping for some advice from you folks (since your proper port lovers).

The Croft is good and is the better known brand so would likely be more valuable if your son decides to sell his bottle rather than drink it when he is 30. However, Quinta de la Rosa are making better and better Ports these days and are really expressing the elegance of the grapes from their vineyards into their Ports.

And then the vineyards at Vale Meao are some of the best in the region. These are the grapes which used to be sold to Ferreira and were the basis for the Barca Velha table wine before the family became independent producers and shippers.

I haven't helped - any one of the three should be a superb wine in 30 years if stored lying down in a dark place with a steady temperature throughout the year. A steady and cool temperature is better than a steady and warm temperature, but a steady temperature with no light are the two critical elements of successful storage of Port.

Thanks for the reply, AHB!

I usually google things, read up and the decide. However it seems like the internett is not agreeing with itself, the critics/experts tend to disagree about these ports...

2016 is generally considered to be an excellent year, so you're unlikely to buy a bad port if you purchase from the main houses or any you mention. I agree with AHB's advice - as long as you can store at a reasonably consistent cool temperature you should be fine. The other option is to buy "in bond" and have your port stored by someone like Berry Bros (other options are available) who will hold your bottles for a yearly fee, which should ensure your son will receive his port in great condition on his 30th birthday. Obviously this is a more expensive way to do things and that may put you off.

I ended up buying a bottle of Niepoort Bioma 2016 Vintage, that just arrived where I live (Norway). So did Churchills 2016 Vintage, but I choose the Niepoort. Now my son can tell me in 2046 if that was a good choice

2015, 2016 and 2017 are generally declared years. 2016 is the weakest of the three. Take that, and some of what's on the internet, with a grain of salt regarding the VP's from 2016. While 2016 is now being compared to the other two, by itself it produced some wonderful Ports. I agree with AHB, Croft is probably the best among the three. Followed by Meao and then Rosa in 3rd. Though having seen you got Bioma, that's a great choice and I hope your son enjoys them when he's older.

Thanks Andy.
It's more than a bit confusing when different people give quite different scores. Specially since this bottle is going to be ageed for 30 years, and to me as port novice it's hard to figure out what port will age well. Though I think I have understood the concept of bottle ageeing, Im unsure how much there is to benefit from it, as I have never drunk ageed VP yet. I have to VP myself, a Fonseca Guimares from 95 or 96 and a Dow Bomfim from 2006 (half bottle). Maybe I try to open the Foseca next year.

Zhukov wrote:Thanks Andy.
It's more than a bit confusing when different people give quite different scores. Specially since this bottle is going to be ageed for 30 years, and to me as port novice it's hard to figure out what port will age well. Though I think I have understood the concept of bottle ageeing, Im unsure how much there is to benefit from it, as I have never drunk ageed VP yet. I have to VP myself, a Fonseca Guimares from 95 or 96 and a Dow Bomfim from 2006 (half bottle). Maybe I try to open the Foseca next year.

I’ve had the 1995 FG many times and it is still a baby with a good life ahead of it. I’ve not had 1996 FG in a long time and don’t recall how it was. Same with 2006 Bomfim but that should also still be a youngster. Of the three, the 1996 would be the one to open as it wasn’t a great year and is now 23 years old. Second the 2006 half bottle. Last the 1995.

Zhukov wrote: ↑21:03 Mon 04 Nov 2019 It's more than a bit confusing when different people give quite different scores.

Those who score are no more than people, too. Educated and experienced people, but still just people like everyone else. We all have different tastes, which results in different scores.

For any wine critic's scores to be useful to you, you really need to watch their scores regularly and compare your own preferences to their notes. Yes, their notes, not their scores. The number is just a relative measure, but what's truly important are the notes and descriptions because those help you determine how your own preferences differ from those of the critic.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:09 Sun 10 Nov 2019

Zhukov wrote: ↑21:03 Mon 04 Nov 2019 It's more than a bit confusing when different people give quite different scores.

For any wine critic's scores to be useful to you, you really need to watch their scores regularly and compare your own preferences to their notes. Yes, their notes, not their scores. The number is just a relative measure, but what's truly important are the notes and descriptions because those help you determine how your own preferences differ from those of the critic.

Very true. I tend to see most wine critics' scores as only basic guidance, primarily more useful only to differentiate between the years of the same producer, rather than between the different producers in a single year. You could then look across multiple critics for any consensus, though factors including personal taste preferences and label bias can be an issue, depending on the critic and how/when the wine was tasted (or for older wines, bottle variation of course). Ideally, taste the wines yourself if the opportunity arises; no-one knows what you like better than you.

Re: FG95 and FG96, my personal preference is for the '95, though I like both and they are slightly different in character; the '96 is somewhat fruitier while the '95 seems more complex to me; I'd drink the '96 first. Also the '96 is easier to replace if you like it; I've drunk plenty of the '96 as for a while it was quite plentiful and relatively inexpensive, though only a little of the '95 as it seems to have been much less commonly available. Additional note: very recently I had a half of '95 that was down-the-sink dreadful; disappointing since previous halves from the same case had been very pleasant (though slightly over-evolved for their age compared to standard bottles, as you might expect for halves).

Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:09 Sun 10 Nov 2019

Zhukov wrote: ↑21:03 Mon 04 Nov 2019 It's more than a bit confusing when different people give quite different scores.

Those who score are no more than people, too. Educated and experienced people, but still just people like everyone else. We all have different tastes, which results in different scores.

For any wine critic's scores to be useful to you, you really need to watch their scores regularly and compare your own preferences to their notes. Yes, their notes, not their scores. The number is just a relative measure, but what's truly important are the notes and descriptions because those help you determine how your own preferences differ from those of the critic.

True, and certainly a good point. When it comes to whisky, it's easier. Firstly because I know alot more about it than port, secondly because I have followed a few writers for years and I know their taste/preferences. But when it comes to port, Im more or less blind. It's also somewhat different, since I plan to store this for 30 years.