Advice please Gentlemen

[Andy Velebil]

Tom,

I know you have a very good palate as I've read your TN's and now drunk with you, which reinforced that opinion. But I am only asking you to point out some specific bottles that YOU feel are not going to make old bones, something you still have not done. Roy chimed in before I could, but I'd just like to know your opinons on some of the 94's you've had and why they lead to your opinion. I'm a very open minded person, and if you can point out some things, you may just sway my opinion. But without some specific and relatively current examples, I can't blindly walk down that road and I don't think others should to.


Jdaw1...WOW, that was a lot of numbers

(note: For those reading not familar, the best thing about this group of Port lovers is that we can have these great discussions and put the heat on each other in a friendly way.)

[g-man]

94 churchills
94 duff gordons. ... tasted like duff beer =)
I don't think the croft 94 would come out of it either.

[Glenn E.]

I suspect that there is one very human factor that's playing into the no-more-than-3-times-per-decade rule of thumb that isn't being considered.

Human beings like to think in round numbers. Therefore, 3-times-per-decade is far more likely to mean 3 times between 19x0 and 19x9 than anything else. If that is the case, which poor year is going to get excluded virtually every time unless it is absolutely stunning?

Yeah, 19x9. Because by then all 3 of the declarations for that decade will have been made. Without having done any research on the subject, I'd be willing to bet that 19x8 is pretty rare as well for the same reason.

Similar logic explains why 19x7 is so popular - that's about the point that the 3rd declaration needs to be made if they're going to declare 3 times. And if they haven't declared 3 times yet, there's going to be a lot of subliminal pressure to declare it anyway so that the next decade can start clean.

[uncle tom]

Which sevens? ’27, ’77, ’97? 1907 no, ’17 I don’t know, ’37 no; ’47 not generally, ’57 no, ’67 not generally, ’87 not generally. Three or four in the last ten decades. Snorey dull.

17,27,37 - probably intended, but many vintage lotes became colheitas when war spoiled the prospects for a declaration, 47 split with 48 despite 48 showing much bettter over time, 67 split with 66 again despite the other year showing better, 77, 87 - might have been, and probably justifiable, but for impending recession and close proximity to previous declarations, 97.

So only '07 and '57 abandoned completely..

..that's a love affair!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

1937 wasn't declared because there was a ton of 1927 still on the market. It was not only one of the greatest vintages of the past century, it was enormous in terms of yields and overall production by the Port trade. But then came 1931 which has been discussed all over the Forums enough times. What is not discussed about the decision with 1937, is that on top of the aforementioned vintages, came the split declarations of 1934/ 1935. There was a veritable flood of Vintage Port on the market (especially in England) by the time the fabulous 1937 grapes were picked. Colheita was the best choice and any Portuguese producer around at the time, made a '37 Colheita ... even some British Port shippers bottled Reserve Ports (Colheitas) that year.

Tom mentions 1957. After 1952, it is arguably the third best Colheita vintage of the 20th century, imo, while some believe 1940 was better. I have a vested interest in the '57, so will leave others to decide for themselves which was 4th best.

[Andy Velebil]

94 churchills
94 duff gordons. ... tasted like duff beer =)
I don't think the croft 94 would come out of it either.

g-man,
Thanks for pointing out a couple. I've not had the Duff Gordon's, so can't comment on it, but I will trust that opinion. Thanks.

Tom....still waiting

[jdaw1]

Which sevens? ’27, ’77, ’97? 1907 no, ’17 I don’t know, ’37 no; ’47 not generally, ’57 no, ’67 not generally, ’87 not generally. Three or four in the last ten decades. Snorey dull.

17,27,37 - probably intended, but many vintage lotes became colheitas when war spoiled the prospects for a declaration, 47 split with 48 despite 48 showing much bettter over time, 67 split with 66 again despite the other year showing better, 77, 87 - might have been, and probably justifiable, but for impending recession and close proximity to previous declarations, 97.

So only '07 and '57 abandoned completely..

..that's a love affair!

Naughty boy! You’re changing the rules to include semi or partial declarations. So let’s play that game. Let’s say that 25% are declared, and 15% partly declared. What is the probability that there is a digit such that, in any century, 7 to 10 of the years ending in that digit are ≥partly declared? For a named-in-advance digit, 5.476%. For any digit, 43.06%. So that could very easily have happened even without Tom’s purported ‟love affair”.

[uncle tom]

Naughty boy!

Of course..

But a telling detail for me was that on both the split vintages, it was the seven year that was the loser, and by a fair margin.

I suspect the truth is that rather more years have the potential to be declared than the producers care to admit to, and that they have therefore had a little bit of scope for romantic indulgence..

But things are slightly different now, with a whole raft of serious independent producers declaring vintages almost every year. It seems inevitable that future writers will judge the standing of individual vintages as much by the relative performance of those who declare annually, as they do from the performance of the declaration year blends.

If the declared years now fail to coincide with the best performance from the independents, the credibility of the declared years system will be seriously challenged.

It follows that the next declaration must be for the best year since 2003 - or better.. By failing to declare 2005, they have set the bar high for themselves.

Tom

[g-man]

If I were a port house,
I'd bottle the sucker anyway. Taste it, wait to see if anyone declares, if no one does, I'll wait for next year .... taste that ... if people declare that year and i feel my previous year was better, I'd swap and keep the crappier year as a family bottling.

Is that bad?

[mosesbotbol]

The independents could concentrate on crusted ports, but at a higher level than one normally thinks of. Dow has a market on it in USA, but not much else I have seen available (outside my case of Taylor crusted).

Blending the ports could really lend to a blockbuster down the road and also offer a more mature port than a regular VP and something a step up from LBV.

Having the bottling year the same as a major vintage will cover them should they want to have a bottle ready for that vintage.

I do not think having a vintage release every year is to their advantage. If a vintage is suppose to be release on the best harvests, that notion would not mean much...

[DRT]

I can't leave you lot alone for 5 minutes

I've been away for a few days and almost passed up the chance of reading this thread!

Julian, what is the statistical probability that an argumentative and highly amusing thread such as this would emerge around 10 days after more than 10 port-soaked nutters gather together in one place?

Derek

PS: gonzo - the V95 is a fairly safe bet. Some Vesuvio vintages are outstanding but I have found that all but the 89 and 90 are good quality VPs. The 95 isn't spectacular but that just makes it good to drink now

[jdaw1]

Julian, what is the statistical probability that an argumentative and highly amusing thread such as this would emerge around 10 days after more than 10 port-soaked nutters gather together in one place?

That depends on our model of the underlying process.

E.g., let’s say that every month that passes causes a possible interesting conversation to come into existence. But, for reason not needing elaboration, the presence of DRT suppresses its publication. In that case a 10-day absence of DRT would be very likely to cause it to come into existence. Of course, other models might give different answers.

[uncle tom]

The independents could concentrate on crusted ports

All the producers could do that, and they could probably make superb Crusteds every year if the market was happy to pay top dollar for them.

Unfortunately, wine making is a business, and everything they do, either directly or indirectly, is driven by the bottom line. Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Tom

[mosesbotbol]

Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Independents could focus on just Crusted and even source the juice from different companies. They could come in a lot lower than Vintage too. It's could be an easier sell since they are not competing with big names in the vintage category. All they need is some positive press and good price point. Especially if they are not using their own stock.

Compete at the LBV level, but buy using different stocks, could blend something that is better than the run of the mill LBV.

[uncle tom]

It's could be an easier sell since they are not competing with big names in the vintage category.

It's the big names who should be worried about the competition..

Tom

[mosesbotbol]

It's the big names who should be worried about the competition..

Tom

Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

[g-man]

Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

how so? Is it because you feel people like to pick the underdog? Or does the little guy just cares a little more? Why couldn't a big company just throw a bunch of money into advertising towards a specific audience?

[DRT]

Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

how so? Is it because you feel people like to pick the underdog? Or does the little guy just cares a little more? Why couldn't a big company just throw a bunch of money into advertising towards a specific audience?

I think what Moses is saying is that the information age has made it easier for little guys to reach their target audience. Not that it is easier for little guys than it is for big guys.

[g-man]

The information age also seems to lead to rampant misinterpretation of forum posts

[JacobH]

It's the big names who should be worried about the competition..

Tom

Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

This is true, and works extremely successfully in many industries, but I can’t help thinking that this will have less affect on wine producers than elsewhere. This is simply because wine is extremely expensive to ship and export in small quantities. The Internet may mean that I am aware of many more of the small single quinta producers than I would be otherwise, but getting hold of a case of their stuff is pretty difficult, even within the E.U. For wine we are still very much in the hands of the traditional supply chain (which tends to favour the larger producers) and I can’t see that changing soon.

[RonnieRoots]

Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Tom

No, it is LBV that most independents focus on, because that's where you'll find good margins and good revenue. Quinta do Crasto is a very good example of this. I know of another quinta (with limited production) that decided not to bottle its superb 2005 as vintage, but to use it for LBV. Quintas like Crasto, Vale d. Maria, Roriz and Vale Meao treat their vintage like a Bordeaux grower treats its Grand Vin. They'll try to make the best port they can every year, so that the consumer can see the different characteristics of different vintages. Makes perfect sense to me.

[mosesbotbol]

Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Tom

No, it is LBV that most independents focus on, because that's where you'll find good margins and good revenue. Quinta do Crasto is a very good example of this. I know of another quinta (with limited production) that decided not to bottle its superb 2005 as vintage, but to use it for LBV. Quintas like Crasto, Vale d. Maria, Roriz and Vale Meao treat their vintage like a Bordeaux grower treats its Grand Vin. They'll try to make the best port they can every year, so that the consumer can see the different characteristics of different vintages. Makes perfect sense to me.

Been buying Q. Vale d. Maria 2000 at $300 a case, it's already competing with LBV. It's suppose to be good stuff, maybe in 10 years I'll open one of them...

[Alex Bridgeman]

This was a very interesting thread to read through as I slowly catch up with messages and debates which have taken place while I was swamped at work. What an innocent question Gonzo asked, and what a torrent of debate came forth! Poor Gonzo, I do hope we have not put him or others off asking questions.

I've only had the 1995 Vesuvio twice, but both times rated it as a pretty good wine. It's not as good as the 1994 Vesuvio, but I would not turn it down. I also think it has the stucture and stuffing to mature very nicely for a good decade or two. At £26, the price would be a cheap UK retail price but is by no means a "buy all you can" price.

What did you decide to do in the end?

[gonzo]

Gentlemen,
far from being put off i was most pleased at the debate that ensued,a simple question answered comprehensively!
So to answer your question AHB I chose 3 ports to drink :
1995 Vesuvio
1995 Taylor's Vargellas
1995 Graham's Malvedos

I look forward to the drinking and thank everyone for their input.

G

[gonzo]

By the way, the Wine Spectator's notes:

1995 Vargellas:A gloriously crafted young Port, new from Taylor. Ancient vines from Vargellas. Inky-colored, with wonderful spice, plum and berry aromas. Full-bodied, medium sweet, with silky tannins and a long, long, sweet fruit finish. Not imported into the U.S. Best after 2008. Score 95

1995 Malvedos:Plenty of plummy, grapey aromas and flavors in this young vintage Port. Medium- to full-bodied, with medium, fine tannins and a sweet fruit aftertaste. Best after 2004. 7,500 cases made .Score 89

1995 Vesuvio:A ripe and rich '95 boasting a remarkable essence of crushed berries, this is classic Port. It's full-bodied and quite sweet, with the velvetiest of tannins and a long, long ripe fruit finish. At its best after 2008. 3,000 cases made. Score 95

So all in all a fine mix...i will be interested to taste whether or not the Malvedos contrasts that greatly in quality to the other two...