Port and Marketing: "Best Vintage ever"

[AW77]

PhilW really posted an interesting piece of information with his "Cambridge "swap" post.
This line in the press article really caught my eye:
"The Port vintage for 2011 was praised so highly that many College cellars wanted to invest in it"
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Busines ... 115332.htm

It reminded me of a topic that has been on my mind since I witnessed my first ever general declaration in the spring of this year:
Port and Marketing

All this marketing and PR fuss about 2011 made me think of two things:
1. An old winegrower once told me: "The best wine is always the sold one." (In order to sell wine they have to blow their trumpet - it's a business after all)
2. The Olympics: "Best games ever" (In our case: Best Vintage ever)

My learned friends, please tell me:
a) Is this PR and Marketing offensive "normal" for a general declaration or am I being too critical of the PR-people?
b) Is the 2011 vintage really so good as wine critics say it is? (I tasted some but am too inexperienced to make a judgement).

[jdaw1]

As far as I can tell, it is a top-half declaration. I think superior to ’07, for example.

Best ever? Impossible to know: too few people alive today tasted 1878 in its prime. Really really good? Ask me after this tasting, which is in 2051.

[Glenn E.]

As far as I can tell, it is a top-half declaration. I think superior to ’07, for example.

Best ever? Impossible to know: too few people alive today tasted 1878 in its prime. Really really good? Ask me after this tasting, which is in 2051.

As near as I can tell, it takes connections (a LOT of them) and a well-developed ability to read people in order to get the real story.

Every vintage is TEH BESTEST EVAH!!! in order to sell it.

But if you know enough people and talk to them regularly, you can get a better feel for the quality of a vintage. From what I've heard from people who have such connections, 2011 is a top tier vintage. A potential 1970 or 1994; certainly above a 2007.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Every vintage is TEH BESTEST EVAH!!! in order to sell it.

I don't agree with this. I've seen and bought en primeur since the 1991 declaration and tasted a few of those ports early in their lives, tasting the big name ports more widely on release from 1994 onwards. Often the marketing positioning that I saw was along the lines of "These are wines of which we are proud. We believe that they will stand the test of time and add to the reputation of our house." There is much said about the uncommon nature of a fully declared vintage and therefore the quality of the ports coming from a house which makes a vintage declaration - and with one or two exceptions in the last hundred years these statements have probably been about right. I can only think of 1975 as a general declaration which hasn't wholly lived up to what we, as consumers, would expect from a full declaration.

However, once in a while a really special combination of natural influences come together in perfect harmony. Of vintages in the 20th and 21st centuries my personal choice of these would be 1912, 1927, 1945, 1970, 1994 and now 2011.

I really rate 2011. There a tiny handful of ports I will try to avoid, a modest collection of ports which are very respectable and will make for enjoyable drinking, and a good number of superb ports which show just so much fabulous lush fruit wrapped round a perfect combination of ripe tannins and powerful acidity.

Like the Cambridge Colleges, I wanted to invest in the 2011 vintage. Not to invest for a monetary return as I am still not convinced port will generate a decent return, but to make sure that I have access to well cellared, good provenance 2011 ports whenever I (or my children and grandchildren) want them.

And as a final illustration of my opinion of recent vintages, these are the quantities of each recent declaration that I bought either on release or shortly (within 2 years) afterwards:
1991 - 9
1992 - 12
1993 - 0
1994 - 27
1995 - 18
1996 - 12
1997 - 24
1998 - 18
1999 - 24
2000 - 28
2001 - 12
2002 - 0
2003 - 37
2004 - 33
2005 - 14
2006 - 26
2007 - 48
2008 - 18
2009 - 24
2010 - 9
2011 - 96 (being 48 bought on release plus an estimated 48 that I will buy over the next year or two)

[Glenn E.]

Every vintage is TEH BESTEST EVAH!!! in order to sell it.

I don't agree with this.

But if you know enough people and talk to them regularly, you can get a better feel for the quality of a vintage. From what I've heard from people who have such connections, 2011 is a top tier vintage. A potential 1970 or 1994; certainly above a 2007.

For those of us without your connections, my first statement is how every vintage looks. The marketing message is always filled with superlatives and makes every declaration sound like it's going to be the best one ever (or at least has that potential). When a rare vintage comes along that actually does have that potential, the boy has cried wolf too many times for the message to be received. Luckily for those of us here, we know people who have the proper connections and can give us the real story.

[LGTrotter]

The marketing message is always filled with superlatives and makes every declaration sound like it's going to be the best one ever (or at least has that potential). When a rare vintage comes along that actually does have that potential, the boy has cried wolf too many times for the message to be received.

One of the small pleasures I have is reading the mood music in merchant offerings. There is the surface froth but then often there is an undertow, the words that we all interpret. Classic (thin/mean) is one example, charming is another. The truth is that I can think of any number of vintages which seem to have gone from hot to not over the course of the years. 1970 is the current vintage du jour, it seems not so long ago that '66 was being cheered to the rafters. But my sense of the language used about 2011 seems to indicate that it will be worth a flutter.

[Roy Hersh]

I love people who speculate without even having tasted a sip of the juice from a vintage they've only read about. Especially basing their opinions on mere words, whether related to a specific vintage, or otherwise. Alex's opinion above is a breath of fresh air, not because he is pro-2011, but because he has done due diligence in forming a well-respected opinion.

[djewesbury]

I love people who speculate without even having tasted a sip of the juice from a vintage they've only read about.

This is a friendly forum, Roy! Would you care to be more specific?

[LGTrotter]

mere words

Mere words? Mere words! Like Hamlet it’s all words, words, words, here. What are we to do? Pack up and go home because we can’t pour port down an internet connection? And if I was in any way troubled by a lack of knowledge I should never have posted a thing (good thing too some may say). I do not taste port en primeur and it seems a little late in the day to begin to build the level of skill required to judge them. That is why I love to hear from you, Roy, and from Alex who do understand these things. But do not begrudge us groundlings our fun. Merchants and producers do talk tosh and we love to speculate, or at least I do.

[LGTrotter]

This is the other post I wrote;

I am someone who has to rely on what producers and merchants have to say about a vintage. I have little opportunity to taste young ports and no expertise in judging them. However I have had years of studying merchant offerings, then drinking the wine and can with some conviction say how the language of these work. Port is perhaps unfairly being compared to other regions, which have been guilty of appalling over selling that may account for the world weary comments. The absence of speculation seems to mitigate the hyperbole of port offers.
One of the reasons I use this forum is to hear the views of those who do have access to the level of knowledge that Roy and Alex have, it helps, but equally important is responding to these opinions.
The criticism of those of us who have not tasted a drop it is a fair one, but I like that I express my opinion and get a different one back.

[djewesbury]

An excellent couple of posts by Owen, quite wonderfully explaining why is such a friendly place to come, ask questions, share opinions and be enlightened. We're all here for the love of port, and mere words are all we have in this forum. There are those whose mere words are others' introduction to whole worlds of experience.

Carry on!

[jdaw1]

I love people who speculate without even having tasted a sip of the juice from a vintage they've only read about.

Include me in: I desire to taste Dow 1878, because of what I have read about it, without ever having had Dow from that era, nor any Port from 1878.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Please note that I'm not tying to debate whether 2011 is a great vintage or not as that is a matter for personal opinion and 5 decades to decide. I'm trying to discuss Glenn's view on promotional materials that accompany a new port release.

...The marketing message is always filled with superlatives and makes every declaration sound like it's going to be the best one ever (or at least has that potential). When a rare vintage comes along that actually does have that potential, the boy has cried wolf too many times for the message to be received...

This is the bit of your thinking that I disagree with - and it could be a cultural thing between UK merchants and US merchants. Sadly I don't think I have kept any past port release marketing materials, but in my memory I don't recall huge amounts of marketing fluff which extol us to buy heavily into the latest port "vintage of a lifetime". My memory has these marketing pamphlets being balanced and pretty factual, along the lines of "Vintage Port is released once every 3-4 years and is backed by the reputation of the houses which make the stuff" (my words, not theirs - you may have spotted I am not a marketing professional).

2011 marketing materials have been filled with superlatives, but I think this is deliberately different from prior releases of marketing materials perhaps in a deliberate effort to avoid the boy crying wolf syndrome. And I do admit that part of the reason I no longer buy Bordeaux wines is because the marketing of each vintage was just so false. (Incidentially, I heard on Friday that Berry Brothers sold more 2011 vintage port this year than they did 2012 Bordeaux...interesting.)

Berry's have kept some of their past Port Release marketing materials online, so I decided to test my theory above and see if my perception matches reality:
2011 "Charles Symington is not, as a rule, given to hyperbole, so I think we can believe him when he writes, ‟the conditions for ripening and harvesting wines were as good as perfect and almost unprecedented!” "

2009 Simon Field "2009 has been a split Declaration for Vintage Port wines, with a fault-line evidenced primarily, although not exclusively between the two great dynasties which increasingly control the port trade at the top end...The best wines are sourced from exceptionally low-yielding vines, and share an amazing concentration of colour and flavour alike. Sugar and tannin levels are, as one would expect, high, but natural acidity has been preserved and with it structural integrity to ensure a long cellaring potential."

2007 Jasper Morris "Very pure and fine-boned with impressive mid-palate weight, the stylish 2007 Port vintage has just been declared and includes some wonderful wines that are less rich and less explosive than in some years."

2000 ""The vintage is up in quality with many of the best in recent decades," said Peter Symington"; "...We are delighted to make an initial offer of the excellent 2000 Vintage Ports. These wines may well be subject to allocation depending on demand."

I find this sort of marketing push quite balanced and much more palatable than the stuff I used to get when I was buying Bordeaux.

[LGTrotter]

Please note that I'm not tying to debate whether 2011 is a great vintage or not as that is a matter for personal opinion and 5 decades to decide.

Nicely put. I would also concur that to confabulate of the language of port and bordeaux offers is inaccurate. Though of course merchants seek for the most favourable language to describe their wares; caveat emptor and all that. And I genuinely enjoy that delicate parlour game of 'interpret the words' which merchant offers allow, almost as much fun as 'drink the wine then read the back label'

[Glenn E.]

Please note that I'm not tying to debate whether 2011 is a great vintage or not as that is a matter for personal opinion and 5 decades to decide. I'm trying to discuss Glenn's view on promotional materials that accompany a new port release.

Likewise. If asked, I will give an opinion on a particular vintage as I did above, but I do try to be careful to explain whether or not my opinion is derived from personal experience or from reading others' opinions and tasting notes.

...The marketing message is always filled with superlatives and makes every declaration sound like it's going to be the best one ever (or at least has that potential). When a rare vintage comes along that actually does have that potential, the boy has cried wolf too many times for the message to be received...

This is the bit of your thinking that I disagree with - and it could be a cultural thing between UK merchants and US merchants. Sadly I don't think I have kept any past port release marketing materials, but in my memory I don't recall huge amounts of marketing fluff which extol us to buy heavily into the latest port "vintage of a lifetime". My memory has these marketing pamphlets being balanced and pretty factual, along the lines of "Vintage Port is released once every 3-4 years and is backed by the reputation of the houses which make the stuff" (my words, not theirs - you may have spotted I am not a marketing professional).

I suspect that it is, as you say, a cultural difference between UK and US merchants. From an American point of view, the UK seems to be much more matter of fact than the US. To you, we probably seem to be much more about hyperbole. Other than when I see them posted here, on FTLOP, or read them in Roy's newsletters, we usually don't even see the vintage updates that come from the producers. We typically only see the message after it has been filtered through a couple of layers of the marketing machine, by which time any subtlety in the original has been lost and all that's left is:

2011: Perfect! Almost unprecedented!
2009: Amazing!
2007: Impressive!
2000: Best in recent decades!



As for Bordeaux, well, I have no experience there. But I've heard that the marketing for Bordeaux is completely over the top.

[uncle tom]

As far as I can tell, it is a top-half declaration. I think superior to ’07, for example.

+ 1

The best vintage ever

I can't recall any major producer making such an immodest claim, but they do have a habit of picking a classic past vintage and likening the current one to it. One press puff for 2007 likened it to 1970, which I thought was more than a bit rich.. Somewhere I have some reportage from the release of the '75 vintage, and if you'd taken it as gospel you'd have thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread...

If you want to get a candid opinion from the trade, wait until after the next declaration..

[Glenn E.]

The best vintage ever

I can't recall any major producer making such an immodest claim, but they do have a habit of picking a classic past vintage and likening the current one to it.

And this is really what I was getting at. If the marketing (at any level) brings up 1963 or 1970 or 1994 when talking about the current vintage, that's just weasely semantics away from saying it's one of the best vintages ever.

[djewesbury]

The best vintage ever

I can't recall any major producer making such an immodest claim, but they do have a habit of picking a classic past vintage and likening the current one to it.

And this is really what I was getting at. If the marketing (at any level) brings up 1963 or 1970 or 1994 when talking about the current vintage, that's just weasely semantics away from saying it's one of the best vintages ever.

+1!

[djewesbury]

I'm breaking some rules here, but...

I’ve heard Charles Symington saying this is the best Vintage ever: good year for the vineyard vegetative cycle, better knowledge of the viticulturist, better knowledge of the winemakers, better techniques and equipment.
Dirk Niepoort has compared 2011 to 2 great Vintages from the last century. I’m sorry I don’t remember which ones (I think it was 1963 and 1927 or 1945).
So I think it’s a great Vintage!

[LGTrotter]

And what's the motivation; the portugese economy does seem to be in some difficulty which may be a fairly strong motivator to over-egg the sales patter.

As to comparisons with previous vintages I could argue (with no real conviction) that some wines in lesser vintages are equal to those of the greats. This does not I admit explain the broad conclusions put up as headlines on the 2011.

[LGTrotter]

Having just done the same search as Alex on the wine society site here are the headlines;

2000; A superb vintage to buy without hesitation.
2003; A rich, powerful and concentrated vintage which comes highly recommended.
2007; Immediately attractive wines of finesse and power.
2009; A must buy vintage for port lovers (including a quote from David Guimaraens 'We haven't seen colour intensity and tannic grip like this in over 20 years. The quality of the fruit is impressive and the wines have excellent acidity').
2011; A classic vintage showing power and freshness, purity of fruit and minerality.

I must confess I feel a little less sure that port selling is less given to hyperbole in its language than I was at the start of this thread.

I also found the quote from Auberon Waugh on the 1975 ports; '... I unquestioningly accepted the advice of an acquaintance in the wine trade that the 1975 would prove to be the greatest port vintage since 1963 and advised readers to invest all their saving in it... Never can worse advice have been given. The year turned out to produce thin, forward wines which have scarcely increased in value and are not expected to improve.'

Words, who'd have 'em?

[DRT]

An excellent discussion, chaps.

I wholeheartedly agree with Alex on this one.

I fall into the category of being lucky enough to have personal connections in the trade and have tasted a number of recent vintages on release so my judgement on this topic might be a little clouded. However, my overall impression is that the shippers are very thoughtful and serious people when it comes to discussing their products and I have rarely, if ever, come across anyone in the trade whom I have thought was over-hyping a vintage. I suspect that many hours are spent sitting around board tables or in tasting rooms agreeing the positioning messages prior to a vintage declaration/release to avoid the kind of hyperbole described by Glenn. These guys (and in many cases their offspring) have long careers ahead of them in the trade and their reputation has to be maintained. It would serve no purpose for the shippers to talk-up a vintage as being spectacular if their gut was telling them it would not live up to the claim. Port drinkers have long memories and they would be rumbled very quickly. All that said, when the wine merchants and distributors get their opportunity to construct their marketing material the need to sell will no doubt overtake their thoughts of protecting their suppliers' long-term reputations. I think we need to separate out the direct marketing from shippers from the sound-bite stuff used by the merchants in order to understand where each vintage is being positioned.

[djewesbury]

I think we need to separate out the direct marketing from shippers from the sound-bite stuff used by the merchants in order to understand where each vintage is being positioned.

A very good point. Thank goodness you're back from your health farm weekend.

[Glenn E.]

I think we need to separate out the direct marketing from shippers from the sound-bite stuff used by the merchants in order to understand where each vintage is being positioned.

A very good point. Thank goodness you're back from your health farm weekend.

Yes, an excellent point.

Now if I could just manage to get the connections that you guys have that let you hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

[djewesbury]

Sotheby's says that the 2011s are "thrilling" and (somewhat more prosaically) "universally declared great". Link will follow.