The problem with '77 - is there one?

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by PhilW »

The following ruminations generated as a result of richmills' comment here:
richmills wrote:A brace of Taylor '77. I know the reputation for problems 77 has but I've really enjoyed most of the T77 I've had and I'm hoping my good luck continues.
Ok, so for almost any year there will be some debate over how great a year is or is not, such as
  • 1994 - current debate over whether this is as great as had been previously expected
  • 1983/5 - nope, I'm not even going there
  • 1955 - I noticed recently that the FTLOP vintage port years chart only rates 1955 as 3* out or 5* for VP, which seems debateable to me, especially compared to some of the other years which gain more stars - Roy, I need to swap you my '91s for some '55s ;)
... Anyway, while the above is almost certain to derail any sensible question I was trying to make about the '77s, let's give it a try.

As per richmills' comment, I have seen or heard people cast vague aspersions on 1977 as a port vintage year, and I'm not convinced that it deserves this. The 1977 vintage certainly seems to me to generally not be as good a vintage as 1970, but it does seem to comprise mostly very good wine. There are of course occasional issues with any vintage, in this case in particular for Dow 1977 due to the high incidence of TCA - though it is in my opinion a superb wine when not tainted; I would also disagree with RP and JS who both rate '77 Fonseca at the same or higher then '70 Fonseca - but this is arguing about two superb wines. Overall therefore, while I would not personally rate '77 quite as highly as '70, I certainly don't percieve it as a weak year, or one with lots of issues. I decided to quantify my perception.

From my tasting notes, I find the following percentages given to each rating across all wines tasted from these years, as follows:

Code: Select all

YEAR   Ex  Ex/VG  VG  VG/G   G  G/Ok  Ok  Ok/Poor Poor Faulty
1970   29    19   17    13   12    5    2    0     2    2
1977   20    13   21     7    9   13    5    3     4    5
(please excuse the use of code since tt still compresses multiple spaces to a single space, ruining the layout otherwise)

1970 wins for me as expected, but while '77 shows a good percentage at the high end, there are admittedly a few more at the bottom of the range than I would have expected.

So, how do other people view 1977? As a generally good year, as a problem year, both or neither?
Andy Velebil
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3028
Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Andy Velebil »

In and of itself they are fairly close to par with each other, though I'd give a nod to 1970. I think the problem lies with some other issues which have now led to huge issues in a significant portion of the top bottled Ports.

TCA: Dow's, Gould Campbell to name two biggies

Bottle Variation: Taylors, Fonseca and Smith Woodhouse to name three biggies

Warre's seems to have done the best, though some slight bottle variations from time to time.

Most other VP's haven't really stood up all that well over time for whatever reason.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

I do like '77 as a vintage and will happily buy where the price is right and the shipper is one who seems to have used reliable corks. I don't know what was in richmill's mind when he made his comment, but when I think of the problems of '77 I think of TCA and poor corks. That is what has, for me, marred what would otherwise be a fabulous vintage and quite possibly on a par with or just a tiny notch below 1970.

I have no idea how to make a neat table like Phil, so you'll just have to put up with a less structured answer, but it seems I rather like both vintages provided I'm not drinking a spoiled bottle.

1970, 1977, Rating Range
1%, 2%, Superb (97-100)
12%, 11%, Excellent (94-96)
37%, 32%, Very good (90-93)
18%, 24%, Good (87-89)
16%, 12%, Fair (84-86)
4% 7%, Acceptable (81-83)
1%, 1%, Weak (78-80)
1%, 0%, Poor (below 78)
6%, 10%, Faulty

I don't seem to have suffered the same level of bottle variation with T77, F77 and SW77 that Andy refers to - but I think the point that he's making is one I completely agree with. 1977 could have been an amazing vintagefor drinking today if only there hadn't been so many problems putting the vintage into bottle.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Glenn E. »

AHB wrote:I have no idea how to make a neat table like Phil, so you'll just have to put up with a less structured answer, but it seems I rather like both vintages provided I'm not drinking a spoiled bottle.

1970, 1977, Rating Range
1%, 2%, Superb (97-100)
12%, 11%, Excellent (94-96)
37%, 32%, Very good (90-93)
18%, 24%, Good (87-89)
16%, 12%, Fair (84-86)
4%, 7%, Acceptable (81-83)
1%, 1%, Weak (78-80)
1%, 0%, Poor (below 78)
6%, 10%, Faulty
Use {code} and {/code} but with square brackets. That forces fixed-width font, so you can arrange the spacing as you choose in the preview editor. Thus:

Code: Select all

1970, 1977, Rating Range
  1%,   2%, Superb (97-100)
 12%,  11%, Excellent (94-96)
 37%,  32%, Very good (90-93)
 18%,  24%, Good (87-89)
 16%,  12%, Fair (84-86)
  4%,   7%, Acceptable (81-83)
  1%,   1%, Weak (78-80)
  1%,   0%, Poor (below 78)
  6%,  10%, Faulty
Glenn Elliott
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by LGTrotter »

Oh come on Glenn, I know there is an opinion in you somewhere struggling to get out, :tpf: awaits your wisdom. I'm sharpening my pencil for later once I've got all this domestic trivia out of the way.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Glenn E. »

I've been pretty lucky, I think. Aside from Dow, which allegedly has a problem I cannot detect, most of my experiences with 1977 VPs have been pristine. There have been occasional encounters with mild VA, but I don't find VA offensive so it hasn't bothered me. And there are some fabulous Ports from 1977.

Overall I prefer 1970, but it's entirely possible that my preference is due to the extra 7 years of age. 1970s are just reaching that fine state where, at least for me, they're peaking or almost there. 1977s tend to still feel like they need more time to me.
Glenn Elliott
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by LGTrotter »

The 77s have followed an interesting trajectory in terms of critical opinion. They were initially lauded as unquestionably great and priced accordingly. There then came a revisionist period in which rumblings, initially from insiders and then increasingly loudly from the press came to undermine the reputation, and while prices did not slip other vintages caught up and began to overtake. I sense over the last few years a revision of the revisionists, the 77s beginning to be recognised again as a great vintage. Prices have not quite caught up with this new sentiment.

And then there are the wines themselves. They are very different from what are regarded as 'great' these days. And while it is difficult to generalise about a vintage, they are generally pale. At times in their development they have had unnerving periods when they taste of very little. They have not had an extended period of primary fruit flavours, tending to the spicy and the subtle. All these things mitigate against them, both in terms of vertical tastings and the new norm of 'transatlantic' taste. It seems that the assumption was that they tasted of little and lacked the substance to last in the long term. This is wrong.

And then there is the issue of bottling. There seem to be some 77s which do suffer from problems, but like Glenn I have been lucky and I think I have had the same level of faulty bottles from the 1970, the 1985 and the 1963. Having bought most of my 63 and some of my 70 at auction I assume this may have more to do with what happened after bottling.

And the comparison with 1970? It may be my sensitivity but what I hear is how marvellous the 1970 is and how shoddy the 1977 is. I think the 1970 just happens to be going through a golden period right now and the 77s are substantially underrated. There is no problem with the 77s, it's just the tasters who are going through a dumb phase. :wink:
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by LGTrotter »

Oh and Phil; I couldn't agree more about the 55s, Roy should give himself a long hard look in the mirror.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Glenn E. »

Re: 1955s

I have to agree with Roy. That's based only on somewhat limited exposure to the vintage, but that limited exposure does include the '55 at 55 tasting in London in 2010. The vintage hasn't really impressed me, though it certainly did produce some fine Ports.

My top scores for the vintage are in the 90-93 range, and while that is my "excellent" range the vintage rating has to include the lesser Ports. My next range down is "very good" which seems like a fair summary of the vintage based on my experience. It seems on par with 1980, 1983, or 1985 to me. Of those three 1983 is probably the closest to 1955, as it seems that both vintages lack a clear bellwether even though they do have plenty of very good or even excellent options from which to choose.
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by jdaw1 »

Back on subject: the 1977s have excellent Ports, and are too young. With the obvious exception they mostly pre-date the infection period. They will be very good, but not quite of the top rank.

Back off subject: the 1955s have given me lots of pleasure. My very first Port tasting, in 1988, included Taylor, Fonseca and Graham 1955 (and T63, T70, T77 — starting as I couldn’t afford to continue). The 1955s are far superior to the likes of 1983 — Pah! Scorn! I think 1955 slightly junior to the 1970, but only slightly. For my generation, ’55 is the excellent old vintage (that is, young enough to have been available, but old enough to have been mature for our whole lives). Hard question: 1955 or 1966? I think as good as each other, but the older vintage has the merit of being produced in larger volume.
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by LGTrotter »

The 77s have in my opinion got a better Fonseca, Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell and Quarles Harris than the 70. And while I know this will sound like heresy to most people I sort of like the Croft and the Graham 77 better than the 70.

The 55 is equivalent to the 83, well there is no accounting for taste...
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by DRT »

LGTrotter wrote:The 55 is equivalent to the 83, well there is no accounting for taste...
+1 :?

I think 1970 is a great vintage. I think 1977 is a great vintage that is tainted by some significant bottling/cork issues. I feel safer buying 1970.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Andy Velebil
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3028
Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Andy Velebil »

Excuse me, this thread is about 1977. Can we skip the 55 talk, please. :P

And a +1 to what DRT mention's about buying 1970's.
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by LGTrotter »

The 1977 Graham is still available at retail for about £60/bottle, the 1970 is more like £110, which is quite a jump.

OK, back on topic; I have drunk very little (none) of the 55s recently but my recollection of them makes me think of a combination of 85 and 77, they had a pellucid quality to the fruit which was beautifully clean and sweet. Which is one of my beefs about the 1970, it has a grainy quality to the tannins which muddles the fruit (oh just listen to yourself Owen :roll: ).
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by DRT »

LGTrotter wrote:The 1977 Graham is still available at retail for about £60/bottle, the 1970 is more like £110, which is quite a jump.

OK, back on topic; I have drunk very little (none) of the 55s recently but my recollection of them makes me think of a combination of 85 and 77, they had a pellucid quality to the fruit which was beautifully clean and sweet. Which is one of my beefs about the 1970, it has a grainy quality to the tannins which muddles the fruit (oh just listen to yourself Owen :roll: ).
I think it is time for Nurse Rached to issue the medication.

1977 Graham has come around from being weak and spirity Ito being a fine wine. 1970 Graham is a "buy all you can" wine.

If Owen insists on describing 1970 as "grainy" I will entice The Chief to rip up the sink so that we can break our way out of here.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
richmills
Warre’s Warrior
Posts: 95
Joined: 15:53 Wed 28 Jul 2010
Location: New Forest

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by richmills »

AHB wrote:I don't know what was in richmill's mind when he made his comment, but when I think of the problems of '77 I think of TCA and poor corks. That is what has, for me, marred what would otherwise be a fabulous vintage and quite possibly on a par with or just a tiny notch below 1970.
That was pretty much exactly what I was thinking. I don't drink anywhere near the quantity of port that most on this forum do, but the impression I have gained is that '77 is somewhat risky with regard to TCA and bottle variation (possibly) due to poor quality corks. From my experience however I think 77 is a fantastic vintage only slightly below my favourite vintage of 1970, but at current prices I think it is at the best price/quality point right now. I plan to try and increase my stocks as much as possible over the next year before the 40th anniversary jump kicks in.

Cheers, Rich.
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by PhilW »

I think we all mostly agree that '70 is an excellent year, which is primarily why I was using it as benchmark against which to judge the '77 (noting Owen as the exception, who can be fed the pillow by the Chief once I realised that Rached wasn't a typo for Rachel...)

Glenn's question as to whether the '77s are currently perceived as being not quite as good as the '70s due to the additional seven years of age is a fair one, though my personal view is that '70 will be the best port vintage of our lives.

Andy's reply raises a couple of points which are interesting to me; that GC77 suffers significantly from TCA is something I have not encountered (though it is not a wine I have had often), but more interesting is the bottle variation you describe for Fonseca and Taylor - I have definitely not encountered this to any significant degree, except as a consequence of storage variation, though I have seen it a little more with the Warre '77 (which most here know is one of my favourite wines). I would also have added Niepoort '77 (great when it can be found) and Cockburn '77 (sadly undeclared) as other '77s I have particularly enjoyed before your "Most others..." comment.

Alex's spread of results across the rating categories seems very similar between the two years, also suggesting that '77 is in general not much different to '70 in overall quality (though noting twice the "faulty" rate - I'm curious as to how much of that fault % is down to which shipper, i.e. it is almost all Dow [and GC?]).

Overall, while I agree with Derek's sentiment that '70 is the "safer" buy, I think '77 is currently in a very good value for money place for purchasing right now (as also mentioned by richmills while I was typing this, I see).

Perhaps a small '70 vs '77 tasting might be worth considering sometime.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by DRT »

PhilW wrote:once I realised that Rached wasn't a typo for Rachel...)
A typo indeed, but not the one you thought.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by LGTrotter »

'Grainy' is the wrong word, I think my creativity was spent after finding 'pellucid' to describe the 55. I do not seek to diss the 1970, it has many beautiful wines. Other vintages have equally lovely wines, but perhaps not so many. So there is no immediate need to smother me in my sleep, unless for other infractions of the unwritten law.
Andy Velebil
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3028
Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Andy Velebil »

PhilW wrote:
Andy's reply raises a couple of points which are interesting to me; that GC77 suffers significantly from TCA is something I have not encountered (though it is not a wine I have had often), but more interesting is the bottle variation you describe for Fonseca and Taylor - I have definitely not encountered this to any significant degree, except as a consequence of storage variation, .
I've generally had good luck with the GC77, though a couple corked and little bit of variation (though that could be normal transition phases as I've not had the wide swings like Taylors or Fonseca). AHB has not had such good luck with it.

As for T/F duo, IMO this is where label bias really comes in for the majority of people who taste it. With the exception of certain people like us (Port Nerds) who drink VP's regularly, most people get all giddy when served a T/F (any vintage) and all the hype they've heard takes over and every bottle is awesome. I and others have had a lot of bottle variation of these two VP's from personal cellars and from bottles that were removed directly from the companies cellars. Adrian has also been very upfront in recent years about the significant bottle variations in these two, with Taylors having slightly more variation than Fonseca in his experience. Again, lots of things going on in Portugal around this time frame and apparently getting quality corks wasn't easy. It's an issue that has affected the wine trade as a whole, so one shouldn't look at one or two companies and point fingers. Sadly, it had to happen to what is otherwise a great vintage.
User avatar
Axel P
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2027
Joined: 08:09 Wed 12 Sep 2007
Location: Langenfeld, near Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Axel P »

To start with 1970 was a fully declared year right from the start with no doubt on any of the big producers. 1977 was not - Cockburn did not declare, nor did Noval and some others. Therefore there was a different point to start wtih.

The 1970s have been not liked too much by some producers and experts some 20 years ago, but seem to turn around extremely well since then.

I agree that there are superb 1977s and completely mature 1970s (even too mature). Nevertheless I would also go by 1970 over 1977, but would you really buy any wine or Port on such a statement.

Closely monitor the individual houses and check out the individual Tasting notes.

Axel
worldofport.com
o-port-unidade.com
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by PhilW »

Axel P wrote:To start with 1970 was a fully declared year right from the start with no doubt on any of the big producers. 1977 was not - Cockburn did not declare, nor did Noval and some others. Therefore there was a different point to start wtih.
Indeed, though I think even Cockburn would admit that '77 should have been declared (and if they don't agree, please persuade them to sell me all their '77 stocks! ;))
Andy Velebil wrote:As for T/F duo, IMO this is where label bias really comes in for the majority of people who taste it. With the exception of certain people like us (Port Nerds) who drink VP's regularly, most people get all giddy when served a T/F (any vintage) and all the hype they've heard takes over and every bottle is awesome. I and others have had a lot of bottle variation of these two VP's from personal cellars and from bottles that were removed directly from the companies cellars. Adrian has also been very upfront in recent years about the significant bottle variations in these two, with Taylors having slightly more variation than Fonseca in his experience.
Interesting to know Adrian's feelings on this. Perhaps I am guilty of assuming storage condition variation when I have encountered bottle variation on these; perhaps some of each at different times.
Andy Velebil
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3028
Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by Andy Velebil »

Cockburns 77 wasn't released due to the launch of their Special Reserve. Much to the chagrin of certain winemakers there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: The problem with '77 - is there one?

Post by RAYC »

Axel P wrote:To start with 1970 was a fully declared year right from the start with no doubt on any of the big producers. 1977 was not - Cockburn did not declare, nor did Noval and some others. Therefore there was a different point to start wtih.
From what I understand, the 77s were given a lot of hype on release in the UK and shipped in huge quantities (indeed, I've heard someone theorise the relative paucity of 1980 VP in the UK to be a direct result of the 1977 hangover). So I'm not sure that I buy into the idea that this was not regarded a big and heavyweight vintage from the start.
Rob C.
Post Reply