2007 Vintage Port Declarations - discussion

[Glenn E.]

The range 92-95 also seems to be inconsistent with the description "outstanding"

No, that's exactly correct. 90-95 is traditionally outstanding, while 95-100 is exceptional. 80-85 is above average and 85-90 is very good.

[jdaw1]

80-85 is above average

But the ‘worst’ of them, Ervamoira and Santa Bàrbara, scored 84-87. Maybe arithmetic has changed since the scale was first introduced.

[Glenn E.]

80-85 is above average

But the ‘worst’ of them, Ervamoira and Santa Bàrbara, scored 84-87. Maybe arithmetic has changed since the scale was first introduced.

Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average. There's nothing in the scale that says the average is just for VP - a low-quality basic ruby might be just the wine to score in the 50s or 60s. Frankly I wouldn't expect any VP to score below 80... it is almost by definition an above average Port.

[uncle tom]

Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average.

The word 'average' is a little dangerous when engaging in transatlantic conversations. The British normally regard average to be the mean or median, with as many better as there are worse, while the Americans tend to use the word to indicate something that is of serviceable quality, but below expectation.

Tom

[ajfeather]

I laughed, Fine & Rare in the UK have put up GBP prices for some of the fladgate 2007's, assuming IB:
Skeffington 240
Croft 331
Fonseca 399
Taylor 414

No mixed case...yet...

Not sure if these are "speculative" prices.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I laughed, Fine & Rare in the UK have put up GBP prices for some of the fladgate 2007's, assuming IB:
Skeffington 240
Croft 331
Fonseca 399
Taylor 414

No mixed case...yet...

Not sure if these are "speculative" prices.

I don't think those are speculative prices since they are extremely consistent with Adrian Bridge's guide that he gave on Wednesday and I know that Metzendorff sent out their offer to retailers late last week.

If you want the "mixed case" then drop F&R an email to ask them to quote for it. See if they can.

[uncle tom]

Add duty & VAT and you get:

Skeffington - £305.53 or £25.46/btl
Croft - £410.18 or £34.18/btl
Fonseca - £488.38 or £40.70/btl
Taylor - £505.63 or £42.14/btl

Setting aside any inflation we may see, and the impact of reviews; favourable or otherwise, my estimate of likely auction results (Duty & VAT paid) in three years time is:

Skeffington - £120/£140
Croft - £150/£170
Fonseca - £260/£280
Taylor - £300/£340

Even if the wines get a 100pt salutation from Mr Parker, I doubt they will trade above their release price (in the UK at least) for many years.

Tom

[jdaw1]

Ports are offered per case of 12 bottles packed in wooden cases of 6 bottles. IB London. Formats available Halves,bottles,Magnums,There will be a small surcharge for Halves & Magnums.

TAYLOR FLADGATE Vintage Port Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 2007 Score: 97-100
£1080:00 per case 12/1 IB

GRAHAM Vintage Port 2007 Score: 96-99
£399:00 per case 12/1 IB

WARRE Vintage Port 2007 Score: 95-98
£350:00 per case 12/1 IB

DOW Vintage Port 2007 Score: 94-97
£375:00 per case 12/1 IB

TAYLOR FLADGATE Vintage Port 2007 Score: 94-97
£400:00 per case 12/1 IB

FONSECA Vintage Port 2007 Score: 92-95
£385:00 per case 12/1 IB

GOULD CAMPBELL Vintage Port 2007 Score: 92-95
£250:00 per case 12/1 IB

QUARLES HARRIS Vintage Port 2007 Score: 91-94
£250:00 per case 12/1 IB

CROFT Vintage Port 2007 Score: 89-92
£330:00 per case 12/1 IB

(I removed the TNs which appear earlier in this thread.)

[JacobH]

I like the expression "case of 12 bottles packed in wooden cases of 6 bottles".

I wonder how much the mixed case will sell when it is released? I suppose on these figures c. £190 ex duty and VAT...

[Glenn E.]

Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average.

The word 'average' is a little dangerous when engaging in transatlantic conversations. The British normally regard average to be the mean or median, with as many better as there are worse, while the Americans tend to use the word to indicate something that is of serviceable quality, but below expectation.

Yes, we Americans do have two definitions of the word, but as my degree is in Mathematics I generally use the correct mathematical definition (otherwise also known as the mean).

In the case of Port (pun intended) even the mean is difficult, though. Do you base it on volume or number of labels?

Regardless, considering Port as a whole and not just Vintage Port, I think it is quite safe to assume that Suckling was correct to rate all of the Ports he tasted "above average" or better. He tasted only Vintage Port, and presumably only the ones that were self selected by the producers for his tasting. Self selected samples like that are generally skewed toward the high end of any scale. After all, if you know that you have a sub-standard product, why bother submitting it for a professional comparison?

[Andy Velebil]

Prices haven't been listed here in the US by any retailer that I know of yet. But depending on what they do and what the $/Pound exchange rate is later this year, it may be cheaper for me to buy in the UK and ship them over here. As I could get them without VAT/Duty and only pay a small cost per bottle for the shipping/import over here. it would have to be a large enough amount to make these fesable though.

[g-man]

Or perhaps he didn't taste anything that's below average.

The word 'average' is a little dangerous when engaging in transatlantic conversations. The British normally regard average to be the mean or median, with as many better as there are worse, while the Americans tend to use the word to indicate something that is of serviceable quality, but below expectation.

Yes, we Americans do have two definitions of the word, but as my degree is in Mathematics I generally use the correct mathematical definition (otherwise also known as the mean).

In the case of Port (pun intended) even the mean is difficult, though. Do you base it on volume or number of labels?

Regardless, considering Port as a whole and not just Vintage Port, I think it is quite safe to assume that Suckling was correct to rate all of the Ports he tasted "above average" or better. He tasted only Vintage Port, and presumably only the ones that were self selected by the producers for his tasting. Self selected samples like that are generally skewed toward the high end of any scale. After all, if you know that you have a sub-standard product, why bother submitting it for a professional comparison?

Well lately alot of the publications have been posting waay too many outstanding scores. Is it an indication that the overall wine quality in the world has gone up in which case the "average" wine would need to be reshifted.

[uncle tom]

Is it an indication that the overall wine quality in the world has gone up in which case the "average" wine would need to be reshifted.

The winemakers would certainly have us believe that, and in fairness, the technology now available to them should make this a reality.

In practice we have in recent years seen a huge improvement in the quality of wine at the cheapest end of the spectrum, especially red table wines coming from the southern hemisphere, while other types of wine have also, I think, mostly improved.

However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway.

It is therefore meaningless and nonsensical to argue that all the wines are 'above average'

Tom

[g-man]

Is it an indication that the overall wine quality in the world has gone up in which case the "average" wine would need to be reshifted.

The winemakers would certainly have us believe that, and in fairness, the technology now available to them should make this a reality.

In practice we have in recent years seen a huge improvement in the quality of wine at the cheapest end of the spectrum, especially red table wines coming from the southern hemisphere, while other types of wine have also, I think, mostly improved.

However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway.

It is therefore meaningless and nonsensical to argue that all the wines are 'above average'

Tom

If you're comparing a wine against all other 2007s then yes I would agree with you. But if you were a spectator trying to base your judgment on the merits of the 2007 vintage compared to earlier vintages, then it would be fair to have wines that are above average compared to let's say 1975 vintage.

[Glenn E.]

However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway.

It is therefore meaningless and nonsensical to argue that all the wines are 'above average'

So by your line of reasoning, if you only taste two wines at a tasting and one of them is a 1931 Noval Nacional, the other one must be rated a 0.

It makes perfect sense - nay, it is necessary - to assume the vast body of previously released Ports when tasting new ones otherwise ratings from year to year would be effectively meaningless. The 2007 Ports are not being rated merely against one another but against every Port that has ever been produced. If 2007 is an above average year - which it must be by virtue of the fact that it is generally declared - then the average rating for the subset of Ports from 2007 should be above the average of the set of all Ports ever produced. Thus, all of the 2007 Ports Suckling tasted are, in fact, above average. (At least in his opinion.)

That is the basic assumption in any of these rating systems - even yours. The numbers, whether they be 50-100, 10-20, a pair of numbers from 1-10 each, or 1-5 stars, is that the rating is against all Ports from all previous years. Even years in which no VP was declared. And 1975. Can't forget to include 1975.

What's really happening here, though, is that you're equating the 100-point scale's "above average" label for 80-85 point wines with the numerical average of the ratings that Suckling just gave to the 2007 Vintage Ports. They are not the same. The 100-point scale's definition of "average" is as I have described it above and is not mathematical in nature, though it is intended to represent a theoretical mathematical average. The average of Suckling's ratings for the 2007 VPs could be computed mathematically and appears at first glance to be in the mid-low 90s, but results in an entirely abnormal use of the word as it relates to wine. Different topics, so different results.

Calling the 2007 Fonseca "average" (Suckling: 92-95 pts) would be inaccurate. It's an outstanding Port whether or not its rating happened to be average at that one particular tasting.

[Andy Velebil]

However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway

Tom

I'm sure I got lost in that last one somewhere, but Tom's right here. You can only compare apples to apples and in this case the apples are 2007 VP Cask Samples. You can only factor in the ones actually tasted. You cannot factor in other 2007's that you have not yet tasted.

You can compare them to other vintages as a whole, but when you do that you have to use the average of all the 2007's actually tasted. The drawback is other VP vintages have anywhere from 4-100+ years of further development in them and the '07s have a whole 18 months worth of age on them. To be fair at this stage you would really have to compare them to what other vintages were like at this stage...and not many people have the prior experience with VP cask samples to do that.

[g-man]

However, if you are tasting a selection of 2007 vintage ports, your basis for determining an average must be the sample at hand. You cannot add an undefined number of other 'virtual' wines into the basket under consideration - not if you want to be taken seriously, anyway

Tom

I'm sure I got lost in that last one somewhere, but Tom's right here. You can only compare apples to apples and in this case the apples are 2007 VP Cask Samples. You can only factor in the ones actually tasted. You cannot factor in other 2007's that you have not yet tasted.

You can compare them to other vintages as a whole, but when you do that you have to use the average of all the 2007's actually tasted. The drawback is other VP vintages have anywhere from 4-100+ years of further development in them and the '07s have a whole 18 months worth of age on them. To be fair at this stage you would really have to compare them to what other vintages were like at this stage...and not many people have the prior experience with VP cask samples to do that.

no, but you can factor in that james compares the 07 to previous vintages that have been tasted on release. He's comparing it to release ports of previous vintages back to the early 80s

[Glenn E.]

no, but you can factor in that james compares the 07 to previous vintages that have been tasted on release. He's comparing it to release ports of previous vintages back to the early 80s

Exactly. And if you're going to report your scores using the 100-point scale, which is commonly used to rate other Ports, then those scores must make sense when compared to other scores on the same scale.

And frankly, Andy, if you're going to make that argument then it has to apply across the board. If you can't compare a 2007 cask sample to a 2003 VP, then you can't compare a 2003 VP to a 1985 VP etc. (A 2003 is 4 times as old as a 2007 cask sample. A 1985 is 4 times as old as a 2003.) Cask samples are only special in that they are EXTREMELY young. They're still Port and they still go through the same maturation process as any other Port.

Suckling has the experience to rate cask samples, and he's even giving a range instead of a discreet score to give a little bit of wiggle room. But to say that something is wrong simply because he rated all of the Ports "above average" is ludicrous. Above average is the very nature of what Vintage Port is within the Port spectrum.

[Andy Velebil]

Suckling has the experience to rate cask samples, and he's even giving a range instead of a discreet score to give a little bit of wiggle room. But to say that something is wrong simply because he rated all of the Ports "above average" is ludicrous. Above average is the very nature of what Vintage Port is within the Port spectrum.

Yes I agree, there will always be those on the higher end and some on the lower end, but in general it's safe to say that generally speaking a major declared year is better overall and generally produces far more above average wines as a result.

And frankly, Andy, if you're going to make that argument then it has to apply across the board. If you can't compare a 2007 cask sample to a 2003 VP, then you can't compare a 2003 VP to a 1985 VP etc. (A 2003 is 4 times as old as a 2007 cask sample. A 1985 is 4 times as old as a 2003.) Cask samples are only special in that they are EXTREMELY young. They're still Port and they still go through the same maturation process as any other Port.

But we are talking CASK SAMPLES here, most of these have not been bottled yet. There is a lot that goes on between bottling and when they are available for purchase some 6ish+ months later. It's much easier to compare them to other vintages once they settle down after bottling. Also why very few wineries in the world immediately ship wine after it's been bottled. Most will wait a period so wines have a chance to recover from "bottling shock." But yes it is fun to compare them, but until they have time to settle and age at least a little, it's really speculation at this point....but it is fun to speculate

[DRT]

I'm with Glenn on this one. I hear what Andy says about Cask Samples being different to the final product but I think when JS or any other serious wine critic reviews a new vintage and applies these scores they are actually saying "based on this cask sample I have just tasted I think the ???? 2007 will score in the range X-Y". I believe they are carrying out a forecast, not a strict evaluation of cask samples.

As for the argument about what constitutes "average" - we already know that the 100pt scale has flaws in that no wine ever scores below 60ish so it seems fairly pointless (pun intended) trying to work out where the mathematical or theoretical average is. The scale is used to evaluate all wines, not just port, and I think the terminology used to classify the wines as Above average, Good, Very Good, Outstanding etc is actually trying to position each individual wine in a category or quality band with all other wines. That being the case the definition must include Cruz Ruby all the way up to Nacional 63. On that scale, no VP should ever be below average - with the possible exception of Hutcheson 1970.

Andy/Tom - I think this thread proves that when the two of you start agreeing with one another it is a bad omen for your argument

[jdaw1]

I raised the ‘average’ question (so unlike me!): I’ll summarise the answers.

Average of what? All 2007s might be better than an average port. In theory, they might all be better than an average VP. Nonetheless, so few wines of any description score <80 that the idea that ‟80-85 is above average” is plainly nonsensical. (There’s even a Hutcheson on rated 85/100!)

Hopefully that disagrees with at least one of Andy and Tom.

[DRT]

so few wines of any description score <80 that the idea that ‟80-85 is above average” is plainly nonsensical.

But most of the wines produced in the world, and possibly most of the ports, are not even considered worthy of a score. Go to a large supermarket and note down the names of 10 random wines the cost around $10. You will probably find nothing anything like a rating of any of them on the internet. All of these functional gluggers represent the below average contingent. In port terms, that would be all of the standard rubies and tawnies from almost every house. Who except us would ever dream of rating Armilar Ruby or Cruz Tawny - no one.

When you consider the volume of cheap plonk that is produced in the world and add it all into the equation, and then consider that the wines that are good enough to warrant attention and ratings are only the tip of the iceberg, it isn't difficult to reach the conclusion that the "Average" bar is in fact too high, not too low as is being suggested here.

[jdaw1]

Why restrict yourself to that? There’s a lot of seawater in the world too: surely the ‘above average’ should include all that salty Nor-any-drop-to-drink. Cruz Ruby looking good?

[RonnieRoots]

FONSECA Vintage Port 2007 Score: 92-95
Cooked raspberry, with hints of lemon peel and leaf. Full-bodied and medium sweet, with a beautiful density and a sweet fruity and tannic aftertaste. Balanced yet muscular. A little disappointing, but clearly outstanding. J.S.

How do you get "A little disappointing" and "Clearly outstanding" all in one sentance??? Quite interesting I must say.

I read this as being a little disappointing for Fonseca standards, a judgement that I can follow, as Fonseca is usually expected to end up in the top of the pack. In the same league, I found the score for Croft slightly disappointing after their epic 2003. Still, in itself, it's not a bad score.

To be fair at this stage you would really have to compare them to what other vintages were like at this stage...and not many people have the prior experience with VP cask samples to do that.

Ehm, Suckling has been doing just this since the 1980 vintage. Is that enough experience for you?

As to the whole cask sample debate: it works the same for Port as for Bordeaux or any other wine. Because it is an unfinished product, a score range is given, which is only an indication of the possible final score. The wines are re-assessed after bottling and then given a final score.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Perhaps when Suckling wrote that in his opinion 2007 ports were all was "above average", he was using a euphamism for "effing delicious". These are stunning ports, absolutely chockful of everything they will need to be able to be drunk now or mature for decades. You can pick and choose as you wish for a ripe, round sweet and fruity "drink now" or choose a beastly tannic monster that will be a mellow and mature drink in 40 years.

But for goodness sake, don't miss out on the opportunity to drink some of these before this time next year. What an experience they will be!