1985 & VA

[DRT]

I think the "lost decade" as Andy puts it was probably a result of the changes in the industry as a result of or following on from the revolution combined with the most significant change to affect VP in over a century which was the cessation of bulk shipments and overseas bottling. We should probably be thankful that only one decade was "lost" in those circumstances

[Glenn E.]

I think the producers have been very honest in their assessments of their successes and failures, especially the period from 1975-1985. I don't think I've heard many of them boast about their 85s, and I know a few that have openly acknowledged lower production standards as a culprit to a weaker wine.

I have often referred to this time span as the "Lost decade of Port." Something to which I have been told I am wrong about or exaggerating about from at least one person. Yet it is very clear from many here that I am not wrong. There was a huge amount of issues overall and across many producers.

For a variety of reasons, this was the decade in which a lot things just didn't turn out as planned. Such is life. They've learned, fought back, and won...which we all are happily now and into the future enjoying the results of.

The great thing about Port, though, is that even though the declarations in the 80s were overall rather uneven, there were still some stunning Ports produced. A careful collector can easily fill in that decade with classic Ports, though the variety will likely be more limited than from the 1970s or 1990s.

1980 Dow
1983 Graham
1985 Fonseca or Graham
1987 Taylor Vargellas or Graham Malvedos

I'm obviously most familiar with Grahams from the 1980s, but there are a couple of Gould Campbell and Smith Woodhouse Ports that could be on that list as well.

[LGTrotter]

The great thing about Port, though, is that even though the declarations in the 80s were overall rather uneven, there were still some stunning Ports produced. A careful collector can easily fill in that decade with classic Ports, though the variety will likely be more limited than from the 1970s or 1990s.

Exactly.

[DRT]

The great thing about Port, though, is that even though the declarations in the 80s were overall rather uneven, there were still some stunning Ports produced. A careful collector can easily fill in that decade with classic Ports, though the variety will likely be more limited than from the 1970s or 1990s.

Exactly.

For reasons that Owen has already alluded to I beg you not to post a list of the stunning ports produced in the 1980s

[LGTrotter]

I have had a look back at this thread and can't think what the fuss is about the eighty fives.

Apart from Calem, Churchill, Cockburn, Noval, Niepoort, Dow, Warre, Taylor, Croft, Royal Oporto, Oh OK I get the point...

[Glenn E.]

Royal Oporto, Oh OK I get the point...

Now you're just being gratuitous...

[LGTrotter]

Royal Oporto, Oh OK I get the point...

Now you're just being gratuitous...

I was just reading the list as given. I have had no problem with Warre and Dow. Not that I like either of them that much.

[LGTrotter]

What has changed for the better since the 80's and 90's, is wine-making methods/technology and more sanitary conditions in the wineries.

This is an idea that I have often heard and would like to take issue with. I would have thought that there have been many other times in the history of port when for reasons of financial constraints, or just 'cos they didn't care that port was made poorly. But there are fantastic vintages in times of no technology when the region was in the doldrums. 1945 through to 1955 for example. I also wonder how good some of these new technologies will seem when the wines are fifty or sixty years old.

Yours,

The Curmudgeon.

[DRT]

I have long been of the view that the technological advancements and improvements in hygiene have raised the bar considerably in terms of overall quality, but it remains to be seen through the test of time whether or not they have led to a slightly homogenised product that will lack the real superstars of the past. How on earth those superstars were created I will never understand, but I can't help thinking that at least part of the story was pure luck combined with the genius of the winemaker. The luck element seems to have been removed in recent times, leaving the winemaker with only his genius as a means of re-creating a Croft 1945 or Dow 1896. Will that happen? It might do, but few or none of us here will live long enough to see the proof.

[LGTrotter]

but few or none of us here will live long enough to see the proof.

I feel in pretty good shape, you never know.

It's the yeasts I worry about.

[jdaw1]

or Dow 1896

Do you really rate Dow 1896 over the seventy-eight?

[DRT]

or Dow 1896

Do you really rate Dow 1896 over the seventy-eight?

Admittedly, there is some bottle variation in my remaining cases of D86 and much more consistent quality in my cases of the '78. I try not to let it bother me too much.

[DRT]

but few or none of us here will live long enough to see the proof.

I feel in pretty good shape, you never know.

It's the yeasts I worry about.

You can get something from the chemist to sort out the yeasts.

...but you will have to live another seven decades to find out if any of the 2011s are as long-lived as the Croft 1945.

[LGTrotter]

...but you will have to live another seven decades to find out if any of the 2011s are as long-lived as the Croft 1945.

I was thinking of the 94s as the start of the technological age.

[DRT]

...but you will have to live another seven decades to find out if any of the 2011s are as long-lived as the Croft 1945.

I was thinking of the 94s as the start of the technological age.

If you think you will be here in five decades from now you are a better man than I am, Gungga Din.

[LGTrotter]

The 94s are twenty and I think that you could reasonably pronounce on the long term prospects of a wine at age fifty. That only leaves three more decades of dodging bullets.

[DRT]

The 94s are twenty and I think that you could reasonably pronounce on the long term prospects of a wine at age fifty. That only leaves three more decades of dodging bullets.

I agree that you will be able to pronounce on the prospects, but you will not know.

[LGTrotter]

The 94s are twenty and I think that you could reasonably pronounce on the long term prospects of a wine at age fifty. That only leaves three more decades of dodging bullets.

I agree that you will be able to pronounce on the prospects, but you will not know.

Chin up goth, might never happen.

[Chris Doty]

or Dow 1896

Do you really rate Dow 1896 over the seventy-eight?

Admittedly, there is some bottle variation in my remaining cases of D86 and much more consistent quality in my cases of the '78. I try not to let it bother me too much.

I'm down to my last three methuslahs of the '86

[Andy Velebil]

What has changed for the better since the 80's and 90's, is wine-making methods/technology and more sanitary conditions in the wineries.

This is an idea that I have often heard and would like to take issue with. I would have thought that there have been many other times in the history of port when for reasons of financial constraints, or just 'cos they didn't care that port was made poorly. But there are fantastic vintages in times of no technology when the region was in the doldrums. 1945 through to 1955 for example. I also wonder how good some of these new technologies will seem when the wines are fifty or sixty years old.

Yours,

The Curmudgeon.

Agree there have been fantastic bottles from the past. What has changed is instead of the occasional great or very good bottle a couple times a decade we now have some excellent to very good bottles many times a decade.

One example; In the past they didn't have temperature controlled lagars and were totally at the mercy of nature. So if the weather suddenly got hot and your lagar got to warm and a stuck fermentation occurred you were screwed and could kiss your lagar of potential high quality juice goodbye. That doesn't happen near as much anymore as there are cooling "blankets" you can insert into the lagar to keep them cool.

[JB vintage]

Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

[Chris Doty]

Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

Boo! Hiss!! Shame!

Niepoort is frustrating in that way. I've had two great bottles of 85 and 2 not good bottles of 85. Similar with 1997, and now 1994s are also showing some signs

I haven't opened recent vintages yet, but at some point will start experiments.

[griff]

Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

Boo! Hiss!! Shame!

Niepoort is frustrating in that way. I've had two great bottles of 85 and 2 not good bottles of 85. Similar with 1997, and now 1994s are also showing some signs

I haven't opened recent vintages yet, but at some point will start experiments.

What about Niepoort 83 and 87? Just bought some

[Andy Velebil]

Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

Boo! Hiss!! Shame!

Niepoort is frustrating in that way. I've had two great bottles of 85 and 2 not good bottles of 85. Similar with 1997, and now 1994s are also showing some signs

I haven't opened recent vintages yet, but at some point will start experiments.

What about Niepoort 83 and 87? Just bought some

According to Dirk, it didn't show up until the 1985 vintage. Previous vintages have been unaffected by VA.

So far there has been no signs of it since post-1997 vintage. And I've never heard of any problems with 2000 or newer vintages so far. I am hoping that is a good sign that all is better now as I own a rather large amount of these newer ones.

[griff]

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Looks like I shall have to take my chances with the 87's. Judging by the few tasting notes on this vintage there seems to be a rough split between disappointment and delight.