1931 Nacional 'undrinkable'

[djewesbury]

from George Robertson, Port, London: Faber and Faber, 2nd ed., 1987, p. 79

[LGTrotter]

Twenty five years does seem a long time for a wine to be closed, it is a shame that Van Zeller did not leave a few more thoughts about how exactly it was undrinkable. Hard, the only other clue, comes from the author. I wonder if there will be other ports that stay closed, I mean completely closed, for such a long time again?

[djewesbury]

Very few I imagine. Perhaps some of the really big 2011s? I don't see the Dow being a handy quaffer any day soon.

[DRT]

Very few I imagine. Perhaps some of the really big 2011s? I don't see the Dow being a handy quaffer any day soon.

A very well-known and respected Port-maker told me a couple of years ago that the advances in technology and particularly the improvements in the quality of aguardente now in use means that VPs are less likely to go through a dumb phase (i.e. be closed down) in future as the integration of fruit and alcohol is more of a seamless process.

I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I was told.

Another factor might be that VPs of the future are less likely to be full of elderberry juice.

[djewesbury]

I don't know whether Van Zeller thought the NN31 undrinkable merely because it was closed or because it was just too big and unintegrated. Hard to say.

[uncle tom]

A very well-known and respected Port-maker told me a couple of years ago that the advances in technology and particularly the improvements in the quality of aguardente now in use means that VPs are less likely to go through a dumb phase (i.e. be closed down) in future as the integration of fruit and alcohol is more of a seamless process.

Have heard the same..

I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I was told.

I find myself wondering: 'how have they arrived at that conclusion?'

With every change, I worry about unintended consequences. Will the rough old arguardente go unlamented, or will there be a belated realisation that some of the rough elements serve an important (but currently unrecognised) role? Will the VPs that have seen nothing but stainless steel in their formative years hold up as well as those that have had some exposure to wood?

A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports.

Excess confidence in new ideas is a dangerous thing..

[djewesbury]

A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports.

Excess confidence in new ideas is a dangerous thing..

The very same book from which my quote came displays exactly this hubristic self-confidence: quite a lot along the lines of "new technologies are making the homely old ways obsolete". Foot treading is not the only example!

[jdaw1]

Mention should be made of Cockburn’s ingenious time- and money-saving ‘Moving Must’ technique, which resulted a few decades of rubbish Port that was alleged to be Vintage.

• This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[TLW]

"A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports."

Having not been to the Douro, am I to understand that some are again treading their grapes?

[Alex Bridgeman]

"A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports."

Having not been to the Douro, am I to understand that some are again treading their grapes?

Many - perhaps most - are now treading grapes at least for premium ports. Treading is sometimes by human foot and sometimes in modern lagares fitted with artifical treaders that simulate the human foot as closely as possible.

[TLW]

"A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports."

Having not been to the Douro, am I to understand that some are again treading their grapes?

Many - perhaps most - are now treading grapes at least for premium ports. Treading is sometimes by human foot and sometimes in modern lagares fitted with artifical treaders that simulate the human foot as closely as possible.

Thank you.

Interesting three ports of the year for 2014. Although I have not tried the 2011s yet, the 1994 Graham is certainly a pleasant drink - albeit young by 10-20 years.

[Andy Velebil]

A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports.
.

While some are heading back to doing small amounts of treading, I disagree with the last part of this statement. Dow's VP's, which are regarded world-wide and within this group as a top notch VP, has been made by autovinification since 1963. So if treading is necessary to make the finest Ports how do you explain Dow's?

[LGTrotter]

A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports.
.

While some are heading back to doing small amounts of treading, I disagree with the last part of this statement. Dow's VP's, which are regarded world-wide and within this group as a top notch VP, has been made by autovinification since 1963. So if treading is necessary to make the finest Ports how do you explain Dow's?

Just think how much better it would have been if it had been foot trodden. I think the wider point that new=good and old=bad has been rightly trashed.

[LGTrotter]

Or indeed that new=bad and old=good. Although I will allow that by nature and inclination I am more in the new=bad camp.

[Andy Velebil]

A generation ago, most port makers were confident that their lagares could be consigned to history - yet most now recognise that treading is necessary for the finest ports.
.

While some are heading back to doing small amounts of treading, I disagree with the last part of this statement. Dow's VP's, which are regarded world-wide and within this group as a top notch VP, has been made by autovinification since 1963. So if treading is necessary to make the finest Ports how do you explain Dow's?

Just think how much better it would have been if it had been foot trodden. I think the wider point that new=good and old=bad has been rightly trashed.

Absolutely not true. Wine making and viticulture advancements in the past 20+ years have changed quite a bit and are the reason we all get consistently good products now. Even the inexpensive "commodity wines" are far better now then they ever have been. So new is very much a good thing and thankfully some of that old is gone. But I will conceded that some old things are good and some new things may end up not. But when it comes to wine a whole lot of new has been a very good thing overall.

[jdaw1]

You are agreeing. New is typically but not always better. Old is typically but not always worse.

[LGTrotter]

You are agreeing. New is typically but not always better. Old is typically but not always worse.

I am not sure that either me or Andy would claim to be in agreement here and no harm in that.

Wine making and viticulture advancements in the past 20+ years have changed quite a bit and are the reason we all get consistently good products now. Even the inexpensive "commodity wines" are far better now then they ever have been. So new is very much a good thing and thankfully some of that old is gone. But I will conceded that some old things are good and some new things may end up not. But when it comes to wine a whole lot of new has been a very good thing overall.

These are delightfully rosy spectacles you have, when I wade through the overly sweet homogenised dross which I am generally served by people who I still count as friends but who won't spend money on wine I shall think to myself 'This is good'. However it won't be, it will simply be a uniform kind of awfulness rather than the wildly varied type I drank all those years ago.

And I also concede that not everything new is a bad idea. Just most of it.

[jdaw1]

I concede. You weren’t agreeing.

[Glenn E.]

These are delightfully rosy spectacles you have, when I wade through the overly sweet homogenised dross which I am generally served by people who I still count as friends but who won't spend money on wine I shall think to myself 'This is good'. However it won't be, it will simply be a uniform kind of awfulness rather than the wildly varied type I drank all those years ago.

Wildly varied is not better than uniform. In fact, most of the time it is worse. (Uniform != average. In this case, we're talking about uniformly good.) That's why it's wildly varied. It does allow for the occasional astoundingly good result, but most of the time it does not. Perhaps more to the point, that occasional astoundingly good result stands out more because the overall "variety" is so bad.

Uniform is not, by definition, bland. Bland comes from the target profile being bland. I think we would all likely agree that if all Port produced today were uniformly as good as 1963 Noval Nacional, that things would be very good indeed. The problem in that case would be that we'd get bored of it. It would no longer be special. Tesco would be selling NN63 for $20/bottle with a 25% discount if you buy 12. As good as that would be, it's hard to get excited about it if every Port available is NN63.

It isn't that you like wildly varied Port. You like that the occasional astoundingly good Port really stands out amongst the rest of the wildly varied dross, and you have the knowledge and experience to know which is which before you buy.

I like being able to buy a bottle of Port without having to worry about whether or not it is going to be good. It's all good. In fact it's all very good. But it does mean that a 2011 Noval Nacional looks a little absurd priced at $1000/bottle next to a nearly equally good 2011 Noval at 1/10 the price.

The bar has been raised across the board.

[uncle tom]

I like being able to buy a bottle of Port without having to worry about whether or not it is going to be good. It's all good. In fact it's all very good. But it does mean that a 2011 Noval Nacional looks a little absurd priced at $1000/bottle next to a nearly equally good 2011 Noval at 1/10 the price.

There is an expectation in certain quarters that there must be some rare ports from each vintage that stand head and shoulders above all others, and therefore deserve an exhorbitant price tag.

In practice, as we saw with last month's 66 horizontal and 60 v 63 event; a selection of really good mature ports from a vintage rarely has one player towering over the others

Strangely, NN were able to lay claim to this elevated market for several decades before there was any serious challenge, despite producing some dismal wines in the eighties; - but now there are several contenders.

Personally, I don't put any weight on the hype, packaging and physical presentation of the 'super cuvees' - only a blind tasting will convince me.

It follows that when those with a pretence to excellence absent themselves from major blind events, I am disinclined to give them the benefit of the doubt..

[Glenn E.]

I like being able to buy a bottle of Port without having to worry about whether or not it is going to be good. It's all good. In fact it's all very good. But it does mean that a 2011 Noval Nacional looks a little absurd priced at $1000/bottle next to a nearly equally good 2011 Noval at 1/10 the price.

There is an expectation in certain quarters that there must be some rare ports from each vintage that stand head and shoulders above all others, and therefore deserve an exhorbitant price tag.

In practice, as we saw with last month's 66 horizontal and 60 v 63 event; a selection of really good mature ports from a vintage rarely has one player towering over the others

Strangely, NN were able to lay claim to this elevated market for several decades before there was any serious challenge, despite producing some dismal wines in the eighties; - but now there are several contenders.

Personally, I don't put any weight on the hype, packaging and physical presentation of the 'super cuvees' - only a blind tasting will convince me.

It follows that when those with a pretence to excellence absent themselves from major blind events, I am disinclined to give them the benefit of the doubt..

Not the point.

The point is more than no one produced a '75 Hutcheson in 2011. An argument that you might be able to make as far back as 1994.

The point is that the gap between the very best Ports and the "merely average" has closed dramatically, and not because the very best Ports are any worse. The quality gap has narrowed so much that the price difference now stands out as starkly absurd, even just between name brands and second brands. The "uniformity" that Owen laments is caused by the fact that just about every Port is at least good now, if not very good or excellent. Owen's beloved variety was an artifact of there being poor Ports from which a NN63 could distance itself.

[DRT]

I would venture to guess that Owen is being slightly misunderstood here. My reading of his comments leads me to believe that he is not bemoaning the fact that there is more uniformity in quality, but that his experience of other wine styles (and perhaps Port?) has led him to believe that mass-produced wine using modern "improvements" is becoming a homogeneous, nondescript product with little variety between producers and styles.

I must say I agree with that sentiment at the pop-n-pour end of the market. The wines might no longer turn to vinegar or have a 1 in 12 corked rate but they all taste boringly similar. Hopefully that trend will not climb its way up the quality ladder and end up with us having 50 VPs from a vintage that are almost indistinguishable from one another, even though they all might be of very good or excellent quality.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I like being able to buy a bottle of Port without having to worry about whether or not it is going to be good. It's all good. In fact it's all very good. But it does mean that a 2011 Noval Nacional looks a little absurd priced at $1000/bottle next to a nearly equally good 2011 Noval at 1/10 the price.

There is an expectation in certain quarters that there must be some rare ports from each vintage that stand head and shoulders above all others, and therefore deserve an exhorbitant price tag.

In practice, as we saw with last month's 66 horizontal and 60 v 63 event; a selection of really good mature ports from a vintage rarely has one player towering over the others

Strangely, NN were able to lay claim to this elevated market for several decades before there was any serious challenge, despite producing some dismal wines in the eighties; - but now there are several contenders.

Personally, I don't put any weight on the hype, packaging and physical presentation of the 'super cuvees' - only a blind tasting will convince me.

It follows that when those with a pretence to excellence absent themselves from major blind events, I am disinclined to give them the benefit of the doubt..

Not the point.

The point is more than no one produced a '75 Hutcheson in 2011. An argument that you might be able to make as far back as 1994.

The point is that the gap between the very best Ports and the "merely average" has closed dramatically, and not because the very best Ports are any worse. The quality gap has narrowed so much that the price difference now stands out as starkly absurd, even just between name brands and second brands. The "uniformity" that Owen laments is caused by the fact that just about every Port is at least good now, if not very good or excellent. Owen's beloved variety was an artifact of there being poor Ports from which a NN63 could distance itself.

Actually, I think you've both missed the point. I believe that the point is not that these wines are better than anything else that money can buy but that they are rarer than any other port that money can buy. You want something really good to drink? Buy Noval / Dow / Graham / Taylor / Fonseca / etc and pay around $100 per bottle. There are thousands of bottles around so you have a good chance of buying one.

Want something rare and good to drink? Get a bottle of Nacional / Stone Terraces / Vargellas Vinha Velha and pay $1,000 per bottle - if you can find it because there were only 250 cases made and Glenn bought them all.

It's not quality that drives the price, it's scarcity and demand from people like me and Glenn who mop up what we can. Yes these are good products, but they are scarce good products and we want to be able to say that we have some.

[LGTrotter]

I would venture to guess that Owen is being slightly misunderstood here.

Yes, I congratulate you on your percipience and endorse the rest of your comments.

Wildly varied is not better than uniform. In fact, most of the time it is worse

Now I must take issue with this, at best this is opinion, I happen to like wildly varied. I would use another wink emoticon but I fancy it would not have enough of the leer about it. And later you say that even NN63 would become boring if it was all that was available; even you think that varied is better than uniform.

[LGTrotter]

It's not quality that drives the price, it's scarcity and demand from people like me and Glenn who mop up what we can. Yes these are good products, but they are scarce good products and we want to be able to say that we have some.

This is a shocking admission Alex (and one that, of course, I relate to). Scarcity? Well that is true of a lot of ports which aren't that expensive. Hype and marketing are what Tom spoke of and I think he is nearer the mark.

And Glenn, my lamentations are not that the quality of the port has got better but that, as Derek rightly divined, it has all got better in the same way. I really love the style and taste of old Cockburn. Who now would produce a deliberately pale and medium bodied port? I can't think of one, especially one that is made as a flagship wine and not just off-cuts.

[Glenn E.]

And Glenn, my lamentations are not that the quality of the port has got better but that, as Derek rightly divined, it has all got better in the same way. I really love the style and taste of old Cockburn. Who now would produce a deliberately pale and medium bodied port? I can't think of one, especially one that is made as a flagship wine and not just off-cuts.

Ah, yes, I did misunderstand what you were saying. However, I'm not sure you can make your point yet. The 1994s are still far too young to me, and that's generally the year that people refer to as the "breakout year" for the "new ways" of making Port.

Put another way, I suspect that in 1982 even the soft, feminine, and fabulously elegant 1980 Ferreira was boisterous and fruity.

Actually, I think you've both missed the point. I believe that the point is not that these wines are better than anything else that money can buy but that they are rarer than any other port that money can buy. You want something really good to drink? Buy Noval / Dow / Graham / Taylor / Fonseca / etc and pay around $100 per bottle. There are thousands of bottles around so you have a good chance of buying one.

I fear that I caused the misunderstanding in referring to the 10x price difference between Noval and Noval Nacional. The point I was attempting to make was not about super cuvees at all, but rather that the gap between the best Ports (e.g. Noval Nacional, which coincidentally happens to be a super cuvee) and the rest of the pack (e.g. the regular Noval) has narrowed dramatically. I could have made the same point less dramatically using Taylor and Skeffington, or Graham and Quarles Harris. Thus my second attempt, which noted that no one made a 1975 Hutcheson in 2011. Which is to say, I highly doubt that anyone made a bad Port in 2011 - viticultural standards have risen beyond the point where bad Port is still bottled and sold. And this is a good thing.

Why pay $90 for Taylor or Graham when for $60 (or $50, or $40) I can get Skeffington or Quarles Harris? The latter two will probably only score a couple of points lower than the former two, and all 4 of them will likely score in the low to mid 90s.

Prior to the recent viticultural improvements, Taylor and Graham were probably worth the extra cost because they were often markedly better Ports. Or at least, they were markedly more consistent from vintage to vintage.

Pulling this back around to Owen's point, I think it is too early to say whether or not the rising standards have caused the kind of uniformity that he fears. I see considerable variation in style in the 1994s, but those variations are really only just now starting to show. To me the 1997s, 2000s, and younger are still far too young for similar variations in style to be easily observable.

In another 20 years, though... then we'll know. I think. Perhaps a tasting should be scheduled?

[Glenn E.]

Want something rare and good to drink? Get a bottle of Nacional / Stone Terraces / Vargellas Vinha Velha and pay $1,000 per bottle - if you can find it because there were only 250 cases made and Glenn bought them all.

My precioussssssssesssss...

[Alex Bridgeman]

Remember what happened to Smaug when he hoarded all his bottles of Graham Stone Terraces! Be careful or you will wake up one morning and find a hairy-footed dwarf has sneaked in and drunk it all!

[LGTrotter]

Glenn; you have made good points and are wise and sagacious. This sudden change of heart is of course unrelated to you having access to a heap of stone terraces. Did I mention how young you are looking?

In practice, as we saw with last month's 66 horizontal and 60 v 63 event; a selection of really good mature ports from a vintage rarely has one player towering over the others.

Tom's implied advice of buy some port and wait is probably best.

[uncle tom]

The 1994s are still far too young to me, and that's generally the year that people refer to as the "breakout year" for the "new ways" of making Port.

My computer's choice of bottles for my home consumption is equally divided this year between the 'Autumn Years' of '55 to '70 and the 'Dark Ages' of '71 to '93.

Although it is permitted to nominate a bottle from '94 - the first year of 'The Renaissance' - it has determined that there are more worthy candidates on every occasion..

[LGTrotter]

By coincidence I was reading a thread this morning called , I think; 'how much is enough' where you were explaining the various parameters by which you (and some others) selected port for drinking. I can't find it now though. So it becomes less interesting.

Found it; http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 567#p52567

[DRT]

By coincidence I was reading a thread this morning called , I think; 'how much is enough' where you were explaining the various parameters by which you (and some others) selected port for drinking. I can't find it now though. So it becomes less interesting.

Found it; http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 567#p52567

You will no doubt be please to know that my methodology remains unchanged, albeit that it is now applied less often than it once was.

[Andy Velebil]

My computer's choice of bottles for my home consumption is equally divided this year between the 'Autumn Years' of '55 to '70 and the 'Dark Ages' of '71 to '93.

Although it is permitted to nominate a bottle from '94 - the first year of 'The Renaissance' - it has determined that there are more worthy candidates on every occasion..

love these time frame descriptors. I was calling the 'Dark Ages' 'The Lost decade of Port' but I like yours better as it really was a bit longer than a decade where all issues happened.

Sadly even 1977 has many issues and I've mostly stopped buying them as a result. Can't see forking out the money for a Fonseca or Taylors or Dow's (for example) due to the many problematic issues they have.

[Glenn E.]

Although it is permitted to nominate a bottle from '94 - the first year of 'The Renaissance' - it has determined that there are more worthy candidates on every occasion..

A pleasant side effect of having 4 cellars, no doubt.