Roy,
I just looked at your latest Vintage Chart. I don't agree with your methodology. How can only one vintage be considered "average"? Wouldn't that we be substandard or poor? You are only rating Vintage Port vintages, so it is a high standard. I would rather, however, see you grade on a forced curve.
In the last 33 declared vintages what are top 10% and bottom 10%?
I enjoyed the newsletter. Keep it up.
J
Vintage Chart Questions
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
-
Steve Saxon
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:06 am
- Location: Gig Harbor, Wa.
Roy, Can you explain the difference between the 1991 vintage and 92. I thought that some producers declared in 91 and some in 92, but they are basically the same vintage, am I wrong.
I was also surprised you didn't rate the 55 and 63 vintages as classic. Can you tell me your thoughts on those vintages.
I was also surprised you didn't rate the 55 and 63 vintages as classic. Can you tell me your thoughts on those vintages.
Wine brings truth.
I don't agree with your methodology. How can only one vintage be considered "average"? Wouldn't that we be substandard or poor?
You raise a good point Jason. Yes the standard for a declaration is quite high. I initially had points for each vintage and decided to make it easier, as this was really meant as a guide like most other Vintage Charts, for novices. That said, 1975 was a year with "special circumstances" due to a bloodless coup d'etat and a full blown Revolution that took place in Portugal (1974). The vintage was only declared since the owners of the Port houses, felt that their companies would be nationalized and that '75 was their last chance to freely declare a vintage. On average the wines are just that ... average in terms of quality.
Your point is well taken though.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Steve,
I'd be happy to elaborate for you.
There were 23 and 44 declarations in 1955 and 1963, respectively.
Of the Ports made in 1955, from my experience with only about half of the Ports declared, there are very few that I have rated over 95 pts. Only a handful that I have rated over 92 points. It is an excellent vintage in terms of how the wines were as youngsters from my readings as well as my own experiences with these wines as they have evolved over the years. My earliest contact with '55s was in circa 1990 or 1991, when they were already 35+ years old. I can tell you a ton about the harvest and growing conditions, as well as the lackluster state of the Port market when these were released, and the overall feeling of many folks in the Port trade.
What about the 1955s from your experience or reading, has led you to believe otherwise? Can you name me 5 1955s that are still great wines today?
As far as the 1963 vintage, it was a fabulous young vintage and a media darling with unbridled enthusiasm spouted as "vintage of the century" early and often even nearly twenty years later. Back in 1990 when Sucling's Port bible came out he had only 5 VPs from this vintage rated over 95 pts. Today, only 4 of those are left standing (Nacional, Fonseca, Graham and Taylor) in the upper echelon. The issue I have with '63 vintage Ports is that as great as many were early, in the past decade, MANY have faded into tawnies with tertiary flavors developed and in some ways, more advanced than the '55s. There are very few '63s still showing their vibrancy at only 42 years old. I have done vertical tastings of this vintage and was surprised at how the mightly had fallen (off early). In speaking with MANY Port producers, there are a number of them who are in total agreement with my assessment. Then again, there are still plenty of folks who remember the glory drinking years of these VPs and don't necessarily have more current experience with them. Folks from the Shippers whose VPs are still in the very upper tier, are bound to swear that this was a Classic vintage. From a growing season standpoint, it was!
On the other hand, today, I believe that the 1966s have proved as a lot, to have greater grip and concentration. The Ports from this vintage are darker in color and richer in concentration in many cases. The Dow, Croft, Quinta do Noval, Offley, Graham, Sandeman (which in '63 dropped out of the top ranking VPs) Taylor, Cockburn, Niepoort and Fonseca are still marvelous Ports and half of these from '63 have long ago faded. It is just my preference and you don't have to agree with me on this point. That is what makes things interesting, having a diversity of opinions. Otherwise, it would be a pretty darn boring world of wine.
I'd be happy to elaborate for you.
There were 23 and 44 declarations in 1955 and 1963, respectively.
Of the Ports made in 1955, from my experience with only about half of the Ports declared, there are very few that I have rated over 95 pts. Only a handful that I have rated over 92 points. It is an excellent vintage in terms of how the wines were as youngsters from my readings as well as my own experiences with these wines as they have evolved over the years. My earliest contact with '55s was in circa 1990 or 1991, when they were already 35+ years old. I can tell you a ton about the harvest and growing conditions, as well as the lackluster state of the Port market when these were released, and the overall feeling of many folks in the Port trade.
What about the 1955s from your experience or reading, has led you to believe otherwise? Can you name me 5 1955s that are still great wines today?
As far as the 1963 vintage, it was a fabulous young vintage and a media darling with unbridled enthusiasm spouted as "vintage of the century" early and often even nearly twenty years later. Back in 1990 when Sucling's Port bible came out he had only 5 VPs from this vintage rated over 95 pts. Today, only 4 of those are left standing (Nacional, Fonseca, Graham and Taylor) in the upper echelon. The issue I have with '63 vintage Ports is that as great as many were early, in the past decade, MANY have faded into tawnies with tertiary flavors developed and in some ways, more advanced than the '55s. There are very few '63s still showing their vibrancy at only 42 years old. I have done vertical tastings of this vintage and was surprised at how the mightly had fallen (off early). In speaking with MANY Port producers, there are a number of them who are in total agreement with my assessment. Then again, there are still plenty of folks who remember the glory drinking years of these VPs and don't necessarily have more current experience with them. Folks from the Shippers whose VPs are still in the very upper tier, are bound to swear that this was a Classic vintage. From a growing season standpoint, it was!
On the other hand, today, I believe that the 1966s have proved as a lot, to have greater grip and concentration. The Ports from this vintage are darker in color and richer in concentration in many cases. The Dow, Croft, Quinta do Noval, Offley, Graham, Sandeman (which in '63 dropped out of the top ranking VPs) Taylor, Cockburn, Niepoort and Fonseca are still marvelous Ports and half of these from '63 have long ago faded. It is just my preference and you don't have to agree with me on this point. That is what makes things interesting, having a diversity of opinions. Otherwise, it would be a pretty darn boring world of wine.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Nikolaj Winther
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:08 am
- Location: Varde, Denmark
I find charts like these very useful. However - most come up short - as does this one.
The reason I think so is that only the declared vintages are rated. Well, since the declared vintages in themselves should be of terrefic quality, the need for such a list diminishes. What I find much more interesting would be a rating og "off"-vintages. I myself have a few bottles of 1998 vintage port (sao pedro (Rozes-marque I think. Produced by Vranken anyway)) and 1999 (Vau) - I even have some 1984 (Fonseca-G). Yet these vintages are hard to find ratings on - but they are, in my opinion the more interesting, as quality in those off-years can vary tremendously.
Also, according to thevintageportsite.com, 1987 was not a declared year.
Thanks for a great site - and the most fulfilling newsletter on port in the world.
The reason I think so is that only the declared vintages are rated. Well, since the declared vintages in themselves should be of terrefic quality, the need for such a list diminishes. What I find much more interesting would be a rating og "off"-vintages. I myself have a few bottles of 1998 vintage port (sao pedro (Rozes-marque I think. Produced by Vranken anyway)) and 1999 (Vau) - I even have some 1984 (Fonseca-G). Yet these vintages are hard to find ratings on - but they are, in my opinion the more interesting, as quality in those off-years can vary tremendously.
Also, according to thevintageportsite.com, 1987 was not a declared year.
Thanks for a great site - and the most fulfilling newsletter on port in the world.
What I lack in size I make up for in obnoxiousness.
Now I think that Nikolaj's suggestion is a great one. I often buy wines from "off" vintages, as much because they are usually comparatively cheap as for any other reason. I would love to know how the wines in these years compare with the full blown vintage years.
I was really VERY pleasantly suprised about 6 years ago when I tasted my first bottle from a case of Quinta da Roeda 1987. It was a gorgeous wine which I really enjoyed. I also own (but have not yet drunk) wines from 1978, 1984 and 1986. I know that Grahams released a VP from 1976 but I have never seen a review of it.
Perhaps this is an idea for another tasting theme - wines from odd vintages.
Alex
I was really VERY pleasantly suprised about 6 years ago when I tasted my first bottle from a case of Quinta da Roeda 1987. It was a gorgeous wine which I really enjoyed. I also own (but have not yet drunk) wines from 1978, 1984 and 1986. I know that Grahams released a VP from 1976 but I have never seen a review of it.
Perhaps this is an idea for another tasting theme - wines from odd vintages.
Alex
NWinther,
Thank you for your very kind words at the end of your post.
I respect your opinion and your criticsms are valid. I have not built a chart that take in every vintage from 1900-2003. There was a time when I was much younger and even more of a fanatical student of VP, when I could have told you the weather conditions in all of the best vinages (these 33) and then going back to 1820. But my memory is no longer as sharp as it was then and my caring about those types of factoids is nowhere near as intense as it was. Still, there are many sources for such information available if you really want to learn about the "off years."
As for, "Also, according to thevintageportsite.com, 1987 was not a declared year.."
As I am sure you know, I have visited and posted on that site too in the past, and revere the Symington's (having spoken with one of them, 3x since Friday). But ...
Is it ok if I disagree with the other Port site?
In 1992, considered a great vintage ... only 21 producers declared.
In 1977, considered a great vintage ... only 33 producers declared.
In 1966, you make the call on that one, only 29 producers declared
In 1955, considered an "excellent vintage" ... only 23 producers declared.
In 1987, there were 30 producers that declared. Does that count as a general declaration? The fact that many folks released SQVPs and not the "1st growths" ... is that what the other website meant? So I assume that the 42 producers ... similar in nature to those of 1987, that declared in 1995, doesn't count either?
Sheer numbers don't mean a vintage was generally declared though, the vintage was declared nonetheless. So we are probably looking at a difference of semantics. I am right and they are not ... that it was a declared year, as 30 companies is nothing to sneeze at, and by looking at the years mentioned above, that can not be disputed. If the other web site had used the words, "generally declared" then I would have to admit that they were technically correct. But they left out the one key word. Again, this is just semantics.
The Symington's did not make a truly great '87, the best of which was the Malvedos which utilized the grapes from the Malvedos's property and the new grapes (vines planted in '82) that had just come to fruition. Their other properties produce was not nearly as keen as some of their competitors in that year ... so it is not a shock to me that they don't look fondly on the '87 vintage. Another prominent producer has said the same thing about 1991, which clearly the Symington's did declare and made some fabulous juice. There is a lot more to this little ditty than meets the eye.
BTW, if the rain had not come in the 3rd week of September in the middle of the picking of grapes, the quality would have been excellent, as those who waited to finish picking, found out. Check out a Quinta de Vargellas from this vintage some time. One of ROY'S ----> MOST ALL TIME UNDER RATED VINTAGE PORT SECRETS, NOW REVEALED. RUN TO THE PHONE QUICKLY!!! :)
After you grab at least a half case, please do go back into your PROFILE and add your real first and last name .... so we can all properly address you.
Thanks!
Thank you for your very kind words at the end of your post.
I respect your opinion and your criticsms are valid. I have not built a chart that take in every vintage from 1900-2003. There was a time when I was much younger and even more of a fanatical student of VP, when I could have told you the weather conditions in all of the best vinages (these 33) and then going back to 1820. But my memory is no longer as sharp as it was then and my caring about those types of factoids is nowhere near as intense as it was. Still, there are many sources for such information available if you really want to learn about the "off years."
As for, "Also, according to thevintageportsite.com, 1987 was not a declared year.."
As I am sure you know, I have visited and posted on that site too in the past, and revere the Symington's (having spoken with one of them, 3x since Friday). But ...
Is it ok if I disagree with the other Port site?
In 1992, considered a great vintage ... only 21 producers declared.
In 1977, considered a great vintage ... only 33 producers declared.
In 1966, you make the call on that one, only 29 producers declared
In 1955, considered an "excellent vintage" ... only 23 producers declared.
In 1987, there were 30 producers that declared. Does that count as a general declaration? The fact that many folks released SQVPs and not the "1st growths" ... is that what the other website meant? So I assume that the 42 producers ... similar in nature to those of 1987, that declared in 1995, doesn't count either?
Sheer numbers don't mean a vintage was generally declared though, the vintage was declared nonetheless. So we are probably looking at a difference of semantics. I am right and they are not ... that it was a declared year, as 30 companies is nothing to sneeze at, and by looking at the years mentioned above, that can not be disputed. If the other web site had used the words, "generally declared" then I would have to admit that they were technically correct. But they left out the one key word. Again, this is just semantics.
The Symington's did not make a truly great '87, the best of which was the Malvedos which utilized the grapes from the Malvedos's property and the new grapes (vines planted in '82) that had just come to fruition. Their other properties produce was not nearly as keen as some of their competitors in that year ... so it is not a shock to me that they don't look fondly on the '87 vintage. Another prominent producer has said the same thing about 1991, which clearly the Symington's did declare and made some fabulous juice. There is a lot more to this little ditty than meets the eye.
BTW, if the rain had not come in the 3rd week of September in the middle of the picking of grapes, the quality would have been excellent, as those who waited to finish picking, found out. Check out a Quinta de Vargellas from this vintage some time. One of ROY'S ----> MOST ALL TIME UNDER RATED VINTAGE PORT SECRETS, NOW REVEALED. RUN TO THE PHONE QUICKLY!!! :)
After you grab at least a half case, please do go back into your PROFILE and add your real first and last name .... so we can all properly address you.
Thanks!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Alex,
I own bottles from some years that no one has even heard of ANY Port production, that are VPs produced by the Shippers and bottled for special anniversaries, birth years etc... that have never seen the light of the market place. But finding these Ports is like trying to find a needle on a football field in Millwall. Some of these are truly amazing Ports.
What you are talking about and Nikolaj alluded to as well, are VPs from years where the number of declarations was typically small. For example:
1976 = 3
1978 = 27 and the reason why I included this on my vintage chart
1984 = 15
1986 = 5
Sorry, with all that I have going on right now, I probably won't get to an "off vintage" chart anytime soon. But I promise to bring you stories worthy of reading and Port news you can use and will find intriguing. Maybe someday, I will do the off vintages, but not at the moment. That doesn't stop you from postng your questions here and watching some of the other experts here, standing up to respond to you!
I own bottles from some years that no one has even heard of ANY Port production, that are VPs produced by the Shippers and bottled for special anniversaries, birth years etc... that have never seen the light of the market place. But finding these Ports is like trying to find a needle on a football field in Millwall. Some of these are truly amazing Ports.
What you are talking about and Nikolaj alluded to as well, are VPs from years where the number of declarations was typically small. For example:
1976 = 3
1978 = 27 and the reason why I included this on my vintage chart
1984 = 15
1986 = 5
Sorry, with all that I have going on right now, I probably won't get to an "off vintage" chart anytime soon. But I promise to bring you stories worthy of reading and Port news you can use and will find intriguing. Maybe someday, I will do the off vintages, but not at the moment. That doesn't stop you from postng your questions here and watching some of the other experts here, standing up to respond to you!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Derek T.
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
- Contact:
Roy, it seems you are suggesting that the '63 claim as "vintage of the century" should be revoked due to it not standing up to the test of time. I'm not in a position to dispute this and will leave to others with more experience to challenge if they wish.Roy Hersh wrote: The issue I have with '63 vintage Ports is that as great as many were early, in the past decade, MANY have faded into tawnies with tertiary flavors developed and in some ways, more advanced than the '55s. There are very few '63s still showing their vibrancy at only 42 years old.
However, does this not suggest that it is too early to award a "Classic" rating to recent vintages like 1994, 2000 and, especially, 2003?
Derek
-
Nikolaj Winther
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:08 am
- Location: Varde, Denmark
Hi Roy,
Regarding the off-vintage chart, I wouldn't expect a full-blown chart from 1820 on. The off-vintages don't usually last that long, and are best after around 20y and should probably be drunk some time before they reach 30. Therefore I see no reason for compiling a list of off-vintages and their quality older than, say 20 years.
The reason for the "declared"-comment is, that I haven't ever come across a list that mentioned 87 as a "vintage"-year, though many says it should've been. It was just to clarify.
Regarding the off-vintage chart, I wouldn't expect a full-blown chart from 1820 on. The off-vintages don't usually last that long, and are best after around 20y and should probably be drunk some time before they reach 30. Therefore I see no reason for compiling a list of off-vintages and their quality older than, say 20 years.
Yeah, well I also have other info on the great vintages, and some vary from your viewpoint. If your take is "find it somewhere else" why do you go through the trouble of setting up and maintaining a website, when you could enter some newsgroup and post there? Now this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate this page, as a matter of fact I find it exellent and I really value your newsletter. But if I went through the trouble, I could find most of the info on other sites. And with that in mind, why at all post a "great-vintages"-chart? That is available in heaps on the net.Still, there are many sources for such information available if you really want to learn about the "off years."
The reason for the "declared"-comment is, that I haven't ever come across a list that mentioned 87 as a "vintage"-year, though many says it should've been. It was just to clarify.
Mind you, the number of producers have grown steadily the last three to four decades. I also don't see 92 as a great vintage.In 1992, considered a great vintage ... only 21 producers declared.
In 1977, considered a great vintage ... only 33 producers declared.
In 1966, you make the call on that one, only 29 producers declared
In 1955, considered an "excellent vintage" ... only 23 producers declared.
My name is already added - that's required for signing up. Am I missing a point here?After you grab at least a half case, please do go back into your PROFILE and add your real first and last name .... so we can all properly address you.
What I lack in size I make up for in obnoxiousness.
Roy,
I do think you should publish a full vintage chart back to 1820. Covering all vintages (including off) seems like the kind of thing that this site should have. I also think it would be a good PR move. Once you completed it I would that you put out a press release. This will cost you some money, but I bet that there countless reporters around the world that are writing Port articles each week that need filler. I have given countless interviews to the press just because they needed a quote from someone at Amazon.
I would also like to see a clickable chart that shows your reviews of individual wines for each vintage. This would really be a killer app for Port. If you need help sampling additional Ports you know were I live. I don't think that Parker or the WS adequately covers Port. Alan Meadows saw the same market niche for Burg and filled it. I know you can too.
As you know I use Parker's notes quite often when I have not tried a wine, but I do occasionally use Broadbent. Why? He has rated every wine for the last 150 years.
Just my 2 cents on how you can differentiate your site. Lecture over. :)
J
P.S. Buying Ports to taste for your vintage chart, would, of course, be a tax deduction.
I do think you should publish a full vintage chart back to 1820. Covering all vintages (including off) seems like the kind of thing that this site should have. I also think it would be a good PR move. Once you completed it I would that you put out a press release. This will cost you some money, but I bet that there countless reporters around the world that are writing Port articles each week that need filler. I have given countless interviews to the press just because they needed a quote from someone at Amazon.
I would also like to see a clickable chart that shows your reviews of individual wines for each vintage. This would really be a killer app for Port. If you need help sampling additional Ports you know were I live. I don't think that Parker or the WS adequately covers Port. Alan Meadows saw the same market niche for Burg and filled it. I know you can too.
As you know I use Parker's notes quite often when I have not tried a wine, but I do occasionally use Broadbent. Why? He has rated every wine for the last 150 years.
Just my 2 cents on how you can differentiate your site. Lecture over. :)
J
P.S. Buying Ports to taste for your vintage chart, would, of course, be a tax deduction.
-
simon Lisle
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 am
- Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom - UK
Roy,I found your comments on the 63 ports most interesting and on the not largely declared vintages as I own a few myself.I'll be opening an old friend on Christmas day(noval 63) due to some of the postings saying it was in decline it will be strange as my father last opened one Christmas 1980 which we all drank.A truly great site.
Derek,
If I were to pick a Vintage of the Century from the 20th that is, it would certainly be the 1927 and I have had my share of 'em. I would also pick the 1948 as an almost "perfect" vintage for Port as the 3 that are readilly available are the Taylor, Fonseca and Grahams and all are simply put, ass kicking VPs. The 1945 often gets mentioned, but although the greats like Taylor reach the pinnacle of Port, there are enough mediocre VPs today to bring the average down a drop below the other 2 mentioned. If you had asked me circa 1985-1995, I would have put 1963 in the running for sure. Now, no way.
You raise a great question about the younger vintages, which lack the longevity to prove that they will be age worthy. It is my humble opinion that all 3 will be able to go the distance. Whether or not they will ... we can discuss for the next 3 decades. But thanks for the thought provoking posting.
If I were to pick a Vintage of the Century from the 20th that is, it would certainly be the 1927 and I have had my share of 'em. I would also pick the 1948 as an almost "perfect" vintage for Port as the 3 that are readilly available are the Taylor, Fonseca and Grahams and all are simply put, ass kicking VPs. The 1945 often gets mentioned, but although the greats like Taylor reach the pinnacle of Port, there are enough mediocre VPs today to bring the average down a drop below the other 2 mentioned. If you had asked me circa 1985-1995, I would have put 1963 in the running for sure. Now, no way.
You raise a great question about the younger vintages, which lack the longevity to prove that they will be age worthy. It is my humble opinion that all 3 will be able to go the distance. Whether or not they will ... we can discuss for the next 3 decades. But thanks for the thought provoking posting.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
If it is only 20 years of off vintages that you are looking for Nikolaj, I think that is quite doable.
Yeah, well I also have other info on the great vintages, and some vary from your viewpoint.
I certainly hope so. If my viewpoint was the same as everyone else, I might as well close shop now. I am not here to be "right" and don't care if I am viewed as "wrong" on occasion. My palate is not any better than yours or the next persons. Some may agree or disagree with my tasting notes, my scores, my theory on extended decanting for VPs, my tiers of the top 30 producers and many other Port related issues and dynamics. I have no problem being controversial, but try to avoid arrogance and appologize if my post above came off that way. I was not trying to sound pompous and pushing you off. My meaning in simpler terms is that: my experience with the off vintages is nowhere near the depth of tasting that I have done with the generally declared vintages, so you might be much better off looking to other sources for that type of information. In rereading my post above, I can see why you did not get this meaning from my words. Sorry man.
And with that in mind, why at all post a "great-vintages"-chart? That is available in heaps on the net.
Exactly, but again, I am not trying to be right, I am just going on the record with my own personal beliefs about how I judge these 33 vintages. My take is different than many of the others "available in heaps" on the net. I don't think you will find too many vintage (Port) charts that rate the '66 over the '63, jor including the 1987 ... just to use two simplistic examples. Controversial? You be the judge. For me, it is about staking my claim, no different than what I did with ranking the top 30 producers. Just my opinion and people can agree or disagree or tell me that I am nuts. It is no different than doing the article on forecasting the 2000 or 2003 vintages. My views on the dozens of wines rated, will have to stand the test of time, just like the wines themselves. People are still quoting Suckling scores on wines that he rated in 1987-1989. Not that I am trying to compare myself to Mr. Suckling, by any stretch of the imagination.
I also don't see 92 as a great vintage.
Stating that without giving any reasons, does not open up any dialogue, here. I'll reserve my own opinion until you elaborate, if you choose to do so. Otherwise, all I can say is, "point taken."
BTW, I sent out many dozens of PMs last night to request that all members include their names and locations in their profile in such a way, that both will show up in every post. I have tried to have Stewart the technology brains of FTLOP, to make these mandatory fields when new ppl sign up, but with the software here, this is challenging. I like to be able to reply to Nikolaj and not nwinther or have to look up your name (or the other dozen or two folks who do not have their real name or full name or location appear in every post. Nothing personal!
My sincere thanks for a well thought out post. I enjoy provocative posts and applaud those that disagree with my views, ratings or opinions. I am not afraid to be wrong and have no problem saying so, when I am.This would be one hell of a boring place if everyone agreed with me!
Yeah, well I also have other info on the great vintages, and some vary from your viewpoint.
I certainly hope so. If my viewpoint was the same as everyone else, I might as well close shop now. I am not here to be "right" and don't care if I am viewed as "wrong" on occasion. My palate is not any better than yours or the next persons. Some may agree or disagree with my tasting notes, my scores, my theory on extended decanting for VPs, my tiers of the top 30 producers and many other Port related issues and dynamics. I have no problem being controversial, but try to avoid arrogance and appologize if my post above came off that way. I was not trying to sound pompous and pushing you off. My meaning in simpler terms is that: my experience with the off vintages is nowhere near the depth of tasting that I have done with the generally declared vintages, so you might be much better off looking to other sources for that type of information. In rereading my post above, I can see why you did not get this meaning from my words. Sorry man.
And with that in mind, why at all post a "great-vintages"-chart? That is available in heaps on the net.
Exactly, but again, I am not trying to be right, I am just going on the record with my own personal beliefs about how I judge these 33 vintages. My take is different than many of the others "available in heaps" on the net. I don't think you will find too many vintage (Port) charts that rate the '66 over the '63, jor including the 1987 ... just to use two simplistic examples. Controversial? You be the judge. For me, it is about staking my claim, no different than what I did with ranking the top 30 producers. Just my opinion and people can agree or disagree or tell me that I am nuts. It is no different than doing the article on forecasting the 2000 or 2003 vintages. My views on the dozens of wines rated, will have to stand the test of time, just like the wines themselves. People are still quoting Suckling scores on wines that he rated in 1987-1989. Not that I am trying to compare myself to Mr. Suckling, by any stretch of the imagination.
I also don't see 92 as a great vintage.
Stating that without giving any reasons, does not open up any dialogue, here. I'll reserve my own opinion until you elaborate, if you choose to do so. Otherwise, all I can say is, "point taken."
BTW, I sent out many dozens of PMs last night to request that all members include their names and locations in their profile in such a way, that both will show up in every post. I have tried to have Stewart the technology brains of FTLOP, to make these mandatory fields when new ppl sign up, but with the software here, this is challenging. I like to be able to reply to Nikolaj and not nwinther or have to look up your name (or the other dozen or two folks who do not have their real name or full name or location appear in every post. Nothing personal!
My sincere thanks for a well thought out post. I enjoy provocative posts and applaud those that disagree with my views, ratings or opinions. I am not afraid to be wrong and have no problem saying so, when I am.This would be one hell of a boring place if everyone agreed with me!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Jason G.,
I do think you should publish a full vintage chart back to 1820. Covering all vintages (including off) seems like the kind of thing that this site should have.
Sorry Jason, although it may seem like a good idea, I have plenty of fodder for articles for the next six months. Maybe someday though.
... but I bet that there countless reporters around the world that are writing Port articles each week that need filler.
Although knowing you as well as I do I realize this is all tongue in cheek. That said, I don't quite think that spending hours of my time to prepare such a detailed and historical Vintage Chart would be worthy of the "countless reporters" ... "that need filler."
I would also like to see a clickable chart that shows your reviews of individual wines for each vintage. This would really be a killer app for Port.
Finally, you make a suggestion that makes sense!
Stewart is currently working on a project that I arranged with him in collaboration with CellarTracker's founder, Eric LeVine (which rhymes with wine). All of my tasting notes on FTLOP, will soon be available to all users of CellarTracker software, worldwide. In addition to the number of tasting notes currently in the archive on this website, Stewart was given at least twice that amount (Port and Madeira) of my other tasting notes. The one's currently on this site, are only my TNs that were taken from within my archived articles. So there are many, many more to come and soon they will be secured on one of the wine world's greatest data bases.
I hope that whets your appetite, er, salivary glands. It will encourage users here to utilize CellarTracker which will then be cross-linked to this site. Should be ready to go by the end of the year if not sooner.
I do think you should publish a full vintage chart back to 1820. Covering all vintages (including off) seems like the kind of thing that this site should have.
Sorry Jason, although it may seem like a good idea, I have plenty of fodder for articles for the next six months. Maybe someday though.
... but I bet that there countless reporters around the world that are writing Port articles each week that need filler.
Although knowing you as well as I do I realize this is all tongue in cheek. That said, I don't quite think that spending hours of my time to prepare such a detailed and historical Vintage Chart would be worthy of the "countless reporters" ... "that need filler."
I would also like to see a clickable chart that shows your reviews of individual wines for each vintage. This would really be a killer app for Port.
Finally, you make a suggestion that makes sense!
Stewart is currently working on a project that I arranged with him in collaboration with CellarTracker's founder, Eric LeVine (which rhymes with wine). All of my tasting notes on FTLOP, will soon be available to all users of CellarTracker software, worldwide. In addition to the number of tasting notes currently in the archive on this website, Stewart was given at least twice that amount (Port and Madeira) of my other tasting notes. The one's currently on this site, are only my TNs that were taken from within my archived articles. So there are many, many more to come and soon they will be secured on one of the wine world's greatest data bases.
I hope that whets your appetite, er, salivary glands. It will encourage users here to utilize CellarTracker which will then be cross-linked to this site. Should be ready to go by the end of the year if not sooner.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Simon,
Thank you for your kind words re: FTLOP. I hope your Noval from '63 shows marvelously for you. I had one bottle in June that was much better than any I have had in some time. I am not a huge fan of that wine and it amazes me how much better the Nacional is from the excellent '63 vintage. The Nacional vineyard is so close in proximity, it is just one of those marvels.
Thank you for your kind words re: FTLOP. I hope your Noval from '63 shows marvelously for you. I had one bottle in June that was much better than any I have had in some time. I am not a huge fan of that wine and it amazes me how much better the Nacional is from the excellent '63 vintage. The Nacional vineyard is so close in proximity, it is just one of those marvels.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
Nikolaj Winther
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:08 am
- Location: Varde, Denmark
The reason for stating that was to eliminate any arguments regarding inconsisteicy in my reply to the list you gave of the increased number of producers in off-vintages vs. vintage quality. Had I stated that 92 was a "great" vintage (which I don't) or failed to make that note, I could be accused of being inconsistent, as the number of declarations in 92 was considerably lower than the other years. (also, considering the amount of declarations in 91 would account for the lack of declarations in 92).Roy Hersh wrote:I also don't see 92 as a great vintage.
Stating that without giving any reasons, does not open up any dialogue, here. I'll reserve my own opinion until you elaborate, if you choose to do so. Otherwise, all I can say is, "point taken."
Note: Name and such: done and done. (BTW I didn't recieve a PM - are you holding out on me roy?!!!
)What I lack in size I make up for in obnoxiousness.
Hi Roy,
I read with interest your ratings of the various vintages of Port going all the way back to 1900. Great stuff; however, I do have a question regarding the ratings of the 1991 and 1992 vintages. You ranked both as "excellent" and I was wondering if you preferred one over the other and if so why? I see that others do not like 1992 but i actually prefer the structure and fruit to 1991-
Best regards,
Jonathan Goldman
I read with interest your ratings of the various vintages of Port going all the way back to 1900. Great stuff; however, I do have a question regarding the ratings of the 1991 and 1992 vintages. You ranked both as "excellent" and I was wondering if you preferred one over the other and if so why? I see that others do not like 1992 but i actually prefer the structure and fruit to 1991-
Best regards,
Jonathan Goldman
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
It is always much easier to criticise someone's efforts, than to make the effort oneself, so I am a little reluctant to criticise Roy's hard work.
BUT.. I did find the chart a little inconsistant and over-simplified
A few observations:
1) All good things come to an end. A vintage chart should recognise not only the quality of the year at it's peak, but also it's current standing. Use of the words "fading" and "faded" would be constructive.
Examples:
1904 was a very good year, but the wines are almost dead now and could fairly be described as "faded"
1960 was also a very good year, but the wines are now past their best. Unfair I think to judge it merely as a "good" year - it got excellent reviews in the 70's and 80's - but fair to describe it as "fading".
2) The issue of which years to include has been well chewed over by others, but I would suggest calling the chart "Great years" rather than "Major declarations" - There were, after all, only 3 declarations in 1931 (because of the Great Depression, they were still struggling to sell the '27's)
3) I agree with the earlier comment about the misuse of the word "average".
I would expand the text a little - my description of the 75's would be:
"A vintage that failed to live up to expectations. Very early maturing and now fading. Drink soon."
(oh, and the revolution had nothing to do with it!)
Just my two penneth - keep up the good work Roy
BUT.. I did find the chart a little inconsistant and over-simplified
A few observations:
1) All good things come to an end. A vintage chart should recognise not only the quality of the year at it's peak, but also it's current standing. Use of the words "fading" and "faded" would be constructive.
Examples:
1904 was a very good year, but the wines are almost dead now and could fairly be described as "faded"
1960 was also a very good year, but the wines are now past their best. Unfair I think to judge it merely as a "good" year - it got excellent reviews in the 70's and 80's - but fair to describe it as "fading".
2) The issue of which years to include has been well chewed over by others, but I would suggest calling the chart "Great years" rather than "Major declarations" - There were, after all, only 3 declarations in 1931 (because of the Great Depression, they were still struggling to sell the '27's)
3) I agree with the earlier comment about the misuse of the word "average".
I would expand the text a little - my description of the 75's would be:
"A vintage that failed to live up to expectations. Very early maturing and now fading. Drink soon."
(oh, and the revolution had nothing to do with it!)
Just my two penneth - keep up the good work Roy