perceptions of very old Port vintages

[Glenn E.]

Let's have another go at a topic that's been discussed many times... but this time from a slightly different angle.

This past weekend in Las Vegas, a few of us re-raised the old debate between 1983 and 1985.  1985 clearly has a handful of Ports that are better than anything 1983 can offer, but our general consensus (though not unanimous) was that 1983 as a whole was a better vintage because 1985 drops off pretty quickly after that top handful. That's been debated many times, and isn't the point of this thread.

So here's the point... we then started wondering how the vintages will be remembered in history.  Is a vintage remembered primarily for its best Ports, or for the quality of all Ports produced during the vintage? I.e., which will history conclude was the greater vintage - 1985 for its top handful, or 1983 for its better overall quality?

We talked about other very famous vintages like 1927, 1931, and 1945, and wondered... we've only really ever tasted the best Ports from those vintages because those are the only Ports that have survived this long.  So were those vintages really as great as they seem to be?  Or are we in essence only looking at the top 5 Ports from 1985, 30-40 years from now, and declaring that the vintage was awesome?  In another 30-40 years the only Ports from 1985 that will still be around in any quantity will be Fonseca and Graham, and then probably also some Dow, Warre, and Taylor.  Maybe some Gould Campbell?  But only the best will have survived, and we pondered whether or not those survivors might give future Port drinkers the perception that 1985 was "one for the ages" when, in fact, it's pretty mundane beyond the top 5 or so VPs.

Don't get me wrong, there will likely still be a few Ports around from 1983 as well. Graham, Dow, and Ramos Pinto will all likely still be alive and kickin' in 30 more years. But there wasn't as much Port made in 1983, and it is generally perceived as being a lesser vintage (than 1985), so I expect people will drink more of it sooner, thus limiting the supply that lives to 70-80 years old.

So in 30-40 years when these vintages reach 70-80 years old (the rough equivalent of us drinking 1945 now), what will those future Port fanatics think of these 2 vintages?

We judge 1927, 1931, and 1945 based on the Ports we have available. But from what I've heard, 1931 may actually be similar to 1985 in that there were only a handful of really good Ports, and of course the two legendary Ports from Quinta do Noval. So are those Ports clouding our judgement of the vintage as a whole? And will that happen to Port fanatics in the future?

What do you think?

[Lucas S]

Even now in other forums (such as reddit) people seem to overrate '85 vs '83 because of Graham and Fonseca. The top end VPs definitely have a lot of weight because it is only they which "survive" the ages.

I would posit that in the future everyone will have access to more information (as is always the trend) so those who are informed will recognize the breadth of '83 and would have the same nuanced view of the two vintages that you do, but newcomers might only know about the top '85 Ports and perceive it as better.

They may also overlook the 80s for not being all that great (much like we kind of overlook the 50s).

[Eric Ifune]

How many great 31's are there? That said, not many declared 31 since there was a lot of 27 in the pipeline. I think we all judge these really old vintages through rose tinted lens.

[Eric Menchen]

So Vintage Port is a new area of study for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[Moses Botbol]

Even now in other forums (such as reddit) people seem to overrate '85 vs '83 because of Graham and Fonseca. The top end VPs definitely have a lot of weight because it is only they which "survive" the ages.

I put both vintages as near equals. I would not value one over the other. Yes, '85 Fonseca is better than '83, but not the case with Graham, Ferreira, Ramos Pinto and several others. I'd pay equal for either vintage should I have an opportunity to buy more.

[Glenn E.]

So Vintage Port is a new area of study for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Heh, yes it is!

Even now in other forums (such as reddit) people seem to overrate '85 vs '83 because of Graham and Fonseca. The top end VPs definitely have a lot of weight because it is only they which "survive" the ages.

I put both vintages as near equals. I would not value one over the other. Yes, '85 Fonseca is better than '83, but not the case with Graham, Ferreira, Ramos Pinto and several others. I'd pay equal for either vintage should I have an opportunity to buy more.

That's probably a better way to put it. I sometimes give very different Ports the same score, and have been asked how I can do that. My response has always been that I like them equally, but for different reasons.

I guess that applies to 1983 and 1985, too!

[John M.]

What an awesome topic! So Philosophical and Scientific.

I would say this: We are trying to identify GREAT. But define that. Is a Whole Lot of Good (i.e. a deep bench) a Great Year? Or is it that Producing 2 great Ports a great year. I would proffer that from our perspective, a deep bench is a great year the the 85 has great ports.

To equate this to Baseball, a team with 8 Keith Hernandez types (v. good but not Hall of Famers) with a pitching staff of Dave Stewarts probably wins the pennant most years and would be a great team. A team with 7 nobodys and Willie Mays and Bob Gibson and nobody else of note to pitch finishes 4th--that is not a great team, but has great players. But in 40 years people will be looking up Willie and Bob's stats! That's why the 1927 Yankees are revered---yes they had Ruth & Gehrig, but also Lazzeri, Meusel, Combs, Pennock, Hoyt and Shocker---4 of those plus Ruth and Gehrig are in the HOF so they had both great players and a great team.

[Al B.]

I think I agree with John on this topic. For a vintage to be a “great vintage” in my mind it’s got to be a year when I can come across a bottle and think “I’ve never heard of that producer but it’s from Vintage X so I’m going to buy it.” and then when I open it I’m not disappointed.

From the last 125 years I’ll list the vintages which I’d think this as 1908, 1912, 1927, 1945, 1948, 1955, 1970, 1994 and 2011. I’m open to arguments about 1934/5 but the other vintages are ones where I’d buy based on the shipper, but not just buy indiscriminately.

[Moses Botbol]

I think I agree with John on this topic. For a vintage to be a “great vintage” in my mind it’s got to be a year when I can come across a bottle and think “I’ve never heard of that producer but it’s from Vintage X so I’m going to buy it.” and then when I open it I’m not disappointed.

From the last 125 years I’ll list the vintages which I’d think this as 1908, 1912, 1927, 1945, 1948, 1955, 1970, 1994 and 2011. I’m open to arguments about 1934/5 but the other vintages are ones where I’d buy based on the shipper, but not just buy indiscriminately.

I take it there are several shippers you'd skip on the 1963 vintage?

[Al B.]

I think I agree with John on this topic. For a vintage to be a “great vintage” in my mind it’s got to be a year when I can come across a bottle and think “I’ve never heard of that producer but it’s from Vintage X so I’m going to buy it.” and then when I open it I’m not disappointed.

From the last 125 years I’ll list the vintages which I’d think this as 1908, 1912, 1927, 1945, 1948, 1955, 1970, 1994 and 2011. I’m open to arguments about 1934/5 but the other vintages are ones where I’d buy based on the shipper, but not just buy indiscriminately.

I take it there are several shippers you'd skip on the 1963 vintage?

Would you like a list?

[Roy Hersh]

John M. wrote:

I would say this: We are trying to identify GREAT. But define that. Is a Whole Lot of Good (i.e. a deep bench) a Great Year? Or is it that Producing 2 great Ports a great year. I would proffer that from our perspective, a deep bench is a great year the the 85 has great ports.

And this statement was seconded by Alex.

I agree with them both.

The 1983 Vintage, for my palate ... has some solid performers. But NONE are arguably extraordinary in any way. The Cockburn's when perfect (untainted) bottles showed up, was about as good as any. It ranged between 93/94 for me, with lots of lower scores too, and just one 95 ... which in retrospect, having had this FAR more often than my TNs would show, it did not deserve. Anyway, Regardless of points, IF that was my high bar for 1983, then with the half dozen I can think of that are "almost" as good, it is a fairly mediocre year overall. And NONE of the 1983s, are going to get any better than they are at 40+ years of age. I can't think of one where I would say to myself or any Port lover, "I'd love to revisit that VP in 20 more years."

1983 is "kinda like" 1947. I appears between the incredible 1945 and 1948 vintages. But in comparison to both ... and I've done a bunch of 1947s in a row at a tasting a little before Covid, and there were some that were still drinking quite nicely, but none that compete with the top 10 of 1945, or the top bottles from 1948.

Alex put together a very solid list of great years. My addition to his excellent list would be 1966. For me, I am very rarely disappointed by any 1966 that I have had in the past 3-10 years. They have held up pretty great and typically it is due to an "off bottle" more than anything else, when I have been let down. But back to the point of discussion!

1985 has more really solid VPs than Glenn listed, but it does start with the GC which he mentioned which has caught me off guard the last two times I have had it, blind. I think it is up there with the top VPs of the vintage NOT named Fonseca and Graham's. But others that are still quite excellent (93 or better) are Warre's, Niepoort, JH Andresen, Smith Woodhouse, and against my better judgement ... Taylor's the last couple of bottles were in great condition, (both from TFP stock) and much better than my earlier impressions which kept me from EVER buying a single bottle.

So for my palate, a much deeper bench than 1983. Will any make it 30-40 MORE years of age? Probably only 3 or 4 in total. But for me, 1985 is the winner hands down vs. 1983, which is all about elegance, but won't make for long lived VPs and never showed the depth of structure that 1985's had when younger. One man's opinion.

[Lucas S]

What about the whole idea that '87 should perhaps have been more widely declared?

I know Glenn really likes the Vargellas from that year. But is there anything else of note there, that is perhaps on par with the better '83s?

[Eric Menchen]

What about the whole idea that '87 should perhaps have been more widely declared? ...

I just had 1987 Cockburns Quinta do Tua and it was quite nice. And then there is the outstanding 1987 Niepoort Garrafeira--but that's a different animal from a regular VP or SQVP.

[Glenn E.]

What about the whole idea that '87 should perhaps have been more widely declared?

I know Glenn really likes the Vargellas from that year. But is there anything else of note there, that is perhaps on par with the better '83s?

Graham's Malvedos is also excellent (along with the Cockburn and Niepoort that Eric mentioned), and the Porto Souza is a very pleasant surprise.

Part of the problem is that VP from 1987 is a little hard to find, but I think every one that I have tried has been at last very good if not excellent.

As far as Roy's claim that 1985 has more solid Ports than what I listed earlier... I just haven't seen it. There are 2, possibly 3 that might qualify as outstanding, then another 4-5 that might qualify as excellent, and then the rest are pretty meh. And that's based on experience and blind horizontals. 1983 on the other hand has nothing that I would regularly call outstanding (though Graham and Ramos Pinto can reach that occasionally), but it has 8-10 that are regularly excellent for me. And then the drop off after that isn't as abrupt as it is in 1985. So overall the average quality of 1983 has been a little better than 1985 for me, but 1985 does have that small handful that can be truly wonderful.

[Moses Botbol]

1985 has more really solid VPs than Glenn listed, but it does start with the GC which he mentioned which has caught me off guard the last two times I have had it, blind. I think it is up there with the top VPs of the vintage NOT named Fonseca and Graham's. But others that are still quite excellent (93 or better) are Warre's, Niepoort, JH Andresen, Smith Woodhouse, and against my better judgement ... Taylor's the last couple of bottles were in great condition, (both from TFP stock) and much better than my earlier impressions which kept me from EVER buying a single bottle.

I have a great case of '85 Taylor and would put that up against any bottle of the vintage. I don't know if I am there with '85 Croft. The last bottle was better than expected, but I am not putting it in high esteem just yet.

A similar sentiment could be said for '75 and '77 Grahams. Passed over at one point, but worth it if you bought when they were around for good price.

[Frederick Blais]

An interesting topic Glenn,

So many things I'd like to say as well. I'll try to keep it short and concise.

It is really hard to compare what will happen with Ports produced nowadays vs those we have been lucky enough to sample from the 30's 40's.

A few facts to consider
-Back in the days, Vintage was a blend from shippers. Today I think only Andresen remains a true shipper. While other companies still buy grapes from small grower, they do not buy finished Port to be assembled.
-Small family are now keeping their production and since Portugal joined European Union, they can now bottle and sell their wines from the Douro valley.
-Ratings! I'd say that many producers are now considering how many points their wine will get vs the aging potential or evolution potential of the wine. Our society wants everything now, Port is no longer avoiding this.
-Weather, viticulture, technology. Today it is easier to predict and to farm(while still hard) hence obtaining a crop with the potential to declare a Vintage from years we would not consider in the past.
-Grapes variety and mixed plantation. Viticulture in the Douro nowadays does not have much in comon from what was going on before the 70's.
-With all the small growers and the big ones consolidating, the concept of "General declaration" or "Vintage Year" is almost irrelevant. The IVDP simply approves based on the quality of the wine which is very easy to get a Vintage approved. With the previous point, this is why many producers are now declaring a vintage almost every year.
-Just like any wine region in the world, there will be great wines and not so good ones. Even in Bordeaux some 1st Growth are not as consistant as otheres... you can find very bad Grand Cru in Burgundy. Same thing with Vintage, some will go the distance, others won't!
-There will always be those little gems from what we thought off years or those great wines from a great year disapointing. For me 1966 is a good example, they have grown to be so much better than the 1963 that was getting all the rave on release.

Regarding viticulture, I'll quote a viticultor from the Douro. "I used to think my father was the best winemaker in the Douro. His Port were amazing, the best ones! Then when I joined his company, I started to make Port and I was very disapointed. I realized my father was a great winemaker because he was using the amazing vineyards my grandfather planted. I was failing because of the engeniring of the vineyard my father did. I realized that once I isolated the old vineyards and start to make a Port only from it. Suddenly, the magic appeared to my eyes"

Not words for words but this for me explains a lot of the differences and I think today some companies understand that introducing back some of the old school way of vineyard management is very important: from diversity to stone terraces.

Few people mention it as a stellar vintage year like the 94 or 2011, but I believe 2000 delivers high quality and consistency! One of my favorite, the wines are ageing very slowly too. 2009, 2015 some hidden gems in those recent year.

[Andreas Platt]

An interesting topic Glenn,

So many things I'd like to say as well. I'll try to keep it short and concise.

It is really hard to compare what will happen with Ports produced nowadays vs those we have been lucky enough to sample from the 30's 40's.

A few facts to consider
-Back in the days, Vintage was a blend from shippers. Today I think only Andresen remains a true shipper. While other companies still buy grapes from small grower, they do not buy finished Port to be assembled.
-Small family are now keeping their production and since Portugal joined European Union, they can now bottle and sell their wines from the Douro valley.
-Ratings! I'd say that many producers are now considering how many points their wine will get vs the aging potential or evolution potential of the wine. Our society wants everything now, Port is no longer avoiding this.
-Weather, viticulture, technology. Today it is easier to predict and to farm(while still hard) hence obtaining a crop with the potential to declare a Vintage from years we would not consider in the past.
-Grapes variety and mixed plantation. Viticulture in the Douro nowadays does not have much in comon from what was going on before the 70's.
-With all the small growers and the big ones consolidating, the concept of "General declaration" or "Vintage Year" is almost irrelevant. The IVDP simply approves based on the quality of the wine which is very easy to get a Vintage approved. With the previous point, this is why many producers are now declaring a vintage almost every year.
-Just like any wine region in the world, there will be great wines and not so good ones. Even in Bordeaux some 1st Growth are not as consistant as otheres... you can find very bad Grand Cru in Burgundy. Same thing with Vintage, some will go the distance, others won't!
-There will always be those little gems from what we thought off years or those great wines from a great year disapointing. For me 1966 is a good example, they have grown to be so much better than the 1963 that was getting all the rave on release.

Regarding viticulture, I'll quote a viticultor from the Douro. "I used to think my father was the best winemaker in the Douro. His Port were amazing, the best ones! Then when I joined his company, I started to make Port and I was very disapointed. I realized my father was a great winemaker because he was using the amazing vineyards my grandfather planted. I was failing because of the engeniring of the vineyard my father did. I realized that once I isolated the old vineyards and start to make a Port only from it. Suddenly, the magic appeared to my eyes"

Not words for words but this for me explains a lot of the differences and I think today some companies understand that introducing back some of the old school way of vineyard management is very important: from diversity to stone terraces.

Few people mention it as a stellar vintage year like the 94 or 2011, but I believe 2000 delivers high quality and consistency! One of my favorite, the wines are ageing very slowly too. 2009, 2015 some hidden gems in those recent year.

Dear Frederick!

Many thanks or those indeed very interesting thoughts!!!

Lots of things are being brought up here, some details I wasn't aware of.

Obrigado

Andy

[Alan Gardner]

I've been fortunate enough to try many of these 'great Vintages'.
EVERY 27 has been superb - and I've had several bottles of 'unknown shipper' so that vintage gets my vote!
Limited exposure to 1931, although I have had several bottles of the 1931 - more than 60 years later, and it was still solid but no better than the 1934 (which I acquired at the same time) - so I'd call 31 as a 'unicorn' for the Noval, rather than a safe year.
Another 'Unicorn' was the 47 Taylor (again a superb wine - not necessarily a great Vintage).
Both 45 and 48 were excellent (agian I've had several 48's that were unknown Producers) but dominated by taylor and Fonseca (I've had limited exposure to other shippers - some may recall the Noval I brought to Seattle several years (?decades) back.
For me, 1955 deserves to be in the 'top 3' - multiple bottles from multiple shippers (Fonseca my favourite but Martinez was also spectacular).
1963 was never my favorite - I ALWAYS preferrred 1966 - never had a bad 66 and that extended to the middle-lower ranked Producers. For sheer enjoyment (and value) my 'best year ever' (even half-bottles 40 years on). Sadly, all gone now (more accurately I have enjoyed EVERY bottle).

On 83/85, I found the 85's more enjoyable, but somewhat simpler than the 83's. Most 85's seem to be over-the-hill now, although the Taylor 85 I had earlier this month showed excellently [I originally found it over-alcoholed (if that's a word), but that alcohol has now integrated well]. The 1983's had more structure, but less fruit so were more interesting 'intellectually'.

As for the excellent criterion of 'what vintages would I buy from a minor/unknown shipper?' [Thanks Al B]

I'd grab any 27, 55 or 66 (assuming the price was acceptable). Probably a 31 'for interest's sake'.
!908 and 1912 are over-the-hill now (IMO) - people who like Tawnies may disagree!

And as an additional comment (rule of thumb) I'd choose Fonseca as my favorite shipper for anything up to 1985. And Dow as my go-to for anything after 1985!