port producer tiers
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
-
Andy Velebil
- Posts: 16635
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
As for more producers making SQVP's in non-major declared years...that is fine by me. It allows a much larger range of quality each year for me to find some good mid-term drinkers, at good prices. And if this happens to allow the Port companies to make some money and hopefully but that back into their company to make even better classic VP's, colheita's, etc., then I'm all for it.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Derek,Is there any evidence that more SVQP's are being produced by the major houses? If you look back across the past 50 years you will find Vargellas, Malvedos, Bomfim, Guimaraens etc in almost every non-classic vintage year.
To answer your question .. YES there is proof positive.
Taylor's Quinta de Terra Feita bottlings go back to the 1980s and the same can be said for Fonseca's Panascal ... neither goes back more than 2 decades (producing VP under their own label) to my knowledge. I could be wrong as this is random off the cuff thoughts. Other newer bottlings are from Sandeman's Quinta do Vau, Dow's Senhora da Ribiera, Smith Woodhouse's Madelena and these 5 old traditionalists are right off the top of my head, as I am sure there must be more.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Derek,
There is a distinction which you seem to be overlooking. I forgive you because it is very late at night there.
Your quote and point centered on MAJOR HOUSES. Andy's didn't. It is like comparing apples to chairs.
There is a distinction which you seem to be overlooking. I forgive you because it is very late at night there.
Andy is right on. There are MANY more producers making SQVPs nowadays: Pacheca, Tedo, Vista Alegre, Pintas, Jordoes and dozens of others. He said NOTHING about traditional Port Shippers.Andy wrote: As for more producers making SQVP's in non-major declared years...that is fine by me.
Your quote and point centered on MAJOR HOUSES. Andy's didn't. It is like comparing apples to chairs.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
There is only so much peanut butter that I am willing to put up with. :blah:
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
dave leach
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: watchung, New Jersey, United States of America - USA
port tier producers
wow, this one kind of flew off the tracks.
i was not suggesting a tier system in portugal, but we all put things in boxes in our minds to make it easier to process, especially when you've hit your 50s like i have. i was simply trying to get a fix from the
'collective port wisdom" crew on how certain producers are viewed by the historical quality of their product line.
i think sandeman is in no way even a 2nd tier house, based on my drinking history of their vps. although i love grahams, i think they've had too much bottle variation over the years to be put into the same class as taylor or fonseca. i think dows vps have stood the test of time and are as cellar worthy as most any vp.
i was looking more for insights such as this from our forum friends.
roy, i've tried a bunch of niepoort over the years, but i can't argue with your personal tasting history with that house. i wish more was available from auction or on line merchants--i simply never see them for sale, but i sure would love to taste some older vintages to see what you're raving about.
i was not suggesting a tier system in portugal, but we all put things in boxes in our minds to make it easier to process, especially when you've hit your 50s like i have. i was simply trying to get a fix from the
'collective port wisdom" crew on how certain producers are viewed by the historical quality of their product line.
i think sandeman is in no way even a 2nd tier house, based on my drinking history of their vps. although i love grahams, i think they've had too much bottle variation over the years to be put into the same class as taylor or fonseca. i think dows vps have stood the test of time and are as cellar worthy as most any vp.
i was looking more for insights such as this from our forum friends.
roy, i've tried a bunch of niepoort over the years, but i can't argue with your personal tasting history with that house. i wish more was available from auction or on line merchants--i simply never see them for sale, but i sure would love to taste some older vintages to see what you're raving about.
David,
I think that the best way to make assessments of a Shippers VPs is either to taste a plethora of their wines over an extended period of time, have multiple visits to their Lodge/Quinta, or best of all ... participate in deep vertical tastings.
The latter method is the one that I find most helpful to augment the rest of my tasting experience with a producer. For example, in the current newsletter, I have an article within the Harvest Tour summary which has a Vesuvio vertical. Now, I had tried all but two of the vintages, most on several occasions. But experiencing them side-by-side showed me more about the house style and peculiarities of each vintage, far better than all my other experiences combined.
Here are the Shippers that I have participated in vertical tastings with at least 8 and up to 22 vintages. Verticals enjoyed in the past 3 years are highlighted:
1. Quinta do Noval Nacional
2. Fonseca
3. Taylor
4. Graham
5. Niepoort
6. Dow
7. Quinta do Noval
11. Quinta do Vesuvio
13. Ferreira
14. Quinta de Vargellas
17. Quinta do Crasto
18. Offley Forrester (and Boa Vista)
David, one question that intrigues me. Which pre-1970 vintages of Sandeman have you tried?
I think that the best way to make assessments of a Shippers VPs is either to taste a plethora of their wines over an extended period of time, have multiple visits to their Lodge/Quinta, or best of all ... participate in deep vertical tastings.
The latter method is the one that I find most helpful to augment the rest of my tasting experience with a producer. For example, in the current newsletter, I have an article within the Harvest Tour summary which has a Vesuvio vertical. Now, I had tried all but two of the vintages, most on several occasions. But experiencing them side-by-side showed me more about the house style and peculiarities of each vintage, far better than all my other experiences combined.
Here are the Shippers that I have participated in vertical tastings with at least 8 and up to 22 vintages. Verticals enjoyed in the past 3 years are highlighted:
1. Quinta do Noval Nacional
2. Fonseca
3. Taylor
4. Graham
5. Niepoort
6. Dow
7. Quinta do Noval
11. Quinta do Vesuvio
13. Ferreira
14. Quinta de Vargellas
17. Quinta do Crasto
18. Offley Forrester (and Boa Vista)
David, one question that intrigues me. Which pre-1970 vintages of Sandeman have you tried?
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
dave leach
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: watchung, New Jersey, United States of America - USA
port producer tiers
i've tried the 1966, and the 1963 vintages within the last couple years, and the 77 most recently. the 77 had the most fruit, but i thought was still past it's prime. the 60 and especially the 66 were paled out. very little fruit left, had turned brickish in color, and had more of a woody, dry, alcoholic, tawny taste.
also, i've had friends who've had little success with sandemans too. i admit my personal tasting experiences are rather limited, but you do tend to form an opinion of a producer over time, through your own experiences and those of people who you trust.
granted it may be limited, but it's real, it's mine, and i can't help but have a low opinion based on these recent experiences. plus, if i was way off, wouldn't the auction/online prices be higher, more in line with similiar, 2nd tier houses? this doesn't seem to be the case.
i sense your dander's up on this one!
dave
also, i've had friends who've had little success with sandemans too. i admit my personal tasting experiences are rather limited, but you do tend to form an opinion of a producer over time, through your own experiences and those of people who you trust.
granted it may be limited, but it's real, it's mine, and i can't help but have a low opinion based on these recent experiences. plus, if i was way off, wouldn't the auction/online prices be higher, more in line with similiar, 2nd tier houses? this doesn't seem to be the case.
i sense your dander's up on this one!
dave
I'm going to chip into this conversation now with my view. I don't have a copy of the last en primeur offer for Vintage Port that I received, but I recall that it was quite distinctly differentiated. No-one called the different tiers "premier crus" or any such fancy name, but there was a clear distinction based on price. The distinction was something along the lines of:
Quinta do Noval Nacional
Vargellas Vinha Velha
Talyor
Fonseca
Graham
Noval
Dow
Niepoort
Warre
Vesuvio
Gould Campbell
Churchill
Smith Woodhouse
Lots of other shippers who I can't remember
To my mind, although there may not be an official designation of quality among producers, the market clearly does differentiate between labels and brands, giving a clear premium to three of the labels and a significantly larger premium to two others.
Alex
Quinta do Noval Nacional
Vargellas Vinha Velha
Talyor
Fonseca
Graham
Noval
Dow
Niepoort
Warre
Vesuvio
Gould Campbell
Churchill
Smith Woodhouse
Lots of other shippers who I can't remember
To my mind, although there may not be an official designation of quality among producers, the market clearly does differentiate between labels and brands, giving a clear premium to three of the labels and a significantly larger premium to two others.
Alex
Last edited by Al B. on Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
A total of four vintages produced inside of a decade, is not depth enough for me to count a Shipper in a top tier. Therefore, the Vargellas Vinha Velha is not a Port that I would consider worthy at this point. 1995/1997/2000/2004 is just too small of a body of work.
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:
Alex,
Talking purely in quality v price terms I think the first two you mention can be discounted from all the others. QdNN and TVVV are oddities that buyers will pay a premium for based of rarity rather than or in addition to quality.
The 3 that you mention in your tp tier, Taylor, Fonseca and Graham are difficult to argue with based on historic performance over 100 years.
My main concern would be for everything below these 3. Lots of these occasionally step uo and challenge the top 3 but all of them can compete with one another with fairly random results. I would not like to see a glass ceiling created between any of these layers, especially the one's below your top trio.
Derek
Talking purely in quality v price terms I think the first two you mention can be discounted from all the others. QdNN and TVVV are oddities that buyers will pay a premium for based of rarity rather than or in addition to quality.
The 3 that you mention in your tp tier, Taylor, Fonseca and Graham are difficult to argue with based on historic performance over 100 years.
My main concern would be for everything below these 3. Lots of these occasionally step uo and challenge the top 3 but all of them can compete with one another with fairly random results. I would not like to see a glass ceiling created between any of these layers, especially the one's below your top trio.
Derek
-
Todd Pettinger
- Posts: 2022
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:59 am
- Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
i've tried the 1966, and the 1963 vintages within the last couple years, and the 77 most recently. the 77 had the most fruit, but i thought was still past it's prime. the 60 and especially the 66 were paled out. very little fruit left, had turned brickish in color, and had more of a woody, dry, alcoholic, tawny taste.
also, i've had friends who've had little success with sandemans too. i admit my personal tasting experiences are rather limited, but you do tend to form an opinion of a producer over time, through your own experiences and those of people who you trust.
granted it may be limited, but it's real, it's mine, and i can't help but have a low opinion based on these recent experiences. plus, if i was way off, wouldn't the auction/online prices be higher, more in line with similiar, 2nd tier houses? this doesn't seem to be the case.
i sense your dander's up on this one!
I have had very different experiences with Sandeman. 1904 was still amazing, 1911 and 1917 were delcious old tawnies with structure still intact in 1995 and 1998 respectively. I have consumed 11 bottles of 1935 Sandeman and all but one were fantastic! I have had the '34, '42 and '45 all of which were lively and delcious and the '55 is my favorite of the vintage along with Fonseca. Never have had the '60 but the '63 is the Sandeman and the Vintage Port, that got me started drinking Port.
I worked at The Water Club in NYC that had this on a Cruvinet by the glass in the early 1980s. It was fabulous and for another 15 years it showed beautifully. Circa 1997, I started to notice a significant change in the '63 as it had actually swung past peak. Numerous bottles from various sources showed the same way. I was quite bummed. In 1996 I had opened a bottle for my father's 70th and it was already turning Tawny and still had a slight pinkish tinge to the center.
Now onto the 1966, a Sandeman which I have always enjoyed. It sometimes shows a bit of alcohol protruding but otherwise is medium ruby in color and has plenty of fruit left. I have had six or seven since 2004 and many more in the past. It is consistent and around 91-93 points depending on the bottle.
The 1977 is enjoyable but not up to speed with others from that vintage. Between 1967 and 1992 Sandeman had hit a dry spell for a quarter of a century. That inconsistency really hurt the company which was sold twice during those years. Fortunately George Sandeman regained some control until SEagram's sold to Sogrape. He is still very involved and quality has gone up. 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003 Vintage Ports have all been solid citizens.
Admittedly, I am quite friendly with Mr. Sandeman but I could say the same about many if not most of the Port producers. But that does not get in the way of my judgement about the Ports as I have been critical about some quite publicly and in 1995 went on about the decline in quality of Founder's Reserve which at one time was a very fine and inexpensive cuvee. Under Seagram's direction, the crop yields were substantially increased in the vineyards designated for that bottling and quantity games took over quality sensibilities.
To make a long story short, I definitely do not have my dander up about this one, but often times ... the reputations of Port producers have been spoken about in damaging terms here with folks who have had as little as zero personal tasting experience with the actual wines. I had no idea if you had tasted ANY or had tried 10 vintages. No way to know without asking that question. As long as you have some basis for your opinion, that is all that counts for me. When someone bashes a brand (which you did not do) and then writes, "yeah, I read about them in _____________ " or "my friends tried a bottle last week and hated it" ... that is what would get my dander up.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this openly Dave!
also, i've had friends who've had little success with sandemans too. i admit my personal tasting experiences are rather limited, but you do tend to form an opinion of a producer over time, through your own experiences and those of people who you trust.
granted it may be limited, but it's real, it's mine, and i can't help but have a low opinion based on these recent experiences. plus, if i was way off, wouldn't the auction/online prices be higher, more in line with similiar, 2nd tier houses? this doesn't seem to be the case.
i sense your dander's up on this one!
I have had very different experiences with Sandeman. 1904 was still amazing, 1911 and 1917 were delcious old tawnies with structure still intact in 1995 and 1998 respectively. I have consumed 11 bottles of 1935 Sandeman and all but one were fantastic! I have had the '34, '42 and '45 all of which were lively and delcious and the '55 is my favorite of the vintage along with Fonseca. Never have had the '60 but the '63 is the Sandeman and the Vintage Port, that got me started drinking Port.
I worked at The Water Club in NYC that had this on a Cruvinet by the glass in the early 1980s. It was fabulous and for another 15 years it showed beautifully. Circa 1997, I started to notice a significant change in the '63 as it had actually swung past peak. Numerous bottles from various sources showed the same way. I was quite bummed. In 1996 I had opened a bottle for my father's 70th and it was already turning Tawny and still had a slight pinkish tinge to the center.
Now onto the 1966, a Sandeman which I have always enjoyed. It sometimes shows a bit of alcohol protruding but otherwise is medium ruby in color and has plenty of fruit left. I have had six or seven since 2004 and many more in the past. It is consistent and around 91-93 points depending on the bottle.
The 1977 is enjoyable but not up to speed with others from that vintage. Between 1967 and 1992 Sandeman had hit a dry spell for a quarter of a century. That inconsistency really hurt the company which was sold twice during those years. Fortunately George Sandeman regained some control until SEagram's sold to Sogrape. He is still very involved and quality has gone up. 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003 Vintage Ports have all been solid citizens.
Admittedly, I am quite friendly with Mr. Sandeman but I could say the same about many if not most of the Port producers. But that does not get in the way of my judgement about the Ports as I have been critical about some quite publicly and in 1995 went on about the decline in quality of Founder's Reserve which at one time was a very fine and inexpensive cuvee. Under Seagram's direction, the crop yields were substantially increased in the vineyards designated for that bottling and quantity games took over quality sensibilities.
To make a long story short, I definitely do not have my dander up about this one, but often times ... the reputations of Port producers have been spoken about in damaging terms here with folks who have had as little as zero personal tasting experience with the actual wines. I had no idea if you had tasted ANY or had tried 10 vintages. No way to know without asking that question. As long as you have some basis for your opinion, that is all that counts for me. When someone bashes a brand (which you did not do) and then writes, "yeah, I read about them in _____________ " or "my friends tried a bottle last week and hated it" ... that is what would get my dander up.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this openly Dave!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
dave leach
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: watchung, New Jersey, United States of America - USA
port producer tiers
and all this started with a few glasses of port a month ago! your experience with sandeman does give me reason to pause a bit. i'm on this site to learn and absorb as much as i can about about port. i make 99% of my current purchases based on my own experiences, and the opinions of you and the cast of characters here at ftlop. i've stayed away from certain houses or bottlings based on the feedback of the collective port wisdom here, and i've purchased quite a bit too.
most of the port i'm purchasing right now are the 70, 77, 80, 83, 85,91 vintages, and a few 94s. i'm 52 years old, i think those are the years that best match up with my remaining drinking years and my budget. and you've got admit, those are not good sandeman years. i know at one time they were considered a very good port house, but it's my opinion that was based on mid century and older vps, which your last post bears out. i truly wish we had more great 2nd tier producers like dows--they are still a great wine AND a value,relative to taylor and fonseca, and their wines are ageing
very gracefully.
i hope the current owners of sandeman realize it is a brand that is worth saving, and you're right, i believe they've made better port the last 10 years.
most of the port i'm purchasing right now are the 70, 77, 80, 83, 85,91 vintages, and a few 94s. i'm 52 years old, i think those are the years that best match up with my remaining drinking years and my budget. and you've got admit, those are not good sandeman years. i know at one time they were considered a very good port house, but it's my opinion that was based on mid century and older vps, which your last post bears out. i truly wish we had more great 2nd tier producers like dows--they are still a great wine AND a value,relative to taylor and fonseca, and their wines are ageing
very gracefully.
i hope the current owners of sandeman realize it is a brand that is worth saving, and you're right, i believe they've made better port the last 10 years.
Dave
I've watched this thread with interest. And I feel as though I'm picking up another little nugget of Port information.
What I want to say, is not about the subject, of which I dont know anything other than what you guys have said, but about how you say it.
Roy cover your ears a minute!!
I haven't been fortunate enough to meet Roy yet, so I dont know what he like as a human being, I'm sure he's a gent. What I do know is he has a remarkable and interesting knowledge of Port and we're fortunate he set up this Forum.
Having said that, he's not infallible, opinions are by there nature, varied and individual. I'm sure he loves imparting his knowledge in the hope of convincing others of his opinions and thoughts. With a bit of luck, he learns a little himself as he goes along.
It is imperative that others, like you and me, express our opinions, and dont just accept his word as Gospel. Many times he has convinced me to take his point of view, but its after exploring the issue and the introduction of many facts I didn't know. I enjoy learning that way, so much more than if he'd just written a book and I'd read it.
So as long as we are all respectful of each other, and friendly, you keep having opinions and fearlessly throwing them in. No need to apologise or feel uncomfortable, or feel over-awed, just enjoy the knowledge, you and others like me gain from it!
My, that was a long Post about nothing!
You Can Listen Again Roy!
Alan
I've watched this thread with interest. And I feel as though I'm picking up another little nugget of Port information.
What I want to say, is not about the subject, of which I dont know anything other than what you guys have said, but about how you say it.
Roy cover your ears a minute!!
I haven't been fortunate enough to meet Roy yet, so I dont know what he like as a human being, I'm sure he's a gent. What I do know is he has a remarkable and interesting knowledge of Port and we're fortunate he set up this Forum.
Having said that, he's not infallible, opinions are by there nature, varied and individual. I'm sure he loves imparting his knowledge in the hope of convincing others of his opinions and thoughts. With a bit of luck, he learns a little himself as he goes along.
It is imperative that others, like you and me, express our opinions, and dont just accept his word as Gospel. Many times he has convinced me to take his point of view, but its after exploring the issue and the introduction of many facts I didn't know. I enjoy learning that way, so much more than if he'd just written a book and I'd read it.
So as long as we are all respectful of each other, and friendly, you keep having opinions and fearlessly throwing them in. No need to apologise or feel uncomfortable, or feel over-awed, just enjoy the knowledge, you and others like me gain from it!
My, that was a long Post about nothing!
You Can Listen Again Roy!
Alan