What is the BEST vintage for Port in the past 15 years?

[Jay Powers]

I voted 2000, although I probably do not have enough experience observing ports mature to make a strong statement about it. I really enjoy the '94 vintage as a whole, but wonder where they will be a little down the road. I own a lot and will happily drink some of them now and believe that I will enjoy them far into the future. But 2000 seems like a little less fruit and a little more tannins, what I think that people sometimes refer to as a more "classic" vintage...a little dryer to start, perhaps more balanced.

I guess time will tell

Jay

[Roy Hersh]

Jay,

Do you remember the tannins in the 1994 Fonseca and even more so, the Taylor we just had, no less the Dow VP? I don't think you are going to have to worry about some of the bigger and brighter names, but there were not many bad 1994s made from what I've tasted. Then again, I don't see all of them aging as well as the top dozen.

[Jay Powers]

Yes, I do remember, and agree most will age quite well...the more I think about it in context of our recent tasting, the top ones certainly have the tannins and acidity to make the long haul. But somehow I still think of the 2000's as more balanced.

The problem I have is that I was born in 1965, and cannot make any meanignful comparison to how the 63's or 66's were drinking young, much less '55 or '45, or even really the '70 and '77s. So my opinion comes from a gestalt of my thoughts about dry wines combined with tasting of lots of relatively young ports such as the '85s '94s '00s and '03s, and lots of older ports that I need to rely on others to tell me what they were like when they were young.

I think that these kind of comparisons are pretty tough for the relatively young! I will just have to strive to live a long time and maintain a deep cellar so one day I can pronounce to my kids, "when I was a young man..."

Of course I do that already on any topic:D

Jay

[Roy Hersh]

Yes, trudging through two feet of snow on your walk to school in your bare feet and all, I am sure it still works.

I can not argue about 2000 VP as I think the best from that vintage are going to be stellar and exciting wines when they come of age.

So the race is neck and neck between those two vintages, at least for now.

[Kurt Wieneke]

This question is all about conjecture and speculation, which is fine in context. I am leaning towards 2000 having the edge over 1994 in the long term, not that I have any data points on 2000 yet. But I do have some data points on 1994 and agree with Fred that the quality and longevity is somewhat uneven across the board. 1997 in my mind is an absolute dark horse which has the potential to surpass them all. The 1997 Smith Woodhouse is drinking so nicely right now from half bottle that it is hard to keep my hands off of them! 1997 seems to be a vintage that was press-hyped to be a both a great vintage and a long ager. It certainly seems to be living up to its reputation. I'm excluding my 1997 Niepoort experience as it was riddled with VA.

[Carlos Rodriguez]

I've tried some 94' very good and some 00' that where very promissing. Then those are my choice.

[Todd Pettinger]

I haven't tried too many vintages from 1994, in fact, I will be enjoying a few of them with Roy as he leads us through a horizontal of '94 big names in just a few days, so I'll have better comparison notes then. The 2003s have hit me in almost every case, as having the power and structure to last an awful long time. I am actually not surprised at the results, which have 94 in the lead at the moment, with 2000 in the trails. I am, however, quite shocked that I am only the 2nd person to have voted for 2003.

[David Spriggs]

2003 gets no respect. Maybe because it's so young? Of course, 1994 and 2000 are tough to beat!