2007 Niepoort Vintage Port

[Tom Archer]

Strictly a cask sample, but this was the final blend that has been approved by the IVDP, and will be bottled (I think) in May, so this may be the first 'proper' 2007 TN

Secured by Derek, and drunk at the Crusting Pipe in London, at the start of what was otherwise a Vargellas vertical, attended by the usual suspects..

I think we were all expecting a dark tannic monster of a wine, in the style of the 2003; but this was a very different beast.

The colour was purple/magenta, lighter than I recalled of the '03. A good, if not overwhelming, floral nose.

On the palate the tannins were very evident, as one would expect from such a young wine; but they did not make me grimace. Everyone agreed that this was not a 'big' wine; it was softer than expected, and a bit grapey.

Probably a wine for nearer term consumption, rather than the long haul; but time will tell..

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Glad you were able to try some. The 2005 VP by Niepoort was much as you described and I feared that it was not only a departure from the likes of 1997/2000/2003 for Dirk ... but as he said, he liked it better than any VP he had made. I mentioned then that it seemed very different stylistically (this was in 2007) and he chuckled. I felt at the time that he might switch and go for less grip and more elegance which is how he likes his table wines. His VPs have always been very tannic and hard on the palate early on. It sounds like 2007, his anyway, is walking down the same side of the street as the 2007. Thanks for that impression Tom.

The interesting thing about these early impressions is, sometimes the bottles change very dramatically on the 2nd or even 3rd day. Often times they get softer, while occasionally they become actually more rich and the tannins come out of hiding. It is always fascinating to watch them evolve over time. I hope Derek has more to try, so he can evaluate one over an extended period of time which any new vintage deserves. Snapshots over a few hours don't do it justice, but you can certainly get an idea.

[Frederick Blais]

I'll try to write my impressions about a cask sample I did have for the 2007 VP. I was able to taste the separate barrels and the possible final blend back in September.

I've followed closely the recent VP of Niepoort, 2000, 2003 and 2005 at least 3 times per year. What I can say is that they evolve so much!!!!! In bottle and once the bottle is open. If the 2005 was looking thin when it was bottled, it is certainly not lacking concentration and depth when I tasted it a couple of months ago. You don't feel the tannic backbone but its there! Its certainly fresher than what has been released recently but I believe it will age as well or even better. Look at the 1997s at the moment, they did not have that huge concentration but they seems to evolve so slow. 2003 was a fruit bomb, lush and almost too much when bottle, then it became that tannic impenetrable beast. Recently it has started to shut to only reveal its greatness and softer tannins after one day in the decanter.

My impression of 2007 was a mixt between 2005 and 2003, but I'll write it when I'll find my notes home. This early on, I'd not advance myself to say it will not be a long haul wine! Especially right after bottling were some oxygen is coming in the wine to wake him up of that reductive aging. I believe its tannins got soften by bottling process and that they will emerge again in a few months.

[Roy Hersh]

2003 was a fruit bomb, lush and almost too much when bottle, then it became that tannic impenetrable beast.

I disagree. So did Jancis and also Pierre Rovani, both of whom criticized the 2003 early on as being too over the top with its tannins. I felt it was a very balanced youngster but the tannins were extremely powerful and punishing right from the first sip and even after a couple of days in decanter.

I did not say 2005 was thin, at all. Just that it was softer and far more approachable and clearly the tannins were not handled in the same way. Whether this had to do with fully destemming or partial ... something changed from the last 3 major vintages prior to it!

[Frederick Blais]

2003 was a fruit bomb, lush and almost too much when bottle, then it became that tannic impenetrable beast.

I disagree. So did Jancis and also Pierre Rovani, both of whom criticized the 2003 early on as being too over the top with its tannins. I felt it was a very balanced youngster but the tannins were extremely powerful and punishing right from the first sip and even after a couple of days in decanter.

I did taste for the first time in October 2005, at that time it was much more round and fruity than then in Feb 2006 and Nov 2006 for me. Not sure when you tasted it or when those people did too :) For me that first try in 2005 I had no bad time with the tannins while in 2006/2007 it was hard to get more than one glass. In 2008, after one day, it was amazing.

[Roy Hersh]

In 2005, I had it a few months before you ... during the early summer. But on a handful of occasions since. The 2003 was not a VP that would benefit a snapshot view and like you mention Fred, this was definitely better the 2nd day at that point in time.