port producer tiers

[Guest]

Rankings were based on the following:

• Vintage Ports only
• Considering the overall quality of vintages from 1900 - 2000
• Cellar worthiness of the specific houses Vintage Ports
• Price was not a factor



Grand Cru ~ Top Tier Port Shippers & Producers

1. Quinta do Noval Nacional
2. Fonseca
3. Taylor
4. Graham
5. Niepoort


2nd Tier Vintage Port Shippers & Producers

6. Dow*
7. Quinta do Noval*
8. Croft*
9. Sandeman*
10. Warre
11. Quinta do Vesuvio
12. Cockburn



3rd Tier Vintage Port Shippers & Producers

13. Ferreira
14. Quinta de Vargellas*
15. Gould Campbell*
16. Smith Woodhouse*
17. Quinta do Crasto
18. Offley Forrester (and Boa Vista)
19. Delaforce
20. Quinta do Portal


4th Tier Vintage Port Shippers & Producers

21. Quinta do Infantado
22. Churchill
23. Burnester
24. Kopke
25. Quarles Harris
26. Andresen
27. Ramos Pinto
28. Feist
29. Martinez
30. Royal Oporto

* denotes a minor change of positioning, since my original ranking was published

Roy-

Wow, Dow is not on the top level? I would've thought Dow would move up a tier, as well as Ferreira. I would swap the Ferreira for Sandemann. How do you see Ramos Pinto being below Smith Woodhouse?

I am also suprised (by seeing some of the Graham bashing by others), that Grahams made top tier. I think it should be, but that is me...

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

Roy knows so much more than I do that my disagreement must be very tentative. So let’s say that I was “surprised” that Warre was rated below Sandeman and Croft. Of the small range that I have tasted, Warre was better, and more consistent.

Indeed, Roy’s enthusiasm for Niepoort might be based — in large part, at least — on older vintages. Could it be that they were great, and are now less so? (But we’re playing the 1855 game, so changes are almost completely forbidden.)

I note with interest Roy’s consistent non-use of the possessive.

[Roy Hersh]

Wow, Dow is not on the top level? I would've thought Dow would move up a tier, as well as Ferreira. I would swap the Ferreira for Sandemann. How do you see Ramos Pinto being below Smith Woodhouse?

I am also suprised (by seeing some of the Graham bashing by others), that Grahams made top tier. I think it should be, but that is me...

Gentlemen,

I created the parameters and the list. It is SOLELY my own opinion from tasting these wines in most cases back to the early 1900s, some before that. You can certainly disagree with me all you want. Heck the Port Shippers were not shy about letting me know their opinion of my list! So trust me, you can question or challenge my opinion all you'd like on this list or anything about Port. Like Alan said, don't hold back and be afraid to post. I make mistakes and don't pretend to know everything about Port or anything else.

That said, let me answer the specifics in the post above:

1. Please tell me just three Ferreira Vintage Ports that you'd rate 95 points from 1900-2000? I thought so. Ok, let's make it easy ... how about just one? I have tasted more total vintages of Ferreira than any other producer, back 170 years with 3 verticals under my belt. My very close friend is the US importer and makes his living selling the stuff. I have all the reasons in the world to boost them into a higher ranking or tier ... except one. They have not produced the consistent level of excellence between 1900 and 2000 that the Shippers above them have. Of course, this is just my humble opinion. But if you are going to disagree ... which like Alan, I wholeheartedly encourage ... please back up your statement with facts. I can list every vintage and scores on the Ferreira's I've tasted but that still won't convince others who prefer Ferreira. To each their own opinion.

2. Ramos Pinto is one of my favorite producers of wood aged Ports. They do a marvelous job with Colheitas and a very solid job with Tawny Port with an indication of age. But anyone who has ever tasted a full lineup of Ramos Pinto VPs ... I'd like to ask the same question: Which vintages between 1900 and 2000 have you personally tasted that would rate 90+ point (notice I lowered the bar from Ferreira)? No malice intended, but up until the past decade, I had never found a single Ramos Pinto INCLUDING 1983 which some people like very much, which is probably the best pre-2000 VP I have ever had ... but for me it is not a 90 point VP. That said, I took pause after my last sentence to check Suckling's Port book. He only rates the big vintages and six in total for Ramos Pinto with an average score of 81.8. Two of his six scores were in the low 70s and the highest score was 89. It ain't just me!

3. I love Dow. Dow was the first place I stayed overnight in the Douro at Bomfim 13 years ago next month. I have amazing memories of the place and since I was there in the exalted 1994 vintage I bought cases of the stuff. I have done 2 verticals of Dow, one back to 1966 and one back to 1924. They are very consistent after 1945 but prior to that not so. Their performance in the second half of the century is marked by quite a few 90-94 point efforts, my favorites are:
1966 (although '63 is good, in comparison the latter vintage is better in my opinion of side by side tasting). 1970 and 1977 may be the best Dow's produced in the 2nd half of the century and I love both. 1980 Dow earns wine of the vintage. 1983 and 1985 both are very solid. 1994 is a great Dow and right up there with '70 and '77 at around 93-95 points based on the bottle. 1997 very good too! But the first half of the century is where they had their weak showing ... while Niepoort had some amazing oldies as well as MANY great Ports between 1963 and 2000. Try the 1970 Niepoort up against the Dow and you tell me what you think in a horizontal of '70s. I'd be happy to do a comparitive tasting of vintages from my cellar of both from 1970-2000 vintages. Even though I know the results for my palate ... it would not go far enough to proving a point about the first half of the century which speaks to my parameter about consistent excellence over the course of a century.

As to Graham's you can see my appreciation for this house in my recent VERTICALLY SPEAKING piece.

I am not trying to ... or going to change your opinions, nor do I care to. These are just my thoughts that went into creating the list. Your mileage may vary.

[Roy Hersh]

Indeed, Roy’s enthusiasm for Niepoort might be based — in large part, at least — on older vintages. Could it be that they were great, and are now less so?

You are entitled to your opinion and it is every bit as valid as mine Julian.

Back to Julian's point about Niepoort: "Could it be that they were great and are now less so?"

In Roy's opinion:

Niepoort made great wines in the first half of the century yes. Few companies were as consistent and maybe not more than one. From the time that Dirk started making Port in 1985 his wines have rivaled the best in the vintage. The 1985 is a very good wine in the low 90 point range but things improve from there. The 1991 is about as good as any made.that vintage. The 1992 is even better but overshadowed by Taylor ... but it is very close to the Fonseca quality. In 1994 the Niepoort got little attention but is a "final four" winner. In 1997 you can argue it is either 1st or 2nd along with Noval. In 2000, I prefer it to the Fonseca which is my 2nd place winner for top billing and I've had them side-by-side blind to choose in a taste off in front of a crowd. 2003, Niepoort is right in the top few Port of the vintage again. This is not me being biased here, my tasting notes reflect these opinions. The 1970, 1955 and 1963 are also fine VPs. The proof is in the tasting. So yes, the Niepoort's from the first half of the century are in the top 2 for overall most consistent producer of excellence.

Now onto another critic with far more experience and certainly far more notoriety and far more of a following:

"Niepoort is to vintage Port what Krug is to Champagne. They are both small houses in a world dominated by large competitors, but they are producing outstanding wines that very few can match."

"It is the most underestimated and underappreciate producer of Vintage Ports. The 1970, 1945, 1955, 1942 and 1927 are breathtaking vintage Ports. Most of these wines could pass for a vintage Port 20 or 30 years younger. JS of WS fame.

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

You might have mis-read: I said “based” not “biased”.

[Al B.]

This thread is proving to be a lot of fun to read and follow but I'm going to hone in on one specific quote from Roy:

But anyone who has ever tasted a full lineup of Ramos Pinto VPs ... I'd like to ask the same question: Which vintages between 1900 and 2000 have you personally tasted that would rate 90+ point

I have only ever tasted one Ramos Pinto vintage port, the 1997. This was tasted in November 2006, roughly 4½ years after Roy's tasting note that is posted on the home page.

Until that time, I had always looked down on Ramos Pinto as a shipper and would not have chosen to buy one of their VPs. Having tasted the '97 Ramos Pinto against the Warre '63 and '97, Quinta de la Rosa '96 and 2003, Cockburn '94, Dow '83, Fonseca '85, Grahams '70 and 2003, Noval 2003 and Taylors '77 I am pleased to report that (in my opinion) it was not disgraced by the company it kept gaining the fifth highest score. My notes record my impressions of it being "beautifully balanced and supremely elegant".

Now, I don't for one moment suggest that my tasting of a single vintage is an argument for promotion or demotion in a list of Shipper Seniority, but I do suggest that if people have the chance to try a Ramos Pinto vintage port then don't be afraid to do so. The 1997 vintage is one I will certainly buy if I come across it in the UK.

Alex

[Alan C.]

Alex,

I know your connections are good....
but how can you taste a VP before its Year of Birth?

I have only ever tasted one Ramos Pinto vintage port, the 1997. This was tasted in November 1996

Alan

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

Like Alex I have little experience of Ramos Pinto, though liked the R-P 1985 vintage (TN).

[Roy Hersh]

You might have mis-read: I said “based” not “biased”.

And I appologize Julian, for my mis-read and myopia.

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

For some of the houses Roy appears to be determining rank, in part, on older vintages. If there were three tierings, <1945, 1945→1970, and >1970, that would be interesting. And far more helpful: most of the stuff I buy, alas, is post-war.

[Roy Hersh]

Yep, as mentioned above, the consistency over the course of the 20th century (which includes BOTH halves) is one of the distinct parameters. However, neither half is weighted more heavily than the other.

[Al B.]

but how can you taste a VP before its Year of Birth

Alan,

I don't know what you mean or how you created that false quote. Dashed unsporting of you Sir, to change a chap's text. Just not cricket, donchaknow.



Alex

[dave leach]

wow, this is getting fun.

roy, why not run a poll here at ftlop? since most of us have probably not tried too many pre-1950 ports, myself included, lets do a poll and get everyone's ranking of producers from 1963--present. port, like all wines, is akin to admiring art. one man's trash is another's treasure.

again, nobody has tried the quality and quantity of ports that you have. but nevertheless, we all have opinions of producers, quintas, vintages, years etc. why not put it out there--have our members rank the various houses by tiers. i think you may be a bit surprised.

[Dave Johnson]

reading between Dave Leach's lines, it sounds like the availability of Niepoort VP is an issue and I have to sympathize a bit with him there. I'd like to try them too, but I live in Seattle and I have never seen a Niepoort VP in a local wine shop. Plenty of Fonseca, Taylor, Grahams, Dow....but....
(now I'll get blasted.."why don't you go on Wine-Searcher???")

[Julian D. A. Wiseman]

Polls weight votes equally, and on this matter not all votes are born equal. As an example mine is surely worth less than Roy’s. Discussion better than a poll.

[Roy Hersh]

Dave Johnson,

Why don't you drop on by the Spanish Table and ask for Catherine Reynolds, the GM. I was drinking with her last night in fact. Her shop is sure to have Niepoort and in fact, has the best Port selection in the city!

It is on the back end of the Pike Place Market, so you can not miss it. A fine source for Ports, Douro wines, some Madeira and of course, every kind of Spanish wine, in all of WA imo.

She loves when For The Love Of Port people drop in. If it was not for her, I'd never have been introduced to Stewart who designed this entire website and continues to keep it fresh and fun.




Julian,

I also prefer discussions to polls in most cases.

[Derek T.]

Polls weight votes equally, and on this matter not all votes are born equal. As an example mine is surely worth less than Roy’s.

I have to disagree with this entirely - everyone's opinion or vote should carry equal weight in any poll, regardless of what the subject is. Stalin tried the "everyone is equal, but some more equal than others" method and look how that turned out :?

Discussion better than a poll

Absolutely 8)

Derek

[Roy Hersh]

Alex is wise beyond his years. I don't know why Julian would even write such a thing but obviously you've read for nearly 2 years that I encourage countering opinions that target the issues and not the individual. So please feel free to "go for it."

[Derek T.]

Alex may be wise but it was Derek who made the point

Derek (or am I Alex?)

[Alan C.]

With getting names wrong, and the based/biase difficulty, do you think our mate from over the water is 'Emotionally Drained' (Thats what Politicians call it when they've had too many!)
Or is he getting that Al Johnsons disease? Or is it Alzeimers...I forget.

He's not getting Parkinsons.....thats when you keep doing Interviews!

Alan (Or is it Alex?)