What age is too old for Port?

[Andy Velebil]

A recent tasting note posted by a member here reminded me to ask this question that I've been meaning to for some time. As more and more older Ports are coming onto the market, both red and white, I've often thought about the question; When is a Port too old?

First off, I love trying old Ports even ones that aren't so great anymore because it's about learning history and old Ports tell a story about a bygone era. They may not be the "best" out there but they sure are very educational to taste and often very pleasurable as well. But at some point any Port hits that point where you say "This is fun but not so great anymore and should have been consumed XX years ago." Obviously this question can be very different for each of us and it's not limited to just one type of Port. For you, what age is just about right for your tastes?

[Frederick Blais]

It's too old when it is not good anymore :)

For some producers they barely make decent 20yo and for others they are able to make amazing 100yo Ports. Samething goes for Vintage. There are clearly some brands that are going over the hill while at the same age some are just starting to open up.

Last year I had a 1815 Ferreira, while it was drinkable, on a quality scale, it would have probably been better many years before. For education purpose, it was really interesting to see how those dryer style of Port were made and tasted. But then again, if a critic would have give this wine 90 points on release and now it tastes like 89 points, all good with me, it is amazing to see it survived. But if it would have score 98 points 50 years ago, then yes it's a shame we kept it that long in a cellar, as this is your question, it is really hard to know! Port is this kind of wine that will outlast you and you'll never be able to say if a high quality Port is too old.

[Moses Botbol]

Fred brings up some good points. It comes down to the port being served. How old is too old is like defining porn. You know it when you see it... As decades tick away, the storage becomes as big a factor as the producer and vintage itself.

I use to think about 20 years is a good start point for VP, but a few months ago I had several 94's with a friend we thought most were undrinkable to us. We did the same '85 vintage ten years ago and thought the ports were tasty...

[Tom Archer]

This is something I have pondered many times.

The proportion of vintage port that is drunk before it would be best appreciated by the consumer is depressingly high - upwards of 80% as a ball-park guess..

The amount that is drunk after it would be best appreciated is by contrast small, and tiny if poor storage is factored out - probably less than 5%.

The point at which most bottles from a vintage have passed their optimum varies, and for many years is compensated by the delight of opening a bottle of antiquity. Only when one ventures back into the 19th century does one frequently get the feeling that an otherwise sound bottle should have been opened a long time ago, and not always then.

I have personally settled on the following mantras:

1) That VP should not be drunk before it is 24 years old (unless one has a penchant for drinking at release, in which event it should be drunk within five years)

2) That consumption between 24 and 30 should be more investigative than mainstream, to define those wines that need early attention and those that need to be forgotten for another decade.

3) That one should be a devout student of Darwin, and to check and record the condition and ullage of one's bottles so as to ensure the survival of the fittest.

4) That whilst over 95% of bottles should be consumed before their 100th year, the last bottle from every vintage should be preserved until it's 200th year.

[Luc Gauthier]

70

[Eric Menchen]

4) That whilst over 95% of bottles should be consumed before their 100th year, the last bottle from every vintage should be preserved until it's 200th year.

If you are going to leave an inheritance, perhaps. For me, I'm probably not going follow this one. I don't have any bottles old enough to drink when they are 200. And if I happen to buy anything that is already remotely that pre-aged, I will be suspect of the provenance and probably open it sooner rather than later. I suppose I could buy a multi-bottle lot and try one and hold at least one, but I haven't seen many multi-bottle lots of 1868 or older VP.

[Tom Archer]

70

Luc - In that case, could I have your leftover '45s before you chuck them out?

[Luc Gauthier]

Unfortunately Tom , no 45's
Only Graham's 70

[Andy Velebil]

Unfortunately Tom , no 45's
Only Graham's 70

Well, send that "70" to me, as it's too old for you now

[Luc Gauthier]

That 70 is earmarked as the 1st port to be had in me and my girlfriend appartment

[Roy Hersh]

For me the answer is slightly different, but I enjoyed this thread immensely and this is SO subjective that there are really no wrong answers.

Last year I had 10 bottles of 1927 from a wine importer's cellar, one of the best collections in the USA if not the world, said Rupert Symington. From the previous bottles I've had of that vintage, the success rate has been about 60% that have showed really well. That day in Feb. 2017, the percentage was about 75% where they were still at least "good" enough to drink the whole glass, the other 25% were no better than science experiments. Those were 90 year old bottles, bought in the 1970's up and through the early 1980's, again, from an absolutely pristine cellar ... all purchased ex-cellars by the importer.

While I've had bottles from the first decade of the 19th century, (none from the 1700s ... except two handfuls of Madeira) rarely were any of the early 1800's bottles much fun to drink, except an 1830 Ferreira and a couple of 1815s, a vintage which is far better for Madeira, imo. Anyway, while I've had some nice mid-19th century bottles, they are few and far between and most have been tired and lacking real verve. The few that were in fabulous condition, were about 15-20%. So I'd stick with 90 years as the outside range of great bottles. Then again, I have found some 1896 and 1900 VP as well as 1908 and especially 1912 VPs that were in very fine condition; most were a decade ago or so.

[Bert VD]

reading just the title i thought 'how can you be to old to drink port?'

and by lack of experience i have nothing further to add to this topic.

[John M.]

I think the answer is so dependent on the maker, the year, etc. that there is no single answer. We've all heard of bottles from the 1920's or older that were still great and far younger ones past peak. Plus, with improved wine-making techniques what exists now as "too old" may not apply in the future.

As to when to drink them, the best ones seem to be fine around 35 years of age. Again, adjust for producer, vintage. I have some of the Souza's from a buying op, they're all 23-33 years old or so and seem to be in the perfect spot.

On a bigger picture, one of the many reasons I'm a FTLOPper is to know WHEN all these different Ports are (1) ready to drink and (2) at peak.

[Luc Gauthier]

On a bigger picture, one of the many reasons I'm a FTLOPper is to know WHEN all these different Ports are (1) ready to drink and (2) at peak.

Any Port in a storm

[Andy Velebil]

I'm loving the answers because it's so different for each of us. Thanks for the insight and I hope others will chime in as well. I'd love to hear from more folks here. There's no wrong answer to this question.

[Al B.]

I don't think any age is too old for Port. I just think my expectation changes depending on the age of the Port and on the way it was matured.

For example, if I taste a port from the 1827 vintage I'm expecting to enjoy it because it's old and it has a link with history at a time when the world was a very different place. I'm expecting it to be drinkable and interesting, and enjoyable in an intellectual and curiosity kind of way. One of our regular Port group brought a bottle of Ferreira 1815 to an offline a couple of weeks ago. Wine of the night was a bottle of Royal Oporto 1966 sold under the Adams brand in the UK (it really was delicious!) but 7 out of 8 people gave the Ferreira an "honourable mention" for the fun of having tried it.

On the other hand, if I drink something from the 2016 vintage I am expecting it to be exuberant and fruity, drunk chilled from the fridge on a day when the temperature is 30C / 85F and it's fabulous. If it's not, I'll be disappointed.

And then in between these two extremes there's the hope that you open a bottle and get something which is enjoyable to drink and which, when the bottle is empty, you sigh and think "That was nice."

But the real reason that no age is too old for Port is because Port was made to drink with other people and whether you drink a Ferreira 1815 or and Adams 1966 or a Taylor 2016 it gives everyone something to talk about. Talking generates friendships — and you're never too old to meet new people and make new friends.

[Tom Archer]

but 7 out of 8 people gave the Ferreira an "honourable mention" for the fun of having tried it.

And who was the eighth person who declined to give it an honourable mention?

- The girlfriend of the guy who brought it..

[Moses Botbol]

Too old port is like porn...

Porn - you know it when you see it
Too old port - you know it when you taste it

[Glenn E.]

I agree with Alex. I've had some very old (but not as old as Alex has had) Vintage Port that was... oh let's be nice and say not very good. But it was a lot of fun to try, and even experiencing the fast failure of the Port once it was exposed to oxygen was fun. (It started out thin and weak, but still somewhat pleasant, but within an hour was undrinkable.)

As we say here in the Pacific Northwest, there's no such thing as bad weather, just inappropriate clothing. There's no such thing as too old Port, just inappropriate expectations.

[Houston Porter]

Unfortunately Tom , no 45's
Only Graham's 70

My favorite Vintage, although I'm bias, as that's my birth year. I also haven't had a ton of Vintages, but sure do like Graham's 1970.