1970 The best drinking vintage currently?

[SEAN C.]

I had four 1970 Ports last weekend in a mini horizontal and one bottle the week before.. all of them were excellent.. I have never yet had a '70 that was bad. Thirty Eight to forty two years may be the best age for Vintage Port as the '66's are drinking very well now too! I think right now the 1970 vintage beats the 1977 by far...although my opinion may change in seven years.

[Moses Botbol]

I’d have to agree with Sean (and Roy) that 1970 is best drinking vintage currently. 1966 is also great, and 1977 seems like it’s still in the works. I use to think ’63 until I had the Dow a couple of times. The in the “best” vintages; all the major players should have an excellent port; no hit or misses. As far as older hallmark vintages like ’27 and ’45’; I have not had enough to comment and compare.

[Roy Hersh]

I think decanting plays a significant role on how bottles show up. Although I agree (obviously) that 1970 is sublime today with MANY shippers' VPs delivering at a very high level, I find the same with 1966 and the four years between vintages provides a very different product. I liken the 1966 to 2003 because of very similar growing seasons, tannic monsters when young (from all reports), excellent ability to age long in cellar (I'll stake my rep on the '03s in that regard), not to mention they both came on the heels of what were considered near perfect vintages (1963 and 2000) that preceeded them by 3 years respectively.

I love many '77s, but there are some disappointments not the least of which has been a recent bad string with my last half dozen experiences with Fonseca. None were awful, just none delivered what they had 5-10 years ago. So, 1966 or 1970 really is the great debate. Unless they are tasted side by side, it is very tough to draw empirical results. Even a night or a week apart, it is not the same as I have learned over and over. They must be done in side by side flights or mixed into a blind tasting to gain the most accurate evaluation.

[Roy Hersh]

I think decanting plays a significant role on how bottles show up. Although I agree (obviously) that 1970 is sublime today with MANY shippers' VPs delivering at a very high level, I find the same with 1966 and the four years between vintages provides a very different product. I liken the 1966 to 2003 because of very similar growing seasons, tannic monsters when young (from all reports), excellent ability to age long in cellar (I'll stake my rep on the '03s in that regard), not to mention they both came on the heels of what were considered near perfect vintages (1963 and 2000) that preceeded them by 3 years respectively.

I love many '77s, but there are some disappointments not the least of which has been a recent bad string with my last half dozen experiences with Fonseca. None were awful, just none delivered what they had 5-10 years ago. So, 1966 or 1970 really is the great debate. Unless they are tasted side by side, it is very tough to draw empirical results. Even a night or a week apart, it is not the same as I have learned over and over. They must be done in side by side flights or mixed into a blind tasting to gain the most accurate evaluation.

[Alan Gardner]

Well Roy,
I've done the 66 vs 70 comparison MANY times - as 66 is my favourite 'modern' vintage from the time I first tasted them. I always found more fruit in the 66's and less tannins - and somehow the alcohol seemed more integrated.
But, not surprisingly, my 66's are now all gone - I don't think they would have survived as long as the 70's have (in general) - or the 63's for that matter.
But through their drinking window (had the last one about 5 years ago), to me they always delivered more enjoyment.

[Derek T.]

Alan,

Having enjoyed a horizontal tasting of 14 different 1966 VP's earlier this week I can tell you the vintage is holding up well and the best 6 or 7 have decades left in them, some may even improve further.

I have limited experience of the 1970 vintage but the Warre and Fonseca are two of the best ports I have tasted.

Derek

[Roy Hersh]

I have to agree with Derek's assessment as it is the same as mine. In fact, at the very first FTLOP offline, we compared the 1963, 1966 and 1970 with the identical producers in each vintage. I loved many of the wines and there were a slew of great ones. The 1966 that day was the shining star for me with about every shipper we tried. That tasting was in London and was fabulous.

Back in the mid-1990s, I was the first (budding journalist at the time) to go on record publically to say that the 1966s had turned out to be the more consistent vintage, compared to 1963 and imo, the greater one. I also said that it would eventually prove to outlast the 1963s, as well. I got a lot of heat on bulletin boards back then and did not care because that was my experience and opinion and I drank LOTS of 1966 (not as much 1963) at the time, as I bought in at great pricing and loved them from the time I could afford them. They were $50-$90 when I bought in. Most are gone now, but I have kept a small batch and mags, while always enjoying them. Derek is right on with his assessment that mirrors mine and glad to see the tasting they recently held came to a similar conclusion.

I don't understand when A.G. mentions that he did not find the '66s tannic as to me that was the hallmark of the vintage!

[Alan Gardner]

A slight explanation on the tannins.
I have a 'defective' palate (along with an estimated 7-15% of the population) which means I don't 'taste' tannin. However, at high concentrations I can 'feel' it on the gums (in particular) - i.e. I still get the 'grip' of Vintage Port.
On the plus side that means I can taste the potential in young wines.
On the converse side it means I have a predisposition to liking acidic wines - where the acid tends to 'compensate' for the tannins I don't perceive. To my palate the voluptuousness of the 66's doesn't have a counterbalancing acid - although I do get the grip. As such, as the sweetness 'drops' (the esters compond over time to give more complex molecules), I found the 66's had levelled off so I drank all of mine (no point in waiting for them to decline).
But for sheer enjoyment, I think only the 27's have outperformed the 66's for me. And on a value-for-money basis nothing has beaten the 66's.
And as a corollary, I found the young 80's to have many of the same characteristics of the 66's so I bought heavily into the 80's (and passed on the 77's). They're still not ready (for me) but I hope this will now be my 'next' favourite vintage (as prices were low when they released them).

[Jay Powers]

I am a big fan of the 1966 vintage, and rank it higher than 1970. I have yet to have a "bad" '66, but have had several '70s that I did not find to be as nice as I would have hoped.

The '66 vintage (to my taste) as a whole is the best vintage for drinking right now.

Jay

[Al B.]

Perhaps a '66 vs '70 offline in in order somewhere ...

[SEAN C.]

that would be quite something and also easy to pull off!

[guilherme]

I had four 1970 Ports last weekend in a mini horizontal and one bottle the week before.. all of them were excellent.. I have never yet had a '70 that was bad. Thirty Eight to forty two years may be the best age for Vintage Port as the '66's are drinking very well now too! I think right now the 1970 vintage beats the 1977 by far...although my opinion may change in seven years.

Agree. 70 overall, and will hold the position for many years to come.

Guilherme

[Moses Botbol]

66 vs 70 would be fun. I find some of the 70's to be more powerful, but the balance of what I have had from 66 has been perfect.

Either one is a thumbs up.