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

[Roy Hersh]

1912, 1927, 1931, 1945, 1948, 1963 ... these are the vintages that legends are made of, for Port wine.

So considering that those old stalwarts produced great bottles that had the ability to age, improve and last for many decades ... if you had to pick one vintage from the past 15 years ... from the poll list, which would it be. The parameter are: the vintage has to have great appeal across a broad swath of Vintage Ports and have the ability to improve for a minimum of 5 decades, if not more. Basically, I'd like to know which recent Port Vintage will live up to some of the aforementioned legendary vintages?

Your thoughts (please do vote too!) on this?

[Moses Botbol]

Tough question as I have not had much of any port past 1995. 1994 is an obvious choice, but I have also had a few 95's that I thought were something. I'll just have to buy each vintage so I don't miss out... :help:

[Tom Archer]

For brute lasting power, my money's on 2005 - the searingly hot dry weather producing the concentrated juice needed for the long haul.

In second place I'd nominate 2003, which are looking very solid, and then perhaps '95

'97 has been cited as a long haul player, but i've not drunk many, and have rather mixed messages about that vintage's lasting power; however, it might well bloom in a few years time.

I see parallels beween 1963 and 1994, with the '94's being perhaps more forward than the '63's were at that age.

At 45yrs, many of the '63's now have their best days behind them, so i'm doubtful that '94 is a vintage that will shrug off five decades with impunity.

Tom

[Glenn E.]

I see parallels beween 1963 and 1994, with the '94's being perhaps more forward than the '63's were at that age.

Do I have 1963 and 1966 reversed in my head? I thought '63 was the absolutely fabulous year, and that '66 was the "hopeful" that was supposed to be as good (or better) than '63 but never quite lived up to that expectation.

And while I trying to get the years straight, isn't basically the same thing said about '70 (fabulous) and '77 (hopeful)?

[Moses Botbol]

Do I have 1963 and 1966 reversed in my head?

And while I trying to get the years straight, isn't basically the same thing said about '70 (fabulous) and '77 (hopeful)?

It can come down the particular port in question. Maybe we should just refer to Fonseca and Taylor when it comes to defining a vintage? They are the two biggest and most consistent brands. That being said, it is even more difficult to define which vintage is better as all four vintages mention they did quite well...

[Tom Archer]

Maybe we should just refer to Fonseca and Taylor when it comes to defining a vintage? They are the two biggest and most consistent brands.

Actually, no - both have a few lemons in their vintage lineup.

For consistency, I reckon Graham is the clear winner, without a single disappointing declaration since WWII

Tom

[Frederick Blais]

I think that when it is time to consider the quality of a declaration, we have to look at the quality across the board of producer. What makes a Vintage spectacular is that even the weakest producer are able to do good products because of the great quality of the grapes. A year like 31 can be considered fabulous but can only one producer justify the quality of the vintage?

94 is proving today of very uneven quality and to me, just like Tom says, it is a Vintage like 63 that will die before its fame. A lot of people are surprised of this, but again we build our mind with stuff we read in books before having the chance to taste the wines. And now people tasting the wines are clearly saying that 63 is not as good as 66, 85 not as good as 83 or 87... but still the hype and the prices are high on 63 because this is the image that people are wanting to buy. The image of a highly regarded and promoted vintage.

For me, the best year that has the balance, the character and the backbone of a great Vintage in so many of its declared brands is 2000. I wish and think 2000 could end up similar to 1970, great concentration with a lot of elegance, the later the 2003 might lack it. 2005 Do have many stars but too many players did declare SQVP and are not showing the true potential of the vineyards and fruit in their Port.

[Moses Botbol]

Maybe we should just refer to Fonseca and Taylor when it comes to defining a vintage? They are the two biggest and most consistent brands.

Actually, no - both have a few lemons in their vintage lineup.

For consistency, I reckon Graham is the clear winner, without a single disappointing declaration since WWII

Tom

Do you think Graham '77 and Graham '80 (for instance) are better than the worst Post War Taylor or Fonseca? If so, which Taylor or Fonseca vintages would those be?

[Derek T.]

Roy,

Please ask me this question again in 30 years time. By then I may have tasted enought from these to give an informed view. At the moment it would be no more than a guess

Derek

[Roy Hersh]

Tom,

See ... we do agree on occasion. Before I read your post, I was going to say almost the exact same thing ... nearly verbatim that you did. I also believe that Graham's has been the most consistent producer of Port overall since the 1950s.

Derek,

You don't like the Graham's 1980? Seriously? Personally, it one of my top four of the vintage! I can't say that about Taylor or Fonseca.

As to asking you again in 30 years, I am afraid that technology will have passed me by and I won't be on the computer at that point unless I am writing a book. However, the voice recognition programs that will be evolved by then, will render what we think of as a computer today, nearly useless. Fortunately, I hope to still be drinking Port 30 years from now, if I am still around at 81.


Moses wrote:

It can come down the particular port in question.

A very salient point, but only when trying to compare vintages.

[Roy Hersh]

Glenn,

My take on the four vintages in your question is this:
1963- great weather throughout, extremely hyped on picking (more than some say about 2007). There are about six, possibly eight very solid 1963s around today, another four or so that are a bit faded but occasionally there is a brilliant bottle that comes out of nowehere to surprise (a recent Sandeman) but the top half dozen are still stunning.
1966 - was thought to be a lesser vintage when it was picked and claims were that it was so tannic when young that the fruit would never last as long and many would be faded before the tannins died down. Not the case. There are more in the top end of this vintage than from 1963 that are still showing beautifully today. I have been saying this since the mid-1990s on the record, so this is not new to anyone who knows me. I was happy when putting together a tasting format with Alex B. in London in Oct. 2005, to compare 4 ea. from 1963, 1966 and 1970. I had a feeling it would be a great eye opener as I knew some of the folks there had not ever done anything like that and in fact, had not tried many of these specific older bottlings from Taylor/Fonseca/Sandeman/Graham's. It was an excellent tasting and I think that many were actually quite suprised how well the 1966s showed that day. I know there have been quite a lot of 1966s tasted since that day, but it was great to see the longevity of those four. Also, the '66s as a generality have a lot less dogs and fewer "brands" that have gone into their Tawny phase.
1970 - had quietly been released and it was a winemaker's vintage and has always been respected. However, it has been badly oveershadowed by the press in comparison specifically with 1963. I love the 1970 vintage and it is still very youthful in many cases when bottles are from fine provenance. I am happy to own a lot of Port from this vintage and will be able to drink it the rest of my days. The top 6 if not 10 VPs from 1970 will certainly make it to 2020 when they reach 50 years old and some will continue on for a couple more decades 2-3 and drink gorgeously at 75 years of age!
1977 - possibly the most over-hyped vintage EVER, on release (except 1994 ... which was actually pretty controversial due to many pundits believing the vintage lacked tannins ... wrong!). Anyway, '77 was declared the "vintage of the century" early and often and was said to be the vintage that would outclass the 1927 and 1963) ... but left out were the exalted 1945 and 1948 VPs. Back to the point, there are some 1977s which never have shown their full potential, some that made the mistake of not declaring the vintage (Cockburns/Noval) and others that have some significant bottle variation today. I find it a great vintage, but I prefer 1970. However, I do think that there are a handful that will surpass the longevity of their 1970 siblings and drink better further out. Then again, the 1970s as a whole, drank beautifully when young (I did not have any until the early 1980s) whereas I did not find that to be the case with the majority of 1977s.

[Derek T.]

Derek,

You don't like the Graham's 1980? Seriously? Personally, it one of my top four of the vintage! I can't say that about Taylor or Fonseca.

Not guilty! - please read the thread again and then ask Moses the same question

Derek

[Ronald Wortel]

I voted 2000, for the same reasons that Fred gave. The overall quality in that vintage was just stunning. Even producers, that would normally make an average port, did very well that year, and the big guns like Fonseca, Taylor and Niepoort are just stunning.

I'm not a big fan of the 2003 vintage, too much stewed fruit in many of the ports, and they don't seem to have the balance of 2000. I like 2005 better than 2003, in terms of quality it will probably be something like 1995. The 1999 ports that I tasted (I didn't taste the much heralded Portal BTW!) didn't have the body to last. I'm not quite sure where 1997 will end up. I don't like the heat that many of the ports from that year seem to have. 1994 is great, of course, but in terms of overall quality 2000 wins. The vintage that could surprise us in the long run is 2004. Those ports show great structure, that seemed to overpower the fruit a bit just after release. But I think they will age very well.

[simon Lisle]

I voted 2000 as it's the only vintage I have tasted from those years, a spare bottle of Gould Campbell in 2004 it was good full of tannins from a third tier producer tasted in 2004.(apart from the Cockburns vertical)

[Roy Hersh]

Random babbling after a bottle of 1970 Graham's:
I believe I own more 2000 than any other vintage, in fact, I know I do. I bought heavily into a vintage I believed in and predicted wrong. Glad my provenance will be great, but prices have come down from the great buys I thought I made en primeur in London. For whatever reason, this vintage has not maintained its value and has been sold short, often. Kudos to Fred, as his description is spot on.

I am not as negative about 2003 as Ronald seems to be and have yet to find "stewed fruit" but maybe I have not had the same producers or we just have different palates which would be no surprise. I'll continue to repeat myself, this is the modern day 1966. In other news: the description in one of the last posts of 2004 is exactly how I viewed the 1994s when I first tasted them as cask samples and for a few years thereafter, with well hidden structure. 1997s, I've probably had the least overall quantity of, but I have still enjoyed the vintage overall, believe it will eventually show quite nicely with some big winners like Noval/Niepoort/Fonseca and Vesuvio will be close. 1995 to me is a very solid vintage with many bargains still available and worth looking into when the prices weaken further early next year. I am still patiently waiting to see what the Port trade does with the release price of the next vintage, given the new economy we're facing. So many fine choices, a great time to be a buyer of Ports of any of these vintages, as they all have some redeeming traits and values that should become even more affordable -- with names worth exploring.

I should know better than to type after drinking, but it is somewhat safer than driving.

[David Spriggs]

I chose 1994 overall and bought - and continue to buy - heavily. I'm glad someone mentioned 2003 - that's my second choice. I still think that 2003 is totally under-rated. I think it produced some legendary Ports. There are a few producers who under-performed (Taylor's for me - after tasting it over and over again). But wines like Fonseca, Vesuvio, Roriz, Niepoort are amazing. There is a *TON* of structure to these wines and huge extract. I also get great acidity in many of them. All of that bodes well for long aging.

I still think that 1994 is the best overall vintage I've tasted. When will it shut down? The only knock on 1994 is that it may be too fruit forward. I'll always remember what David Guimarãens said about 1994 - there was so much good material that it was difficult to choose what went in to the Vintage Port -- so much material qualified.

-Dave-

[Tom Archer]

Do you think Graham '77 and Graham '80 (for instance) are better than the worst Post War Taylor or Fonseca? If so, which Taylor or Fonseca vintages would those be?

I echo Roy's surprise about the G80 - with Dow, one of the best two '80's

I know Roy has some doubts about the G77, but my own experience is of a wine that takes a long time to come round after decanting, but then really blossoms - patience is needed..!

Neither Taylor nor Fonseca aquitted themselves well in '80 or '83, producing wines that are relatively light and insubstantial. The Taylor '85 has not been immune from criticism, although I personally think it will be quite respectable in time.

The most recent notes I've seen on the Fonseca '92 have been less than complimentary, and I was a bit disappointed with the Taylor '92 when I popped one last April.

Graham's weakest wine since the last war has been the '50, but all the wines made that year had very short legs, so it's a little unfair to criticise. Only Dow comes close to challenging it's supremacy for dependability, but Dow fell down badly in '75, while Graham made one of the best wines from that troubled vintage.

Tom

[Ronald Wortel]

Roy, just out of interest: why didn't you include 2001 in the list? Some pretty good ports were made that year.

[Moses Botbol]

Neither Taylor nor Fonseca aquitted themselves well in '80 or '83, producing wines that are relatively light and insubstantial. The Taylor '85 has not been immune from criticism, although I personally think it will be quite respectable in time.

I would put Taylor on an equal standing as Graham if not better in the 1980 vintage.

[Jay Powers]

Maybe we should just refer to Fonseca and Taylor when it comes to defining a vintage? They are the two biggest and most consistent brands.

Do you think Graham '77 and Graham '80 (for instance) are better than the worst Post War Taylor or Fonseca? If so, which Taylor or Fonseca vintages would those be?

I have said so before and will again, I believe that Grahams has been the best overall producer and most consistant. Fortunately it is also reasonably priced compared to Taylor and Fonseca. So I will try and restrain myself from commenting more in order to preserve my price break on the "third best" port

In answer to the above, in a word, Taylor 1985

And I really like the Grahams '77