Is Smith Woodhouse Vintage Port Under Appreciated?

[Kris Henderson]

I swung by my local wine shop to look for some interesting wines for Thanksgiving and found a 1985 Smith Woodhouse for a reasonable price. I couldn't resist a taste so tonight I opened it and poured a small glass. The color is very dark, extracted, and nearly opaque. Right out of the bottle the wine is open and fragrant with cherry, dried fruits, and cinnamon spices. The palate shows medium acid with moderate fine grained tannins. There's a bit of heat on the palate but that should dissipate after a proper decant. The finish has good length and more fruits and spices. 93.

Now I certainly haven't tasted all of the 85's but this just behind 85 Fonseca and 85 Graham's which are two of the better Ports from the vintage. I've really enjoyed the few other vintages of Smith Woodhouse that I've tasted as well. I've kind of shied away from Smith Woodhouse in the past but this is making me think I should reconsider and seek out more of the 85 and other vintages. What say everyone else?

[David Spriggs]

In a word... yes. Smith woodhouse is solid. Maybe not the best that the Symington's make, but I have never been disappointed by one.
-Dave-

[Andy Velebil]

Yes, I've also enjoyed them as they are generally solid VP's. Though not quite up to the top level, I consider them kinda like Warre's. Not the top of the heap, but a consistant house that generally offers a nice VP for a reasonable price.

[Kurt Wieneke]

Very under appreciated and under the radar. The '97 and '92 are outstanding ports, head and shoulders above the pack. The '91 is also a solid port, medium grade. The '94 is not very good (or maybe it was totally closed). I have heard that the '95 Madalena is outstanding but have not tried it.

[Moses Botbol]

Very under appreciated and under the radar.

Yup...

Similar to Gould Campbell and Kopke... Not many are talking about them, but those that are, are generally enjoying them.

[David Spriggs]

Similar to Gould Campbell

For those that don't know, Gould Campbell is actually a secondary label of Smith Woodhouse. It's not a second wine or a declassification, but just a brand owned by them. The Gould Campbell labels show "Bottled and Shipped by Smith Woodhouse".
-Dave-

[Shawn Denkler]

Gould Campbell is owned by the Symington family, owners of many brands (a list that has been increasing). The Symingtons minor brands are Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell, and Quarles Harris. These three minor brands do not have a quinta associated with it.

Each of their major and minor brands has a separate winery facility except Gould Campbell (and probably Quarles Harris) which is bottled at Smith Woodhouse. It is not that Smith Woodhouse owns Gould Campbell, it is just that they do the bottling there. I have always thought that Quarles Harris is bottled there as well, but I've never been able to clarify its status.

Grahams bought the brand Smith Woodhouse in 1960 from its former owner, the actual bottling of Smith Woodhouse was done by Grahams at that time by contract. When the Symington family bought Grahams in 1970 they also aquired Smith Woodhouse as part of the purchase. Gould Campbell was aquired afew years earlier and separately. Quarles Harris was a brand owned by Warre which came to the Symingtons when they bought Warre.

[David Spriggs]

It is not that Smith Woodhouse owns Gould Campbell

I stand corrected - but I believe that I was told this by the Symington's in Oporto.

[Gary Banker]

I looked through Mayson's book to see what he has to say.

According to Mayson, Smith Woodhouse was bought by Louis Gordon & Sons in 1956 and the wines were shipped by W&J Graham. When the Symington family bought Graham's in 1970, they also acquired Smith Woodhouse, but he does not say whom they bought it from.

One of the Symingtons bought Quarles Harris from the Harris family in 1920. Mayson does not mention any ownership by Warre.

Mayson says only that the Symingtons bought Gould Campbell in 1970.

Of the three, only Smith Woodhouse owns a quinta: Quinta da Madelena.

[Robert O.]

I like Smith Woodhouse and have a number of vintages, including the '85. I have been reluctant to open the '85 because I have heard that many bottles suffer from VA. Glad to hear yours didn't. Maybe I'll have to try mine.

[Shawn Denkler]

I stand corrected regarding Smith Woodhouse - they do have a quinta associated with them - Quinta da Madelena. I should not have forgotten since I own some of the 1995 vintage SW QM.

I used the port books by Suckling and Fletcher for my history info. Suckling says "Quarles Harris was established in 1680. The house became a subsidiary of Warre in the 18th century, when the name became simply a brand." And also "Founded in 1797, Gould Campbell became part of the Symington family's holdings in the early 1960s."

I mentioned owning some of the 1995 Smith Woodhouse Quinta da Madelena. I personally think it is too acidic and will take a very long time to develop. I'm not sure if it will be worth the wait. I think I have enjoyed the LBVs from Smith Woodhouse the most since they make the fuller unfiltered style that ages well. Their LBV is underappreciated.

So is the house under appreciated? Yes and no. Certainly some fine vintages come to mind, especially the 1977. That vintage is fairly well known now and is not the bargain it used to be. Some of the recent vintages are quite good. It really all comes down to price as it often does. I think Smith Woodhouse is not cheap enough compared to the top houses to buy at release. But the house does not appreciate in price much after release and can be a bargain ten years later by comparison to the top houses. And I always appreciate a bargain.

[Gary Banker]

I looked through Mayson's book and two others. The Radford/Brook book said that Smith Woodhouse had no quintas. At times, reading the various authors' versions of history in the port business was like watching Kurosawa's Rashomon. At least, they're not all quoting from the same source. I guess we're supposed to pay more attention to drinking the wine. Maybe the authors were drinking too much of it.

[Derek T.]

Tonight is my first visit to this thread and by strange coincidence I am currently sipping a galss of SW83. Very dark, almost opaque, smooth, thick with lots of cherry and chocolate and a nice long finish. It had some heat on decanting but that has integrated nicely and is now just a lovely warm glow. Not dissimilar to the description of the 85 at the start of this thread.

Under appreciated? Yes. Do we want to publicise the fact. No. :twisted:

Shawn - try the Madalena 1988 before writing off the brand. It is a fantastic wine for the price you will pay. I haven't tasted the 95 so cannt compare the two but do try the 88, I'm sure you will not regret it

[Andy Velebil]

So what are people's thoughts on the 1994 SW??

[David Spriggs]

So what are people's thoughts on the 1994 SW??

Very good, but not great. I rated it 89 points.

[Andy Velebil]

Thanks Dave. I picked up a few for $30/bottle. Figured at that price it was a no brainer for, at least, a decent daily VP drinker that won't break the bank.

[David Spriggs]

daily VP

If only.... what a dream!