port producer tiers

[dave leach]

a few friends and i were sitting around the other night enjoying a bottle of 77 gould campbell, which was lovely, and a 70 noval, which blew us away, and we were discussing the french system of classification of bordeaux growths. how there are 5 tiers of growths, only 5 first growths etc. even how d'yquem had themselves classified as a superior first growth for sauternes, after the fact.
it started us on a port-fueled discussion of how we would classify the various port producers, but based on older vintages, up through the 80s, when each house was owned by someone different, self-owned, not the conglomerates of today.
here's what we came up with.

1st growths-- fonseca, taylor, nacional(and they are the superior , like d'yquem)
2nd growth--dow, graham, niepoort, quinta do noval,warres,
3rd gwowth--croft, gould campbell, smith woodhouse
4th growth--churchill, cockburns, delaforce, ferreira, martinez, ramos-pintos, sandeman

i know we left off a bunch of smaller houses. vesuvio is a newer producer, one of my favorites, but i believe only started in the late 80's and hit stride in the 90s. remember, this was constructed based on pre 1990 port houses.

would love to get all your opinions

dave

[Alan C.]

Dave,

Richard Mayson's 'Port and the Douro', considerd it thus...

Premier League.

Dow,Fonseca,Graham,Niepoort,Quinta do Noval,Taylor

First Division.

Churchill,Cockburn,Croft,Delaforce,Sandeman,Smith Woodhouse,Warre

Second Division

Ferreira,Gould Campbell,Martinez,Offley

Its all down to personal opinion of their quality and historical perspective. (I've got a soft spot for Martinez, so I'd shove that higher on sentimental reasons)

Alan

[Tom Archer]

This sort of thing only gives the bigger players airs and graces they don't always deserve, while leaving the hard working little guys permanently out in the cold.

Nothing keeps the big guys on their toes better than the knowledge that the little guys are snapping at their heels -

- This is not a good idea!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

This was from FTLOP issue #8. There was a pretty large fuss made over this piece (in Portugal and subsequently, the USA):



Ranking the Port Shippers & Producers ~


* Roy’s Top 30 *

Recently, I was requested to submit a list of Port Shippers and Producers, after placing them in a semblance of order. This was no easy feat, the least of which was to decide on specific criterion that would be used in the process. I quickly recognized that this was no way to win friends and influence people, nonetheless, as it was initially printed in the public domain, it certainly is worthy of publication in this newsletter. Below, you will find the parameters used for my selection process, which is then followed by the 30 Port companies that are segregated into four tiers.



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

[Axel Probst]

Dave,

I have considered such a system as well as it helped me a lot when getting started with the Bordeaux wines some years ago.

For us - as Portlovers - this would be a system which - like in Bordeaux - spread the market pricingwise much more than it does nowadays. Take for example a standard vintage in Bordeaux and look at the prices. A 1993 Lafite still goes for 125 EUR, although its an below Lafite standards wine. Look for the prices of a second growth Taylors 2003 and a third growth Croft 2003, meaning in Portugal quality means more than a name.

In my oppinion: such an official qualification system is very hard to go for, as all the producers not beeing first growth will oppose and it will raise the prices for the wines independently from their quality, as the label-drinker will be willing to go with the market.

To summ it up: look at Bordeaux and ask yourself if you would really like the best wines to be bought away from the label drinkers.

Best wishes

Axel

[Robin L.]

It is a subject so discussed between port drinkers! There are infinite answers. Personally, I pretty agree with the Roy's classification except the following:

- My experience is probable too limited to judge adequately but it is hard to understand how Sandeman could be higher than Ferreira.

-Ramos Pinto and Martinez deserve (always according to me) a better place than Kopke and Quinta do Infantado. I would be curious to know what vintages allowed to Kopke and Infantado to surpass Ramos Pinto and Martinez...

[dave leach]

tom--as much as i tend to agree in principle with you, the top dogs already have their airs and graces and nothing we say or do will change that, it's 200+ years ingrained in their culture.

roy--i know you are a fan of niepoort. but have they made the truly great ports that have stood the test of time? i NEVER read about one of their classic/legendary vintages. i have had much less exposure to them than you, i respect your opinion immensely, but do they make ports that are as age-worthy, cellar worthy as the others, especially nacional, fonseca and taylors? i think not. they certainly are not as prevalent at auction, you RARELY see any older vintages in any quantity. i know they do not produce as much as the other houses, and i also would agree their last few declared vintages were a step up in quality, but c'mon, in the same league as the others? i throw the red challenge flag.

grahams is a bit of an enigma to me. always solid, but some real variation in bottles, as well as vintages. but i do think they are closer to the major leagues than niepoort.

i've also got to question sandeman in the 2nd tier. i don't think their wines are anything special, and the last few older vintages i've tried have been more tawney than vintage. they haven't held up and stood the test of time(they were the 66 and 77), they had lost much of their fruit.


roy, when did you redo your list? which houses moved up, and why, and which ones slid back, and why?

[Roy Hersh]

i throw the red challenge flag.

And you'd lose your time out!

It is hard to venture your opinion about a Port producer if you have not had the wines. You can not go by what you read from old and ancient writings. I have had every one of these wines since 2000, so my impressions are fresh and about half of these bottles were ex-cellars. Their old bottlings 1912, 1927, 1931, 1945 in particular ... are fantastic trophy wines that rival the best from these remarkable vintages. The fact that they are hard to come by (is Nacional any different?) or not available in the USA ... means nothing to me. That was not one of the parameters that I stated when doing the list.

Niepoort is a winner and deserves its lofty place in the top tier in my opinion. In fact it is beyond question in my opinion. They made at least on GREAT VP in every single decade of the last century. Even Taylor can't make that claim (1930s and 1980s) and I am just picking on one of the others in my own top tier. I am 100% discounting the fact that for Colheitas, Niepoort is most likely in the top 2 of all producers ... it makes them even more valuable as an amazing producer that can handle both bottle and wood aged Ports. Given their Garrafeira ... an amazing achievement.

Again, I only weighed Niepoort's VPs into the equation and they deserve their lofty spot. Dave you need to try some before challenging with you flag. It would be like a head coach misssing a critical fumble and listening to his OL coach to challenge. Just say no!


1912 - Looked 50 years younger when it was consumed. Great!
1927 - As great as any '27 made, but I've not had Fonseca
1931 - This gave the regular bottling of Noval a run
1942 - Medium vintage quality, but an outstanding Port
1945 - right up there with the 2 or 3 greats in '45
1963 - stacks up well, somewhere between Fonseca/Taylor/Graham's
1970 - in the top 5 of the vintage
1985 - great '85 only beaten by Fonseca/Graham's duo ... not by much
1992 - I prefer Taylor but this is as good as Fonseca
1994 - One of the top half dozen vintages of the harvest
1997 - along with Noval best of vintage
2000 - along with Fonseca, best of vintage

[Andy Velebil]

Roy already fired the big guns...but I will add Niepoort easily belongs in the top tier. Heck, they are probably my favorite producer across the board. From VP, Colheita, dry wines, 10/20 year tawny's, and even their Senior Tawny is good. This is good for us, as being a name not quickly recognized by those that are not Port affectionados (ok, nerds :), the availablilty and price is better.

[Tom Archer]

I will add a word of moderation here...

If you are a chocoholic, then you are likely to worship at the alter of Niepoort.

If, on the other hand, you regard chocolate as just another flavour, and take the view that too much of a good thing is not always wonderful -

- then you may have a more moderate view...

I like Niepoort's wines, but I sometimes find myself slowing as I come to the end of a decanter...

They are not all cocoa bombs, but I often find myself going into overload on that front..

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Odd, I don't like chocolate bars, ice cream, milk, syrup etc. I also don't find the majority of Niepoort Vintage Ports to be overtly chocolate flavored. I can assure you the older bottles have just about none of it. Different strokes!

[Andy Velebil]

I don't get lots of chocolate either...but tons of that typical Niepoort spice that I love. Thumbing through some of my notes, I cannot find a single entry that lists chocolate as a descriptor...not saying your wrong Tom, but as Roy mentioned "Different Strokes" and I am glad this forum allows us to disagree. After all, if we all liked the same thing, how boring would that be.

[Derek T.]

Dave,

I am with Tom on this, I don't think it's a good idea, especially if it was to become part of the official classification system.

The reality is that all of the shippers in your top 3 tiers have, on occasion or regularly, produced amongst the best wines of a particular vintage - SW & Dow in 77, Croft in 2003 etc. Similarly, those in your top tier occasionally produce sub-standard wines.

I think if there were to be a classification system introduced along the lines you describe it would simply create a gap in price on release between the various tiers with no real regard to the quality of what is produced. I would cite Nacional as an example of this. It already, informally, has the elevated status you suggest giving to it. However, If you look at any given generally declared year it will often have other shippers with wines with identical or higher scores than the Nacional. Despite the fact Nacional is not always the best wine of the vintage, it is always the most expensive. I think having 1 wine that achieves this is enough - I for one don't want Fonseca and Taylor going the same way.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

Too late Derek.

Taylor's already is...VVV is all I got to say!

[Derek T.]

Tut, tut Mr V

TVVV is not trying to be the next QdNN - we have that on very good authority if you remember correctly

TVVV has not been produced often enough and is not well enough established in the market to be considered anything other than a curiosity premium VP. QdNN is released in more years than almost any other top grade VP, with the possible exception of Vesuvio.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

But they are trying to make a very exclusive, and expensive, top tier SQVP. Maybe not as often as NN, but........

[Derek T.]

But that will not affect the price or quality of the standard Taylor's VP...and it doesn't mean we have to create some sort of exclusive classification system in which to place NN and VVV in a separate category to the rest.

My argument is that each producer should have the opportunity to produce a wine that can be considered to be the best of a particular vintage and attract a price that reflects that rather than relying on a false categorisation system that allows the big boys to rest on their laurels.

I have no problem with NN and VVV being considered and treated differently to the mainstream wines, because they are different. I just don't think we need to encourage segregation of the producers based on history. Let them all roll the dice across a level playing field each year 8)

Derek

[Roy Hersh]

Let's face facts, as the Port trade has:

The distinct lines have been crossed and at least blurred, as the days of traditional declarations are no longer the same. Single Quinta Vintage Ports are here to stay. They can and will produce a VP any year where there are enough good quality grapes to do so.

There are still the hold out "traditionalists" that will only declare 3-4x per decade. But they are now by far in the minority in terms of numbers, yet they are some of the bigger names. The same traditionalist Shippers are the ones to use single vineyard, second label and Single Quinta wines to augment their "classic" VP releases which take place less frequently. It is purely economics and it makes sense and dollars to have an outlet for their best grapes.

Adding to the mix you then have the SQVP producers, like Crasto, Meao, Portal, Pintas, Vale Dona Maria and so many others ... that are also producing Douro wines. This is THEIR outlet for their top grapes and yes, no matter what is said, some producers focus more on their table wines today, then they do their VPs. Again it is economics.

The cost of Port grapes that fall under the Beneficio are FAR MORE expensive than those that can be used for table wine production. I believe it is actually 5 times more expensive for the Port grapes of the same quality. So in other words, some would argue that the price of Port grapes actually subsidizes that of the table wines. Adrian Bridge of Taylor for one, believes this to be the case. There are others who totally agree.

It is an interesting topic.

[Andy Velebil]

Oh no, I agree there should not be a formal classification system like Bdx. Lord knows look at the pricing havoc those idiots (pardon my French, LOL) caused. I was just pointing out that VVV is very similar to NN...done in a very similar way. Small section of vines, high price, etc.

[Roy Hersh]

When I put together my list of Port Producer Tiers, it was upon request. I had to choose parameters that made sense. Of course not everybody would agree. Nor do I care, because it is just my list, not some official governmental ranking.

In the Port trade, unlike the AOC regs of 1855 in Bordeaux, there will never be such a delineation. There is no benefit to having it and no matter how much fun it is to agree or disagree here ... it will never happen. I don't take the use of the word NEVER, lightly.