What's safe for the beginner?

[Eric Guido]

Looking to put together a case of 2007 Vintage Port (probably three different producers and four of each bottle.) that I will put into storage and forget about. I had a few concerns.

When I first got into wine I made the mistake of buying into the hype created more by producers advertising and marketing then they were by actual quality. Is there a similar problem with port?

Can scores be trusted and when scoring Port are publications looking at how well they can age? Or is it based off their current drinking state? I notice the reviews from Wine Spectator read as if you could be drinking these now with satisfaction. For instance, the 96-99 point Graham, (I've yet to taste) is this score based on it being a superior wine to age or a superior wine to drink.

Judging ageabiltiy, I was at a tasting this week of Taylor, Fonseca and Quinta do Noval. I enjoyed all three for different reasons, however I did find the Quinta do Noval to be rounder, sweeter and a little more forgettable. The Taylor was my favorite because it was more focused, spicier with deep fruit concentration that would lead me to think that it would round out later in life. Am I right in thinking the Quinta do Noval will just turn flat with age while the taylor will allow it's complexities to show better? Or am I missing something?

I don't want to turn this into a giant post but suffice to say I have a bunch of questions. I've become pretty good with judging dry reds but Port is very new to me.

[Derek T.]

Eric,

So many questions!

My view is that newly released Vintage Ports should always be judged on their ageing potential as it is an inherent quality of the product.

I have tasted around 25 different 2007 VPs in recent months, lots of them 3 or 4 times, and my current favourites from the vintage are Noval, Vesuvio, Graham, Dow, Cockburn and Cockburn Canais. However, that list has changed each time I have tasted a batch of 07s as some were cask samples and some final blend bottlings and have been tasted in many different circumstances.

I think the comments you have picked-up about these being good to drink now are a result of the extraordinary balance that this vintage seems to have. A bottle of 07 that has been given a long decant to allow the rawness to meld away gives a fabulously rich and satisfying glass to accompany a juicy steak. But I think this is just a temporary thing and would expect them all to begin to close down in the coming year or two.

As 2007 is the first vintage that I have had the opportunity to evaluate on this scale from such a young age I am not qualified to advise you on specifics of ageing potential based on the individual qualities that I have experienced in these wines. Perhaps Roy's long-awaited 2007 Review will give you some pointers as to which to invest in

Derek

[Moses Botbol]

The only reviews that are worth anything are right here on this site. Well, I should say that most of the pros do a good job describing what they taste, but the number rating really does not matter. Considering most vintage ports from 1970 on will last as long as we will, the review is just too general to when it was reviewed. If the vintage is a major one, and the brand is respected, I’ll buy it regardless of any reviews. The review can be used to justify why one vintage may cost more than another.

There are very few vintage ports since 1970 that I thought were really poor and much of that were from “off vintages” like 1975 or 1979. I’ve never looked at a bottle from the perspective of Robert Parker’s opinion, “this here what we are about to open is a 97 point port…” Never saw it like that.

The reviews on this site are your best reference if you are on the fence about buying particular bottle or whether the bottle is priced correct.

[Glenn E.]

Like Derek, I have tried around 25 of the 2007 Vintage Ports and spent around 4 days each with almost all of them. I've also done almost all of my tastings blind, and the results of those blind tastings have surprised me on occasion. I haven't found a single one of them that is even below average*, let alone bad. I think my worst rating in the vintage is in the 85-88 range, and while that may seem bad due to score creep it actually means that the Port is excellent.

My taste is slightly different than many of the experts, so my ratings don't always agree with theirs. I think that the TFP Ports are outstanding, but not the best of this particular vintage. My ratings for them have routinely fallen into the 90-93 range. I also like the Graham but don't agree with Wine Spectator's 96-99 rating. My ratings for it are more in the 93-95 range. Many of the experts also really like the Sandeman, but to me it was so tannic that it actually seemed out of balance so I rated it lower.

My favorites of the vintage are the Quinta do Vale Meao, Quinta do Portal, Porto Rocha, and Duorum. The Graham and Magalhaes are right behind those. I still haven't had the opportunity to try any of the Noval Ports for 2007, so their absence from my list means only that I haven't rated them. You'll probably notice that those first four are rarely mentioned by the experts, except for (sometimes) the Portal. So obviously, you can't really count on any expert's opinion unless you've been following that expert for some time and understand that expert's palate.

And that, really, is the point of this long and meandering post. Is it safe to buy 2007s? I think so, yes. They're all good. But can you simply look at some random expert's ratings and ensure that you're getting the best Ports of the vintage? No, not at all. Your palate is virtually guaranteed to be different than someone else's, even if that someone else is an expert. You may very well find that you don't like the same kinds of Ports as the expert you've used to make your buying decision, so you may ultimately be disappointed in your purchase. That won't be a fault of the Port, but rather with your methodology.

What you really need to do is review many different experts' notes (not just the numbers - review their tasting notes) over many years as you try different Ports so that you can begin to figure out whose palate you can trust. There are a couple of people here on FTLOP that I've learned I can trust, and a couple of others who - even though I really enjoy drinking with them and like discussing Port with them - I can't trust because I just don't like the same styles that they do. And there are yet others' reviews that I've learned how to identify key words and phrases in their tasting notes that help me identify which of their favorites I will like and which I will not.

But if you don't have that kind of time and simply need some recommendations, Roy and James Suckling are (in my opinion) two of the most consistent and reliable Port experts around. You could do far worse than to trust their ratings, but do make sure that you read their reviews before buying because the tasting notes are always more important than the number.

* Obviously, when compared amongst themselves, by definition some of them must be considered below average. But when compared with the history of Port I don't think that any of the 2007s can be considered below average. Overall quality has skyrocketed in the 90s and early 00s and, I think, has continued to improve with the 2007 vintage.

[Eric Menchen]

There's such good advice above that I'm a little hesitant to even try to add to it, but I will by telling you what I plan to do I'm not going to pay any attention to the mainstream press and the hype. I will definitely read Roy's report when available, and I'll read what the folks around here have to say. At the moment I don't think 2007 is a stellar vintage. I think there will be good Port to be sure, but I'm not going to stock up on it like I have 1994, and not necessarily as much as 2003 (?). I'm going to look for value in labels that rate well in our community, things like the Quinta do Portal. The only thing I've bought thus far is a little Warre, as it has been well received and the price was good. If I had to pick two more today, I'd probably get Vesuvio and Portal.

[Moses Botbol]

As for just 2007's; my top picks are homeruns:

Noval
Kopke
Croft

I'm sure Taylor and Fonseca will be fine 15+ years from now, but from what I recently tasted of 07's, they weren't "there" yet.

[Glenn E.]

Am I right in thinking the Quinta do Noval will just turn flat with age while the taylor will allow it's complexities to show better? Or am I missing something?

To address this point specifically, rounder and sweeter now does not really mean anything with regard to aging potential.

I'm no expert on aging, either, but I've been listening carefully to what others say about it. (Roy in particular.) There are many factors that affect how well a Port will age, and not all of them are in the bottle. But for argument's sake we'll assume that the bottles are going to be stored perfectly in a temperature and humidity controlled facility and never disturbed until opened to drink. Yeah... like that's going to happen...

Anyway, there are at least three things to look for when you're trying to figure out how well a Port will age. The first, and probably the most commonly mentioned, is structure, which is usually equated to tannins. A Port that is going to live a long time needs a big, strong foundation of tannins to get it to its peak maturity. The tannins slowly settle out of the Port over time, so that's why having a lot of tannins is a good thing.

But tannins only tell you how long it's going to take for the Port to peak, not how good it's going to be when it gets there. That seems to rely on the other two things you want to look for - acidity and residual sugar. You need both to keep the Port in balance, but what you really need is acidity to give the Port a long life.

Tannins are what make your cheeks pucker and your tongue feel like it's covered with wool. Acidity is what makes your mouth water. Residual sugar is, well, sweet. :) If you have all three in abundance the Port will be very drinkable and enjoyable no matter its age, and if all three are perfectly balanced the Port will be enjoyable throughout its life.

So back to the Noval and the Taylor. I've only had the Taylor, and my notes lead me to believe that it's going to live a long time and have a very high plateau. But my guess is that it won't be as enjoyable while it is young because the tannins are a little rough and I noticed a green component to the finish. Those will eventually even out and/or disappear, but for now I'd recommend drinking something else. I've never had the Noval, but from what you describe and what I've heard from others it sounds like one of those rare Ports that has everything in balance from the beginning. (The 2003 Noval is one of those Ports, so it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the 2007 is also.) The roundness and sweetness that you describe right now aren't bad things as long as it also has the structure and acidity to age. Mostly the acidity, really, so if you also felt it was juicy or that it made your mouth water then you probably have yourself a winner.

All that said... I'm a relative newby, so hopefully some of the guys here with more experience will chime in too. I haven't really experienced any of this yet, I've just learned it by listening. And as we all know, experince trumps book learning.

[Eric Guido]

Thanks guys for really taking the time to answer all of these questions.

Derek T, thanks for the sound advise. I need to taste more of these so that when the reviews hit, I'll be more able to relate to them and make that decision. I guess the one good thing is that there is a good amount of aged vintage port on the market. I have Sherry Lehmann right here in NYC that has a huge selection (although I've heard it's a little overpriced).

Glenn, regarding the Quinta do Noval. In fact it did have a very brisk acidity and I recall that the palate was very refreshed after the finish. My fear with this bottle was the lack of details. Are you saying that those details would come out over time as the fruit mellows?

I also understand what you mean about individual taste but this is going to take me some time. It took over a year before I realized that I prefered traditional Barolo over modern and even longer to realize that I liked aged wine over young. I have plans of doing more tastings and possibly finding a group here in NYC that focuses of critical drinking with Port. I'm hoping those tastes will be developed soon so that i can focus more on what I like. I also have a two year old that I'm interested in putting a case away for and 2007 Port sounds like it may be the way to go.

Moses Botbol, I'll probably sign up for the pay version of in the near future so that I can see the reviews you're all talking about.

[Glenn E.]

Glenn, regarding the Quinta do Noval. In fact it did have a very brisk acidity and I recall that the palate was very refreshed after the finish. My fear with this bottle was the lack of details. Are you saying that those details would come out over time as the fruit mellows?

Possibly. How's that for hedging my bets?

The truth is that no one really knows for sure. Sometimes the fruit is so forward in a very young Port that it masks everything else, but those complexities can start to appear over time as the fruit mellows. But other times the fruit only seems forward because the other details are simply missing. I'm not good enough (yet!) to really be able to tell the difference.

As I mentioned, though, Noval seems to be on a hot streak. I would be very surprised if their 2007 were ultimately discovered to be simplistic, because all of their other VPs lately have been superb. The 1997 and 2003 are both amazing, and I've heard that the 2000 is also outstanding.

[Roy Hersh]

I am sitting here in my office with a glass of Taylor Fladgate 40 year old Tawny in hand and reading the collective Port wisdom espoused by some of the brightest Port minds on both sides of the pond. Not much I can add to this great thread and of course, Eric G. our inquisitive new friend, has so much information to digest from all you've written above.

Eric, 2007 Vintage Ports will make your two year old very happy someday and I hope you will enjoy sharing these treasured bottles on special occasions!

Given the lousy economy and inherent risks of putting a new VP on the market at this specific time in history, it should be mentioned that far more Port shippers and producers have declared 2007 than any previous vintage, period. That in itself speaks volumes. I hope that I can provide some words of wisdom for you in my article, but I urge you to read as many opinions as you can find on the 2007s.

To this point, I have had to consciously avoid the reviews by Richard Mayson, Jancis Robinson, James Suckling, Neal Martin and others that I have printed out and put away in my drawer for "later" reading material; as I have truly done my best to avoid reading their opinons, ratings and being subliminally biased by their thoughts. I mention them because I trust their candor and integrity even though we may disagree when it comes to specific bottlings of cask samples or finished bottles of new vintages of Port. No single journalist or critic's opinion or palatee ... whether Parker or Broadbent or Coates or whomever ... is infallible.

We each have our own stylistic preference(s) which provides us the prism through which we perceive the nuances and ageability of a new young Vintage Port. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to find folks who you can trust to remain open minded to the styles that don't necessarily turn them on; to at least be as objective as possible to those Vintage Ports as well. Most importantly, find a journalist/critic whose palate seemingly aligns with your own if possible -- and/or -- at the very least, one who is known for their consistency.

I wish I had been to press with my article by now, as most others have all done. However, my tardiness has presented me with many new opportunities to re-try the 2007s, yet again, so hopefully my acuity in reading this vintage will be something that I am proud of when I look back at it later in my lifetime.