Maderized Champagne versus Madeira...and the hype of 2011 vintage Port.
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
-
Lindsay E.
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:57 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Re: Maderized Champagne versus Madeira...and the hype of 2011 vintage Port.
Well, I bought one on Thursday, and the bar tender is holding the remaining 3 for me to pick up on Monday. Its definitely fantastic. However, while the Pol Roger Churchill is a more prestigious cuvee than the '08 Charles Heidsieck we had last Friday, if I tasted both blind, side-by-side I don't think the '88 Pol Roger would be the decisive winner...
Re: Maderized Champagne versus Madeira...and the hype of 2011 vintage Port.
2003 Vintage Ports were not really much fun when young, they were tannic beasts and I had them early and often as cask samples. I am absolutely sure that 2003 VP's at the upper end of the pyramid will prove to be very similar in character and development as to how the 1966's are performing today. I see lots of similarities between these two vintages and have ZERO fear that the 2003's will be long term agers with great upside potential.
Since then, in the past decade, I believe that Vintage Ports in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 are more approachable than 2003. It seems that the aguardente and tannin management have evolved to the point where it is now much more pleasant to drink some of the Vintage Ports when young and enjoy what they have to offer in their infancy and youth. Sure they will reward patience for those that prefer to drink them in maturity ... it is just no long a REQUIREMENT to do so. So while some of the points above ring true, this particular one doesn't. I am obviously not the typical wine or Port buyer and still have been selecting specific VP's from recent vintage to buy into and I am likely on the very older end of the spectrum of posters here. Nothing wrong with drinking a 2011 in 2020 or even before. Grill up a nice steak and it can be a beautiful match, as Andy alluded to when he talked about pairing Vintage Ports with main courses during dinner.
Additionally, I am happy to debate anyone here about the inherent value of Port vs. Bordeaux and Burgundy. Truly if you have ever been to the Douro and see the conditions of how Port is grown and picked and then foot tread in many cases, you can not compare the labor or production costs. That being said, Port has held its relative value so much better than Bdx and Burg that its is not even in the same stratosphere. We have all seen offerings of Vintage Ports from the 1980's to early 00's that have been offered on the Marketplace here for well under $100 and sometimes, under $40 or even $30 USD. To find something even drinkable from Bdx or Burg, you either go to unclassified growths for Claret or very simple vin de Bourgogne or Cru Classe Beaujolais or the like. Let's get real here. Check out the price of the top 1960's Vintage Ports from say 1963 ... a Fonseca, Taylor, Graham's ... whatever. $350 or less and often unless a "blue chip" like those 3, under $300. Now look at what the best of 1961 Bdx pricing looks like. Case closed.![[berserker.gif]](./images/smilies/berserker.gif "Challenger")
Since then, in the past decade, I believe that Vintage Ports in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 are more approachable than 2003. It seems that the aguardente and tannin management have evolved to the point where it is now much more pleasant to drink some of the Vintage Ports when young and enjoy what they have to offer in their infancy and youth. Sure they will reward patience for those that prefer to drink them in maturity ... it is just no long a REQUIREMENT to do so. So while some of the points above ring true, this particular one doesn't. I am obviously not the typical wine or Port buyer and still have been selecting specific VP's from recent vintage to buy into and I am likely on the very older end of the spectrum of posters here. Nothing wrong with drinking a 2011 in 2020 or even before. Grill up a nice steak and it can be a beautiful match, as Andy alluded to when he talked about pairing Vintage Ports with main courses during dinner.
Additionally, I am happy to debate anyone here about the inherent value of Port vs. Bordeaux and Burgundy. Truly if you have ever been to the Douro and see the conditions of how Port is grown and picked and then foot tread in many cases, you can not compare the labor or production costs. That being said, Port has held its relative value so much better than Bdx and Burg that its is not even in the same stratosphere. We have all seen offerings of Vintage Ports from the 1980's to early 00's that have been offered on the Marketplace here for well under $100 and sometimes, under $40 or even $30 USD. To find something even drinkable from Bdx or Burg, you either go to unclassified growths for Claret or very simple vin de Bourgogne or Cru Classe Beaujolais or the like. Let's get real here. Check out the price of the top 1960's Vintage Ports from say 1963 ... a Fonseca, Taylor, Graham's ... whatever. $350 or less and often unless a "blue chip" like those 3, under $300. Now look at what the best of 1961 Bdx pricing looks like. Case closed.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com