For The Love Of Port

James Suckling from the late 1980s to date .. OR Robert Parker until he recused himself after his 2000 VP report?

This is a very interesting question. Being new to port, I've been trying figure out whose reviews my own tastes most closely align with. Which is why I will in all likelihood sign up to be a FTLOP Partner so that I have full access to all of your reviews, too, Roy.

A quck scan of my CellarTracker data shows no real frontrunner in terms of how closely my own ratings line up with Parker or Suckling. It's about even, but then again, I've only tried about 7 vintage ports in my entire life. I'll have to see how this plays out over time.

I am curious to hear what others have to say.

Robert,

While you wait for others, I am actually curious as to which 7 Vintage Ports you have tried so far and it would be cool if you would just say something simple: "I liked it" because ... or "loved it because" or "hated it because," yada yada.

Sure thing, Roy. My tastings of VP have been few but already I am in love. I had been drinking tawnies at restaurants for years until I ran across a 1994 Graham's that I literally dreamt about after tasting. I started collecting VP's immediately thereafter and am already trying to figure out where to store all this wine! Here is what I have had (I am still working on my wine descriptions which is sad since I write for a living)

1992 Fonseca -- I liked it but seemed very young and closed to me
1997 Niepoort -- love, love, loved it but didn't take detailed tasting notes.
1994 Cockburn -- liked it but wasn't as complex as I'd like
1994 Warre -- really liked it. Nice chocately taste
1994 Dow -- loved it . also a nice chocolately taste
1994 Graham's -- liked it. Fruity and sweet
1983 Graham's -- really liked. Fruity and smooth

As you can see, I was pretty heavy on the '94s initially but I think I now understand what people mean when they say "young". I have since stocked up on older ports but the weather here in Kansas City is hot as hell so I've been drinking a lot of tawnies lately. But I am going to have quite a Fall and winter trying some '85s and '77s. As a matter of fact, I just recieved a shipment of three Graham's '85 in 375 ml format today one of which may not make it to the colder months

I have no idea about these two as I only have used Michael Broadbent and recently a certain Roy Hersh ( well I think that is his name). Anyway doesn't give you an answer but how many points do I get for sucking up?

Paul.

My taste and ratings are very close to M. Broadbent. I'm not following the Parker or Suckling for Port. To say which one is the most accurate I'd have to agree with them or not and I don't so I will not pronounce on this. So far on the recent Vintage reviews I've agreed quite a bit with a certain Roy Hersh

As to Suckling, although his book is very educational, I do not agree with his assessment of many of the Ports in his book. While reading it I often scratched my head and wondered if we had tried the same wine. Now, I know he tried them many years before me, but his scores and evaluations were not even in the ball park on many.

As for Parker, I've said it before...I would never recommend someone to use a RP review for Port of any kind. He may be great evaluating other wines but he needs to stay far away from evaluating Port. Mark Squires on the other hand, did a great job this year on the Douro dry wines he reviewed for RP. I agreed with almost all of his evaluations. I look forward to his review on Ports.

Having shared many bottles with many people from this forum, my palate seems to be much inline with Roy, Jay, Alex B., Derek, and David S. I would trust any of their recommendations. Of course those listed and I have shared hundreds and hundreds of Ports and dry wines, so I am very confident in their abilities.

I look forward to his review on Ports.

I think Mark Squires will not taste Port, that's a Jay Miller function.

Neither one. As a Portuguese, in Port and Portuguese still wines, i relly in our wine critics and media. The exception is really FTLOP and WA Forums.



Best Regards,

João Rico

I like Broadbent's Port reviews very much, although the 5* system, leaves me flat as it does not give me enough of a data point as I would like. His prose however is fabulous and written in a style that I can relate to, albeit unique.

I hope that more of your will comment on the Parker vs. Suckling aspect of this thread as it would be fascinating to see which people's palate aligns with OR which of these folks sways them more in buying decisions on 2000 and older Vintage Ports.

Roy.
I am in the position that I can try the wines first, make a TN and then look at the critics to compare, if I would choose to.

I really do not know of any port critic that I would follow blindly.

I feel that your notes on wine is approx what I feel, and you are the closest to an objective wiev I can get in the jungle of wine rewievs.

i don't think either suckling or parker pay a whole lot of attention to port. they very rarely revisit port in any retrospective fashion, like laube does with his 10 and 20 year retrospectives of cali cab. i really think port is an afterthought with the both of them, although most people consider sucklings book as a thorough, but very out of date publication. his drinking windows for vp are much too young for my tastes.

i wish i read up more on broadbents tasting notes, where are they easily accessible? but i agree with roy, the 5 star system leaves me dry.

i'm with the guys, i'm a disciple of mr. hersh and his palate.

dave

I can't admit to having read either of the two gentlemen, so I don't "follow" either.

I have received some advice from folks here on this forum, including you Roy, which I take to heart and when financially viable, purchase to try or hold as appropriate.

Of all of the tips that have been given, I am starting to figure out which people I seem to have similar tastes to. (And others, like Roy are figuring out based on my comments on the forum and TNs, what MY tastes are.) I have yet to have gotten a single bottle that I did not like as much as I thought I would or had been led to believe was good.

Todd

Dave, I too have noticed that Suckling's drinking windows are "young" compared to the advice I get here. I also find that his tasting notes are not very current. I haven't followed Parker as closely.

When I think about it, in the end, the best advice I get about port is on this forum, not just from Roy, but from everyone. This is the only place I can find out how things are drinking now.

Of the two choices, I think Suckling has a better palate for port than does RP. However, I don't think Suckling has a good palate for old port and it's ability to develop over time in a decanter. For that information, I look more to the folks on this board and our master, Roy.

As far as Broadbent, I think he has a great palate for old wines in general, including port, and I love his writing style. I agree with Roy however that the 5 star system is pretty useless.

All the best,
John

I always find it interesting to hear about my scores versus others. Derek or was it Alex B. once did a great breakdown of scores in my 2003 VP Forecast vs. someone else's. It was quite informative and something I never bother to look at myself.

Anyway, as I said earlier, it is nice to hear the praise ... (but on FTLOP I am not surprised ) however more importantly, I hope there will be more inclusions of SUCKLING vs. PARKER's opinions/scores/critiques of Port wine.

Thanks!

Sorry to dissapoint (even after the admonishment above), but I have not looked at Suckling a lot. I think that Mr. Parker is not so bad because if you think about it, he likes big structured wines, and Port is not such a departure from that. But he seems to have a thing for Fonseca and Taylor above all others, sometimes at odds to my own observations. Bottom line I think is that if you like big opulent Port, you will not do so bad if you go with Parkers scores. If you like a more ethereal Port you may be better off with Broadbent (my favorite outside FTLOP).

Jay

The funny thing is that I find neither of these two gentlemen are particularly close to my palate. Parker's scores I just look at and scratch my head, Suckling's narrative I enjoy reading but his scores are a little too out of date and I have some glaring differences of opinion with him (the Fonseca '77, for example). Broadbent is probably the closest to where I am.

However, I feel that if I am buying a case load of port then I only trust my opinion plus the consensus view of the folks on this board as to whether a wine will develop well or not.

If someone on this forum says that they've found a great wine, I will go out a buy a bottle or two and try it for myself. If I agree with the view, then I will go and buy some more for storage. The Croft 2003 is an example of where I have done this.

However, I also find that I have no problems reading other people's opinions, shrugging and knowing that I absolutely disagree. For example, I have quite a respect for the Cruz 1989 Vintage Port - not a blockbuster but a very enjoyable drink and a wonderful QPR at £8 per bottle. On the the other hand, a lot of folks on this board, including Roy, really enjoy Dirk Niepoort's ports. Me - I have yet to find one that really wows me. I find them decent ports, well made but with just something missing compared to some of the other really fine ports that I have drunk. Its not a criticism of Niepoort's ports or styles, just an observation that I have tried several of his VPs and won't be buying them in any quantity as there are other styles and producers that I prefer.

Alex

If the price is decent, I do not listen to any reviews on a bottle or two purchases. I find this forum to be the best source for reviews and scores. I have had two many suppose to be stinker ports that were quite good like 80 Ferreira or 75 Croft. If it is a respected house, I will give it a go.

Some vintages like '83 Cockburn that are highly touted, I stay away based on how many bottle I have tried that were total TCA. I did have one a few weeks go that maybe just a hint of TCA and could see what the big reviews were based on, but still wouldn't invest in any bottles of it.

Actually, I kind of like the oddball vintages that get overlooked; they seem to be a better value and more intriguing as not many people really discuss them.