Niepoort Redoma 2003 vs. 2004

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:01 pm

Both were very fine vintages and especially for the Redoma (Tinto). So do you have a preference for 2003 over 2004 or vice versa? I'd love to know what those who have had both think about the comparison or contrasting of these two vintages speciically for the Redoma.

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:19 pm

For the white reserva it is definitively the 2004, the 2003 is very good too but the wood is too present and the acidity not enough. See my review for the 2004 I had yesterday!

For the red Redoma, I'd have to go with the 2004 too. I can see why Dirk is saying that this is all about what Douro wine should be. I tasted it last year before it was released on the market and it was just great. I did a little trick to Jorge (ex niepoort winemaker) and opened it with him. He did not recognize the "new style" but did like it very much.

2003 was good but did suffer a bit from the heat, when I tasted it is was muted and mainly on fruit and tannins. I'd buy a case anytime anyway

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:29 pm

Well, I've only had the 2003 and '04 Redoma on one occassion each so thats not much to take a definitive stance on. I really loved the '03, but I too would give an ever so small nudge to the '04.

What I can say is if they evolve into what the 2001 is now, these two vintages will be awsome wines. had I drunk the 2001 blind, I would have never guessed it was from the Douro.

João Rico · Post by **João Rico** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:37 am

Like Frederick i'll have to go with 2004. Generally in Douro the 2004's red's are more elegant more refined wines, altough in terms of ageing the brute force and rebel character of 2003's can be a surprise in the future. Now, IMHO, the 2005's Red's will be really better than these two.

João Rico

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:24 am

João Rico wrote:Like Frederick i'll have to go with 2004. Generally in Douro the 2004's red's are more elegant more refined wines, altough in terms of ageing the brute force and rebel character of 2003's can be a surprise in the future. Now, IMHO, the 2005's Red's will be really better than these two.
João Rico

In 2005, look for Batuta!!! Still it was in barrel but just amazing. Redoma was not as great as 2004 imo.

2001 is probably the best Redoma ever been done to date Andy(imo of course). 2004 will not evolve like it, 2001 still looks younger.

Steven Kooij · Post by **Steven Kooij** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:42 pm

Another vote for 2004 here. If you are into Douro dry wines (not just by Niepoort) this is IMHO the year to buy.

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:35 am

I agree Steven. I purchased more 2004 than any other previous vintage of Douro wines. I think we will look back at this Douro year as fondly as many do the 1989 Bordeaux and 1999 Burgundy.

Literally a BENCHMARK if not a hallmark vintage, to say the least. If a producer failed to make a truly fine white or red wine in the Douro in 2004, they should go sell shoes!

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:58 am

Roy Hersh wrote:I agree Steven. I purchased more 2004 than any other previous vintage of Douro wines. I think we will look back at this Douro year as fondly as many do the 1989 Bordeaux and 1999 Burgundy.

Literally a BENCHMARK if not a hallmark vintage, to say the least. If a producer failed to make a truly fine white or red wine in the Douro in 2004, they should go sell shoes!

2004 was great, but many producers are putting 2005 way ahead. From what I've tasted so far, yes some have been better.

One thing not to forget is that each year they are learning a lot about their vineyard and vinification of dry wines, so better year or not, wines can be better!

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:12 am

2003 was pretty stellar as well, with MANY very fine if not great Douro wines produced. 2004 was extraordinarily consistent at a very high level across the board. 2005 is less consistent, but I think that there are some wines that have reached higher highs than even in 2004. But you can throw a dart at a dart board blindolded with 2004s and have no worries about quality.

Will we see three great back to back Douro vintages like this again anytime soon?

João Rico · Post by **João Rico** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:30 am

Not from 2006 and 2007

João Rico

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:40 am

What is wrong with 2007 so far that tells you it will not be a good one?

Otto Nieminen · Post by **Otto Nieminen** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:33 pm

I found the 2003s a bit strange, but enjoyed the '04s. I always thought that Douro* was a rather warm year every year, so it wouldn't suffer from the pan-European heat of '03. Am I wrong in thinking this? I found the '03s (not just Niepoort but almost all from Douro) to be a bit hollow in the fruit, yet sweet and not acidic. It seemed as if they didn't hang long enough on the vine to gain the depth of flavour I like to see in my wines, yet they were still very sweetly fruity. Is then the difference to other years that night time temperatures were exceptionally high so that the vines didn't get enough "rest"? Or would my less than enjoyable experiences come from something else entirely? I can understand the appeal of the 2003s for others, but frankly didn't feel like I should buy even one bottle for myself. The Ports on the other hand I really liked; but the table wines were quite a disappointment. I am a bit surprised that others' experiences aren't as polarised as mine.

*Off-topic question (help the foreign speaker!): since some geographical proper names need the article "the" (like The Sudan), how is Douro? To my ears I would like to put "the" in my sentence above, but is it so?

-O-

João Rico · Post by **João Rico** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:29 am

What is wrong with 2007 so far that tells you it will not be a good one?

IMHO 2007 it will be a sui generis vintage. Many farms suffered from oidio and Mildio like never. Been talking to some producers and some got attacked really bad with damage to the vineyards. I think that those who took really good care, with many more than usual treatments, of the vineyards will have really nice wines (untill now, as some days ago we had some rain, but i think had done no harm). Let's wait and see

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:08 pm

I always thought that Douro* was a rather warm year every year, so it wouldn't suffer from the pan-European heat of '03. Am I wrong in thinking this? I

You are correct in your assumption Otto. I have only been drinking Douro wines for about 13 years now, so no where near as long as Port. However, this is probably the single area in my cellar that is going to expand the most in the near term and the long term. It is a natural.

That said, I think that 2004 Douro wines will be looked at as fondly as the 1994 VPs are today. It was a stellar vintage or Douro wines and as I have said before ... if you couldn't make good Douro wines from the conditions and grapes in 2004, "go sell shoes."

Use of the word, THE before the Douro makes sense in most cases, but it is not an "always" thing. Like in my paragraph above, when talking about the wines, it is not typically necessary. If you say:

"I am going to visit Douro" it would sound much better with THE before Douro. But if you are going to say, "I think that 2004 Douro wines ... " it would read and sound awkward if THE was used. I am the last one to give grammar lessons though, as mine is mediocre at best!