For The Love Of Port

Trafalgar Day 2019

My assessment of the 2017 port vintage, its inclusion in my rolling evaluation of the sixty most recent vintages, and my updated full vintage rankings.

The near full declaration of the 2017 vintage immediately after declaring 2016 was a remarkable break from past tradition.

Soon after the 2017 harvest it was common currency that the producers had two very good but very different vintages on their hands, differing in a manner that well illustrated the enduring dilemma when it comes to defining what is a great port vintage.

Classic vintage ports can take upwards of half a century to show their best. As it approaches it’s half century, few would dispute that the 1970 vintage is still improving, although it may be close to its zenith now. Yet of all the vintage port bottled in that plentiful year, I doubt more than five to ten percent remains un-drunk, and still available to be enjoyed at it’s peak of perfection.

Today’s customers for vintage port, especially in emerging markets, have limited enthusiasm for laying down bottles for decades, so the need to produce vintage ports that will show well when customers want to drink them does tend to conflict with past tradition.

Whilst I take great pride in cellaring bottles for posterity whilst enjoying those laid down by those of yore, my assessment of vintages balances tradition against pragmatism. It is also worth noting that several past vintages that were dismissed as being light or insubstantial when released, have subsequently shown great tenacity.

When scoring vintages, I assess the mean performance of the top selling wines. Half my scoring is awarded to quality, a third to consistency and the last sixth to attendance by the producers.

On the quality front, both 2016 and 2017 rank very highly. There is little to choose between them in that regard, but I give 2017 the edge, primarily because I found the finish to be far more elegant, an area where 2016 was notably lacking.

On the consistency front 2017 is a clear winner. 2016 was characterised by a noticeable degree of variation, not only between the wines, but also between the wines and their traditional house styles. 2017 very much reminds me of the solid consistency we saw with 2011.

For attendance, Niepoort was the only major absentee from the 2016 vintage, whereas all the Sogrape houses absented themselves from 2017, something that strikes as a little strange given the way both Sandeman and Offley frequently declare extra years, and usually attend both years when a declaration has previously been split.

The conclusion

My rolling 60 year assessment of vintages has a fixed number of positions for each ranking tier. Only one year in six passes muster as an Alpha vintage, and 2016 was ranked as Beta +.

Whilst the absence of the Sogrape houses does slightly dent an otherwise excellent scorecard, I am very pleased to acclaim 2017 as an Alpha vintage

It’s opening position being at the lower end of that tier (A-)

The removal of the modest 1957 vintage and replacement with 2017 raises for a second year the overall quality of vintages in the sixty year window, so there are some necessary casualties to keep the proportions constant.

Demoted for this reason are:

1992 to B+
2009 to B
2015 to B-
1991 to C+
2013 to C
1964 to C-
2008 to D+
1978 to D
1986 to D-
1959 to E+
2010 to E

Other adjustments

I have not made any other adjustments from my drinking experience of the past year, but I do have one big caveat:

1994 is going through a really awkward phase. However it would not be the first time a great vintage has gone through the doldrums. At about the same age, both critics and producers lost faith in the 1977 vintage, and before that 1960. Ten years ago, 1983 was also really awkward too.

My advice would be to not major on drinking 1994 for the time being. If it does not show signs of recovery over the next year or two, it’s A+ ranking will be in serious jeopardy.

Listings

Below are my balanced adjustable rankings, Alpha plus (A+) through to Zeta minus (F-) for the current sixty year window of 1958 – 2017. Following are my rankings for the next 62 years back to 1896, judged on a zero to five star basis, and are based, as best I can; on the standing of each year when it was sixty years old.

Prior to 1896 are the star ratings given by Michael Broadbent, going back to 1811. In those listings, a ? indicates a year that he passed without mention and a () indicates a year that he recorded, but did not afford a star rating.

60 year adjustable rankings

2017 A -
2016 B +
2015 B -
2014 E -
2013 C
2012 D -
2011 A +
2010 E
2009 B
2008 D +
2007 B -
2006 F +
2005 C
2004 C
2003 A -
2002 F
2001 D +
2000 A
1999 E +
1998 E +
1997 B +
1996 D
1995 D
1994 A +
1993 F -
1992 B +
1991 C +
1990 D -
1989 F
1988 E
1987 C
1986 D -
1985 C +
1984 F +
1983 B
1982 C -
1981 F -
1980 B
1979 E
1978 D
1977 A -
1976 E -
1975 B -
1974 E -
1973 F
1972 C -
1971 F -
1970 A +
1969 F
1968 D
1967 B
1966 A
1965 E
1964 C -
1963 A
1962 D +
1961 F +
1960 A
1959 E +
1958 C +

My star rankings continuing back to 1896

1957 1
1956 0
1955 5
1954 4
1953 1
1952 3
1951 0
1950 3
1949 2
1948 5
1947 4
1946 2
1945 5
1944 2
1943 2
1942 4
1941 3
1940 2
1939 0
1938 2
1937 4
1936 1
1935 5
1934 4
1933 3
1932 3
1931 5
1930 0
1929 1
1928 1
1927 5
1926 3
1925 1
1924 4
1923 3
1922 4
1921 2
1920 5
1919 2
1918 1
1917 4
1916 1
1915 0
1914 1
1913 0
1912 5
1911 3
1910 3
1909 0
1908 5
1907 2
1906 1
1905 0
1904 4
1903 0
1902 0
1901 3
1900 4
1899 0
1898 1
1897 2
1896 5

The Broadbent scores

1895 ***
1894 **
1893 ***
1892 *
1891 *
1890 ***
1889 ()
1888 ()
1887 ***
1886 ?
1885 *
1884 *****
1883 ()
1882 ()
1881 ***
1880 **
1879 ?
1878 *****
1877 ***
1876 ?
1875 ****
1874 *
1873 ***
1872 ***
1871 ()
1870 *****
1869 ***
1868 ****
1867 *
1866 ?
1865 ()
1864 ()
1863 *****
1862 ?
1861 ?
1860 ()
1859 ?
1858 ***
1857 ?
1856 ?
1855 ?
1854 ***
1853 ****
1852 ?
1851 ****
1850 ?
1849 ?
1848 ?
1847 *****
1846 ?
1845 ?
1844 ()
1843 ?
1842 ?
1841 ?
1840 ***
1839 ?
1838 ?
1837 ***
1836 ?
1835 ?
1834 *****
1833 ?
1832 ?
1831 ?
1830 ?
1829 ?
1828 ?
1827 ?
1826 ?
1825 ?
1824 ?
1823 ?
1822 ?
1821 ?
1820 ***
1819 ?
1818 ?
1817 ?
1816 ?
1815 ****
1814 ?
1813 ?
1812 ?
1811 *****

THRA

21/10/2019

Wow! Impressive! My rankings are mostly aligned with yours. I LOVED the 2017 Ports that I've had. I' leaning toward 2017 as an "A", but it's young days still. I agree about 1994. Definitely going through a rough patch. Most come around with a LOT of air and time. But nothing like they used to be. I heartily agree with giving 1980 a "B". I'm loving where those Ports are at right now. Sad to see 1985 with such a low score, but I can't really make a case for raising the score. Some really great wines, but some are now "rose". Personally, I've lost my love for 1977. The wines are good-great, but so many corked bottles and bad, leaky corks. They were super on release.

Thanks for putting this out there!

I would say 1977 should be a lower grade. The odds are far more than not one will have an off bottle. Either corked or just not showing well due to the poor corks. With the exception of a couple I generally avoid almost all 1977's due to issues mentioned.

I've been saying 1994's have been in a funk for a number of years now, one of the very early ones to say so. They are now slowly starting to come out of that phase a little at a time. Leave alone and let them recover.

Interesting you give 1983 a better score than '85. IMO, there are better Ports from '85 than from '83. With the exception of the Sym's, Ramos Pinto, and perhaps Niepoort 1983 has turned out to be a tough year for a lot of folks.

1963...I think this is finally at the point for a downgrade. With the exception of a small number of bottles most of these are now well past their best days. Still lovely and enjoyable, but clearly past their best. Perhaps a B or a B- now is in order.

And 1993, a F-, really? Is that because only one company sold a 1993? Wouldn't just an F be ok?

I'm not so negative on '77, but it's position relative to '97 will be explored over the next couple of years. A few years ago there was a fairly balanced debate about the relative merits of '77 vs '70, and whilst the latter has clearly moved on, '77 seems to have stalled.

My early impressions of '97 were not encouraging, but the offering at the Confrairia dinner two years was much more reassuring. Any further blossoming of '97 or downward movement by '77 will likely see them switch places.

Tom Archer wrote:I'm not so negative on '77, but it's position relative to '97 will be explored over the next couple of years. A few years ago there was a fairly balanced debate about the relative merits of '77 vs '70, and whilst the latter has clearly moved on, '77 seems to have stalled.

My early impressions of '97 were not encouraging, but the offering at the Confrairia dinner two years was much more reassuring. Any further blossoming of '97 or downward movement by '77 will likely see them switch places.

Look forward to hearing results.

Andy Velebil wrote:I would say 1977 should be a lower grade. The odds are far more than not one will have an off bottle. Either corked or just not showing well due to the poor corks. With the exception of a couple I generally avoid almost all

And 1993, a F-, really? Is that because only one company sold a 1993? Wouldn't just an F be ok?

As a '93 vintage myself, this deeply hurts me (hurts my wallet even harder).

Tom Archer wrote:I'm not so negative on '77, but it's position relative to '97 will be explored over the next couple of years.

I really disliked the 1997 on release. Like the 1966s that were overshadowed by the showy 196's, so too the 1997s were over shadowed by the flashy 1994's. Who knows. I have an open mind. The 1966s are wonderful now, so I'm hoping that the 1997s can grow into "swans".

I only have limited experience with 1964 VPs, but it being my birth year I have tried a fair number of them and possess all of the rest except Dow. And even with it being my birth year, I think you're being generous by giving it a C-. Either that or some of your other rankings don't agree with my perceptions of those vintages.

For example, some of your other 'C' grade vintages:

1991 C+
1987 C
1985 C+
1982 C-
1972 C-
1964 C-

Those 6 vintages alone, as a subset, span such a wide quality level that it seems there must be some error. I can agree with ranking 1964 similar to 1972 or maybe even 1982 (though my limited experience with 1982 says it is a better vintage than 1964), but all three of those vintages seem almost comically inferior to the trio of 1985, 1987, and 1991 to be placed within the same letter grade. Especially with consideration for the gap between those latter 3 and the pair of 1980 and 1983, both of which you have rated as straight 'B' vintages. The 2-step gap between 85/91 and 64/72/82 to me spans a much wider quality gap than the 2-step gap between 85/91 and 80/83. (We've always disagreed about the quality of 1985 - I agree with Andy that it should be rated at least similarly to 80/83 - but I'm not even considering that right now.)

What am I missing from 1964 that makes it worthy of a C-? How is it possible that it is better than 1995 (D)? I've heard quite a few people say that 1995 could have been declared if it hadn't followed 1994...

Glenn,

My experience of '64 has been a very positive one, and I consider it to be one of the better undeclared years. Indeed the producers were so satisfied that they had bagged a star during the harvest of '63, '64 clearly never had a chance. The wines of '64 are in my experience, full and enduring.

Of the C- vintages, '72 was partially declared, which gives it a plus (I ignore the alcohol scandal) but the wines are otherwise very light and fading, albeit with some elegance. '82 was also partially declared, but with the exception of Churchill (which is now tiring slightly) are an inglorious bunch.

Thus two of my C- vintages arrived there as oversold partial declarations, whilst '64 arrived there by virtue of being a good but neglected year.

Of the other three you highlight, '87 is one of the best undeclared years, and a vintage that epitomises how the gods did not shine on the port trade during the eighties. Having declared 80,82/83 and 85, there was no question of declaring '87, yet the harvest was probably the best of the decade. Despite being undeclared, it rightly stands a notch above '64, '82 & '72

'85 & '91 were respectively fully declared and mostly declared, but both are troubled years. Whilst there are a few good '85s there are also some downright bad ones amongst the top sellers, and many of the minor producers made faulty wines. '91 has fewer faulty wines, but still far too many. The top '91s are far less stellar than the top '85s however, and the vintage was not fully attended. Although both '85 and '91 are considered to be declared years, neither can be considered to be in the top third of vintages, and therefore do not qualify to be either Alpha or Beta years.

You mention 1995 - I'm not seeing many stellar notes on this vintage. Vesuvio seems well received, but the others look poor to lacklustre. Having turned 24 this year the vintage enters my home drinking window (at an exploratory level) and so far I've just had the Malvedos - good nose and tannic structure, but an otherwise thin wine. I wasn't greatly wowed..

We can debate 1983 vs. 1985 over a glass or two, but I'm with Tom on this one; and I've been pleasantly surprised by some wonderful 1980s. 1994--I too am hoping for these to come back. I've been worried about my Vesuvio from this vintage which lately has been nowhere near as good as it was 5-10 years ago.

I was most intrigued by 2000 getting an A ranking, above 2007 (B-), 2003 (A-), and 1997 (B+). I have a few 2000s, but much more of the other vintages I've mentioned. And I've seen a lot of 2000 at auction at reasonable prices lately. It seems the market is less enamored than Tom.

The 200 Graham's and Fonseca are both very good. I believe the 2007 Graham's is a world beater. It's great young and it's only going to improve with age.

It was a real desert between 1977 and the next greater than B+ ranking. 17 years between 1977 and 1994.

Mike J. W. wrote:It was a real desert between 1977 and the next greater than B+ ranking. 17 years between 1977 and 1994.

For many years I have called this the lost decade of Port. That late 70's through early 90's era was a very rough patch for most producers.

It was a real desert between 1977 and the next greater than B+ ranking. 17 years between 1977 and 1994.

It was also the era when many port producers started using opaque black glass bottles that made it impossible to check levels - I think of it as 'the dark ages'

Tom Archer wrote:

It was a real desert between 1977 and the next greater than B+ ranking. 17 years between 1977 and 1994.

It was also the era when many port producers started using opaque black glass bottles that made it impossible to check levels - I think of it as 'the dark ages'

We can combine them and call it the Dark Decade.