For The Love Of Port

Obviously every vintage and producer is different. That as a given, in other words, at what age of the VP would you be drinking them at on a regular basis, if you had a mature cellar?

I drink VP at the extremes - either very young or very old. The 1970s as a whole still aren't fully mature to me, while the 2003s have moved out of the youthful phase that I like. Most 1963s are about right while the most 1966s still aren't quite ready yet. I've only had 3 different 1960s, but they've all been wonderful.

There are a few exceptions - I love the 1985 Graham for example - but unless it's still a baby I generally prefer my VP to be fully mature before I drink it.

So I guess that means that, in general, I like my VP to be 50 years old (or older), or 5 years young (or younger).

Well, certainly the most memorable VPs I've had were 1960-63-66s, so I'd say I prefer VP in it's later stages.

Oh, add the 1952 Dalva Golden to my list of memorable Ports -- not a VP, I know. More of a Colheita: single vintage; barreled until recently.

Glenn E. wrote:...the 2003s have moved out of the youthful phase that I like.

You know that you are putting a strain on my ability to keep my two OWC six-packs of Warre's 2007 intact.

Peter W. Meek wrote:You know that you are putting a strain on my ability to keep my two OWC six-packs of Warre's 2007 intact.

It will be a miracle if my 6-packs of Rocha and Portal survive to maturity! I'm trying to get a 6-pack of Noval also... not that that would help any of their survival rates.

About 100 years. Ok, Ok, just kidding....it really varies based on the vintage, producer, and how that particular VP matures. But a safe range would probably be in the area of 20-40 years. I know that's a big range, but like I mentioned, it can really vary based on the listed factors.

That said, I love young VP's too. Sometimes I want a full fruit driven, tannic, acidic Port to sip on. And sometimes I want the elegant secondary characteristics that older VP's provide. Probably the only time I don't particularly enjoy a VP is when it's in the adolescent "shut down" phase. Nothing is worse than drinking any wine or Port when it's in that phase. Ok, a corked bottle would be worse, but you know what I mean

25 years on VP is a good starting point. A little earlier for some vintages, but most can go 30-50 years. 1963-1970 are perfect right now. A lot depends on what you are use to and what your preference is. If the vintage can't make 25 years and be delightful, I would consider it a failure or port vintage.

Peter W. Meek wrote:You know that you are putting a strain on my ability to keep my two OWC six-packs of Warre's 2007 intact.

Maybe if I dedicated one six-pack for posterity, and forced myself to try one bottle every two or four years from the other six-pack................

Personally the peak drinking window for me is in the 20-30 year range. Of couse I'd love to be able to have a cellar full of 1945s & 1947s, but I have a nagging suspicion that the odds are pretty slim on that happening....

Marc

Generalizing as the question asks, considering my limited experience, and conducting a totally unscientific analysis, I have to agree with Marc. I might stretch it to 35 years, so 20-35. Here's my reasoning ...

Later than 1994 there are lots of bottles that aren't ready. Considering the 1994s, there are many labels drinking well now, and a few that need more time. Now for 1985 and 1983, I don't recall any I've had in the last year that I thought weren't ready. Nor have I had any that I thought were distinctly past their prime. Sure I liked some more than others, and some might have had problems, but I don't think they were general timing problems. Going back further, I really liked a lot of 1977s I tasted in the past year, and I don't recall any that I thought were past prime there either. But I am starting to get suspicious of whether some of the 1977s will hold out much longer. Sure, Taylor will will still be good for years. You can probably say that for plenty of earlier vintages of Taylor too. But across the board, are the 1977s at their prime, or just holding up? I think we are at the edge here. How about the 1970s? Top tier well cellared bottles are wonderful, but I think even well cellared bottles from some producers should be consumed sooner rather than later, and some are most likely past peak.

Eric Menchen wrote:Taylor will will still be good for years. You can probably say that for plenty of earlier vintages of Taylor too. But across the board, are the 1977s at their prime, or just holding up? I think we are at the edge here. How about the 1970s? Top tier well cellared bottles are wonderful, but I think even well cellared bottles from some producers should be consumed sooner rather than later, and some are most likely past peak.

Can you think of a 20th Century Taylor vintage that is past its prime? I don't mean a crappy vintage like 1975 either. Well preserved bottles are still at least "holding". Holding is general description as is what one expects vintage port to taste like.

I am not sure if I have had Taylor older than 1927, so I could be setting myself up here.

Moses Botbol wrote:Can you think of a 20th Century Taylor vintage that is past its prime? I don't mean a crappy vintage like 1975 either. Well preserved bottles are still at least "holding". Holding is general description as is what one expects vintage port to taste like.

That was kind of my point. In asking the question, Roy points out that every vintage and producer is different. So I tried to come up with a general answer, considering the top 10 or so producers.

Andy wrote:

But a safe range would probably be in the area of 20-40 years.

I love when you get too specific!

I tried some VP from the seventies , and I also think that 40y is the peak... or using Andy´s expression that I much apreciated, it´s the edge of the safe range...

Roy Hersh wrote:Andy wrote:

But a safe range would probably be in the area of 20-40 years.

I love when you get to specific!

I learned from the best

All over the board. It is pretty clear as to maturity ruling the day versus the young ones.

depends on the year the house and how stored more than anything it depends on you what YOU like best !!!!!
but i personaly like ports of 35 years and over in t and f g etc etc
a great port like f 48 ore 48t 63f 70f could peak for another 50 years for me it seems when a great port high fill matures it can stay good at peak for maney decades
generaly maney ports after and inc 1977 may peak earlier than the older port vintages and yes there are exeptions so a f77 peaked 10 years ago and 85 has peaked about now for me but may not have the legs of the older sort of ports lovely as they may be
g85 was drinking 4 years ago and f94 these modern ports peak earlier than the older vps again do they have the legs i remember the 48s had the backbone of a national qnv i dont know maney if any after and inc 1977 have same backbone powerhouse i dont drink port like wine ie a few times a week every week i used to esp when we went through 3 cs of g85 in 5 months should i be ashamed of myself ore proud roy !!!!!! but in port you fiend out were you want to be and what you realy like
we also tend to drink our port in the winter oct/march it was traditional in the uk to do this we now drink less because what we like most is getting more expencive all of a sudden symonb

Symon B wrote: esp when we went through 3 cs of g85 in 5 months should i be ashamed of myself ore proud roy !!!!!!

Moses Botbol wrote:25 years on VP is a good starting point. A little earlier for some vintages, but most can go 30-50 years. 1963-1970 are perfect right now. A lot depends on what you are use to and what your preference is. If the vintage can't make 25 years and be delightful, I would consider it a failure or port vintage.

Moses - nearly 10 years ago you said the 1963-1970 window was the perfect for drinking at that time. I'm still loving the 1960-1970 decade for current drinking, my tastes seem to have changed as I've got older. I agreed with you 10 years ago, and I'm still finding that's the period I go to most often. Are you the same or have you moved to the 1970-1980 decade?

Al B. wrote:

Moses Botbol wrote:25 years on VP is a good starting point. A little earlier for some vintages, but most can go 30-50 years. 1963-1970 are perfect right now. A lot depends on what you are use to and what your preference is. If the vintage can't make 25 years and be delightful, I would consider it a failure or port vintage.

Moses - nearly 10 years ago you said the 1963-1970 window was the perfect for drinking at that time. I'm still loving the 1960-1970 decade for current drinking, my tastes seem to have changed as I've got older. I agreed with you 10 years ago, and I'm still finding that's the period I go to most often. Are you the same or have you moved to the 1970-1980 decade?

Funny reading my earlier comments. I am still drinking 1960-1970 (or older) for one night ports. I haven't moved to the 70-80's at all. Mostly due to the back log of 60's stuff I need drink first and 2nd that I have been opening 90's LBV's or SQVP's as I don't normally drink a whole bottle in one night. The younger ones go better if drinking for the week. Older bottles are for guests or events.

Glenn E. wrote:So I guess that means that, in general, I like my VP to be 50 years old (or older), or 5 years young (or younger).

I'd say this still holds true for me. There are plenty of Ports that are enjoyable younger, but I don't feel like a top quality Port has reached its peak until its 50th birthday.