For The Love Of Port

If you could look back at the last 110 years to 1900 ... which NON-generally declared vintage year would you choose as the single best?

Please no lists of your top 3/5/10 ... please do try to come up with just one.

You get extra points for providing a qualified response to your single selection.

Hello Roy!
I hope you enjoy Madeira!
Here in Norway we have a Wine Monopoly with high taxes, but we can still get many good vintages (although at high prices). However, in order to find the best value-for-money vintage ports, I have tried many off-years with a great variety of results. I guess you will consider years like 62, 75, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87 and 88 as off-years? Out of those vintages I prefer the 1987. The best has probably been Quinta do Panascal Fonseca, three bottles actually purchased on the quinta! Then also Graham's Malvedos have been fairly good.

Regards
Rune EG

I'd say 1948. Although some notable houses did declare, I don't believe that it could really be called a general declaration. I'm also in agreement on 1987 - some terrific wines were produced and if it weren't for 1985, in all likelyhood 1987 would have seen a general declaration.

Gotta agree with 1987. Although I have had some great 1995s and 1999s, the 1987 have all been *very* impresive. I could even stick my neck out and say that it was better than 1985. It will certainly live longer than most 1985s.

Hi,

I like '96 - grahams and warre's produced a very reasonable wine in this year. Although as Parker gave it 100 points, Taylor's '92 is a bit special, although have not tried, so can't comment on 1992 or the taylor's specifically.

Dom

I'd also have to go with 1987. Aside from maybe Fonseca and Graham from 1985, everything I've seen implies that 1987 was otherwise superior.

Gotta be a trick question, Roy.

Has to be 1931 - never declared because of the depression and then still existing stocks of the 27.

However, I don't think this would REALLY be called an off-year.

So.... Is 1992 considered an off year? How about 1991? Does 1991 get to be considered the declared year? I personally consider both of them to have had enough houses declare so as to not call it an off year. But if 1992 is considered an off year then that might get my vote. I LOVED the 1992s on release.

I think 91/92 goes down as a split, with neither being an off year. I haven't tasted enough off years to really say, but wish I could find some 1987s given all the talk I've heard around here.

Eric Menchen wrote:wish I could find some 1987s given all the talk I've heard around here.

You'll have to fight me for them! I'm always looking for them, but I can't find any that are reasonably priced.
-Dave-

Alan Gardner wrote:Gotta be a trick question, Roy.

Has to be 1931 - never declared because of the depression and then still existing stocks of the 27.

However, I don't think this would REALLY be called an off-year.

If that's the case, 1931 for me as well. I was thinking 1995 until reading some of the previous posts. I haven't had enough 1962's to really say, but the 1962 Sandeman is excellent!

I'd go with 1987, a vintage I must have tried something like 5 different houses, none were disapointing, some outstanding. This can't be said of other off vintage year I've tasted so far.

David,

In 1991 and 1992, that is called a true, "Split declaration." So therefore both vintages are considered as generally declared. There was obviously TFP vs SFE siding with one or the other, but many Port producers of note did declare both sides of that split.


Frederick,

Although 1987 is a great example, to say that "This can't be said of other off vintage year I've tasted so far" has me scratching my head. 1995, 1999 and 2001 are great examples that MANY producers did a very fine job in all three of those "off" vintages. Have you not had VPs from these vintages? I know it is a big challenge to find much Port in your area with good pricing and availability. But all three of these vintages produced some really fine bottlings. Of those 3, I am probably siding with 1999, as I know most love 1995 and 2005. I have yet to taste a 1999 which was disappointing. Certainly not worth gambling when you still had 2000 in wood at the time, but 1999 was a VERY solid year for VP, imo. I realize I might be in the minority in my view. Yet this is not the single best off year I can think of.

I am enjoying other's opinions on this though.

Roy Hersh wrote:David,

In 1991 and 1992, that is called a true, "Split declaration." So therefore both vintages are considered as generally declared. There was obviously TFP vs SFE siding with one or the other, but many Port producers of note did declare both sides of that split.


Frederick,

Although 1987 is a great example, to say that "This can't be said of other off vintage year I've tasted so far" has me scratching my head. 1995, 1999 and 2001 are great examples that MANY producers did a very fine job in all three of those "off" vintages. Have you not had VPs from these vintages? I know it is a big challenge to find much Port in your area with good pricing and availability. But all three of these vintages produced some really fine bottlings. Of those 3, I am probably siding with 1999, as I know most love 1995 and 2005. I have yet to taste a 1999 which was disappointing. Certainly not worth gambling when you still had 2000 in wood at the time, but 1999 was a VERY solid year for VP, imo. I realize I might be in the minority in my view. Yet this is not the single best off year I can think of.

I am enjoying other's opinions on this though.

No need to scratch your head :) It simply means I did not have enough 99,2001 especially to justify quoting this vintage. I think I only had Roriz, Vesuvio and Vale Maria from 99 and only the ones from Niepoort/Fladgates in 2001. Though my vote would go to 2001 so far. 95 I've seen some weak bottles or at least some evolving faster than you expect. 1995 did see a lot of declaration, aside from Fladgade and Symington. This could bring another question for the Port Trade, does Taylor and/or Symington needs to declare for a Vintage to be called "general declaration"?

i like it. It will be very interesting to see how many responses come back and what will be shared. Thanks Frederick!

On the basis of my consistently good experience with the Graham's Malvedos from 1987, that would get my vote. Although a very different wine, the Delafore Quinta da Corte from 1987 is also very good, albeit probably one to drink now. The Malvedos on the other hand probably has further upside for many years to come.

1950 is probably my favorite. I've only had four or five from '50 but all were very good. The one bottle that I've had of Graham's was just incredible, and almost comparable to the 1948 vintage!

There are no right or wrong answers. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've been considering which of these three will be my own pick:

1999, 2001 and 1987

Without doubt 1987! I've had several bottles of the Boa Vista 1987 from Offley's and it's still drinking well!

If I may put 1978 and 1982 as off-years then I must say I've had quite a lot of nice ones. This winter we had the 1982 Nacional for example - not a typical Nacional but still lovely bouquet and an elegant lighter style. Best of all was however the price - even if it was some years ago I bought it i didn't pay more than around EUR 125. Such a fine pleasure sipping your own Nacional at home at not only at tastings

Best

Niklas

Last night I had an 1989 Warre Quinta da Cavadinha which I thought is on par or better now than the 1985 Warre (along with 1994 Sandeman) I had on Friday. Granted both were just about pop and pours. Today, 1989 Dow is on the list. I might be throwing 1989 to that "off" years list!