Poll: 1991 or 1992?

[uncle tom]

During our recent trip, a senior member of the trade expressed a surprising opinion about this split declaration; not least because it ran counter to his own company's decision at the time.

So a simple poll seems warranted - which year do you think is the better of the two?

Tom

[Axel P]

Very interesting thread, Tom.

In my oppinion genereally the 92 produced more classic wines and the 91s are more drinkable right now. Of course there are exceptions. The Vargellas 91 is far away from being drinkable now, but the 92 is stil a big brother (quality- and pricewise). I like both Vintages, both have their charm, though being quite different and I have experienced more classic VPs from 92.

Axel

[DRT]

I don't think I have had enough* from either vintage to express an informed view.


Derek



* Not counting the 3 cases of Morgan 91 I've quaffed in the past couple of years

[Michael M.]

Tom,

my experience is very very limited. I tasted 1992 Niepoort VP and 1991 Croft VP so far, both of course way too young. But in terms of QPR I'd say, that 1991 is clearly the more interesting year. One or two years ago, I purchased Croft 1991 at about 38 EUR and 1991 Graham's VP at 42,50 EUR. Solid VP's with a bright future at reasonable prices I'd say. So what do I have to pay for 1992 Taylor's VP (o.k. Parker-factor included) or 1992 Fonseca VP? It's about 170,-EUR repectively 100 EUR. For those prices myths in perspective? I would have some doubts. So what am I looking for concerning to 1992 VP? It's nothing. What am I looking for concerning to 1991 VP? I would like to stock up Graham's 1991 VP at that price.And if I would not have a solid stock of 1991 Croft VP I would also stock up. I would like to taste legendary 1991 Morgan VP (aka 1991 Croft VP???); price would be in Germany 32,- EUR (outch). And I am looking for a long time for a chance to buy 1991 Vargellas SQVP at an attractive price.

Michael

[Alex Bridgeman]

Would you believe that I have only ever tried the Vesuvio from 1992? I have tried 8 different shippers from 1991 but only Vesuvio from 1992.

And, what's worse, I only own Vesuvio from the 1992 vintage!

[WS1]

Hi there,

as already discussed with uncle Tom I think we should settle this thread properly by haveing a tasting of any VP of shippers/houses that declared in both vintages. We should compare "like for like" and come to a conclusion. As far as I know on the first glance there are Vesuvio, Smith Woodhouse, Quinta de la Rosa and Niepoort. Are there any others?
Overall I think we may end anyway in a situation that is currently not fully possible to resolve. e.g. for wines can someone answer me the question is RAYAS 1990 better than 1989?
I am sure the 1990 RAYAS is currently better than the 1989. But I am also sure this will change over the next 10 years or so. To compare the "best phase" of any vintage Port 1991 with the 1992s I am not sure. Not only the years are completly different; I also fear we have not seen the best of some 1991s.

Personaly I favour the 1991s, hence I voted for these. Either Grahams, Smith Woodhouse, Warre, Vargallas, Dow and Morgan left a very good impression. I am also a fan of 1992 Fonseca but otherwise I am not fully sold to any of the 1992s. They are good but .....

regards

Wolfgang

[Michael M.]

For Richard Mayson this coparision obviously makes sense. "Both years produced some excellent wines but, having re-tasted both years side-by-side in 2003, I feel that 1992 has the edge." (Richard Mayson, Port and the Douro, Mitchell Beazley, 2004).

In the majority of cases different years are different in style.So why not evaluate and compare different vintages in the matter of complexity, balance and aging potential? Not until to relate a vintage to another, a comprehensive description and understanding is possible, imo.

I would like to know your assessment and that of the member of the trade on 1991/1992, Tom.
Michael

[Portman]

I'm sorry I haven't tasted enough of either vintage to offer an informed opinion. I have a couple bottles of the 1991 Varghellas, which I've loved, and I have a diminishing case of the 1992 Vesuvio, which I did not. I found the Vesuvio a bit musty and lacking in vibrant fruit.

[marc j.]

Interesting topic! It seems to me that 1992 will turn out to be the slightly better year. Don't get me wrong, 1991 has produced some very nice wines and the difference between the two years will be evident in the longevity of the wines. The 1991s, from all indications, will be medium-term wines (with one or two exceptions) and the 1992s look to be longer-haul wines. Given the price points for the 1991s vs the 1992 - the 1991s are relative bargains and would be my choice for near-term drinking.

Marc

[jdaw1]

There are not many questions that could be asked about recent port vintages for which a majority of TPFers would be unsure. Good question indeed.

[Andy Velebil]

Would you believe that I have only ever tried the Vesuvio from 1992? I have tried 8 different shippers from 1991 but only Vesuvio from 1992.

And, what's worse, I only own Vesuvio from the 1992 vintage!

Not true, you had the 1991 Vesuvio in 2006 while sitting on the veranda at the Quinta enjoying the splended view of the Douro gently rolling by.

[jdaw1]

AHB was saying that the only 1992 he has tried is Vesuvio.

Of course, the only Vesuvio he has tried is, err, all of them.

[Andy Velebil]

Scratch that last, my helmet must have been on too tight in the heat today

[Alex Bridgeman]

as already discussed with uncle Tom I think we should settle this thread properly by haveing a tasting of any VP of shippers/houses that declared in both vintages. We should compare "like for like" and come to a conclusion. As far as I know on the first glance there are Vesuvio, Smith Woodhouse, Quinta de la Rosa and Niepoort. Are there any others?

I like the idea of a comparative tasting, giving us the chance to try some ports from 1991 alongside some ports from 1992 and as Michael suggests, we could taste for potential as well as for current enjoyment.

I can see two obvious ways to set up a tasting like this, depending on how many people come along, but one obvious way is as per Wolfgang's suggestion eg:
Fonseca Guimaraens 1991 vs Fonseca 1992
Graham 1991 vs Malvedos 1992
Ferreira 1991 vs Ferreira 1992 (did Ferreira declare both years?)
Vesuvio 1991 vs Vesuvio 1992

The other would be to taste the best blends from each year and not worry too much about comparing like with like, but just to look at the best and how they will develop:
Graham 1991
Warre 1991
Taylor 1992
Fonseca 1992 etc.

Is this a theme for one of the casual London offlines in the Autumn / WInter / Spring 2009-10 offline season?

[benread]

I quite like the idea of comparing the same brands. Either way, this should be a fun (and reasonable cost) expirment for a casual evening at TCP. Subject to chosen dates I would like to participate and have a few options for 1991 at least.

[DrDirk]

I just checked the Mayson Book for the declarations of 1991 and 1992 (without SQVP).

Both years were declared by Burmester, Calem, Kopke, Nieport and Osbourne.

But I think this is really a great comparison for an offline. I would even hopp over to England from good old Germany fot such an evant.

Dirk

[jdaw1]

A splendid plan. I’m in.

[jdaw1]

Declarers of both 1991 and 1992 might include:

1. Burmester;
2. Cálem;
3. Cálem Quinta da Foz;
4. Churchill;
5. Croft;
6. Cruz;
7. Quinta do Infantado;
8. Kopke;
9. Niepoort;
10. Osborne;
11. Quinta de la Rosa;
12. Smith Woodhouse;
13. Quinta do Vesuvio.

Twenty-six bottles: sounds like a good basis for a tasting.

[Roy Hersh]

Tom,

This is a great topic ... because of the importance of the "split declaration" that took place.

When I first started out reporting on Port cask and pre-release samples (from trade tastings and a visit to Portugal) was with the 1991 and 1992 vintages. I was in the trade at the time, had been working in Food & Beverage Management and was always invited to Port tastings in MD, VA and especially in the NY and DC areas back then. I worked for Marriott and then a major independant hotel company as F&B Director and in charge of all Beverage Programs too. My first trip to Portugal in May 1994 was partially planned to taste the new batch that had not been released yet in the USA or UK. My hand written notes were transcribed for articles on AOL. I was a volunteer host through 2000 of a wine chat there, and wrote articles for them too ... a now defunct area of AOL called "THRIVE." For the record, 1985 was the very first time that cask samples had ever been sent to the USA to journalists ... although I was into Port before that ... I had zero connections to get any until the 1994s. This is just some background nonsense.

Anyway, I remember sitting at The Factory House with James Symington, (Rupert's father ... although I also met Rupert for the first time then, as he was in the biz only 2-3 years at the time) as well as Michael and Peter (the first two are now retired, the last will retire this fall) and putting him on the spot (very quietly) about why his family chose the 1991's when Bruce Guimaraens, Suckling, Mayson and other prominent names at the time espoused the virtues of 1992 and called it the "better of the two" vintages. I remember James' comments and it was clear that he was less than amused at being put on the spot even though no one else was able to hear us at the time. He told me that it was not only his family's belief, but his personal belief that "time will prove we made the correct decision and chose the better year." He then stated he would give me some personal advice, "Go back and buy as much of the Dow's 1991 as you can afford, for it is a great Vintage Port." I asked one last question on the topic, as we were sitting far enough away from Bruce and Alistair (Robertson) that they were well out of earshot. "Do you believe that Taylor and Fonseca were ultimately declared as has been reported, due to the fact of the Tercentennary anniversary of Taylor in 1992?" I asked. He looked me square in the eye and said, "No, I am sure they believe that they chose the better year as well." I've never forgotten James' candor with me, a nobody at the time, and I did take him up on his 1991 Dow advice.

Very sadly, AOL went through a major management change and as some of you know, I lost several of my earliest "online" articles and computerized TNs from circa 1990-2000 as not only did they get rid of Thrive but one weekend, with ZERO prior notice, they got rid of all of the AOL Wine area and Message Board's Archives. Literally thousands of us (including Allen Meadows who started there as well ... aka Burghound) lost years worth of TN entries. Fortunately, I still have all of my TNs starting in the back of my Suckling book, from 1993 on. But my TN reviews of 1991/1992/1994/1997 which appeared on AOL in article form, were lost forever.

That said, I was fortunate to taste about a dozen from each 1991/1992 vintage ... from cask or finished pre-release bottles. I had no prior experience in doing so and believe I was a lot better the next time (1994) from going through those earlier vintages. I must say that even today, I am not sure I have a clear winner between 1991/1992. As noted above ... there were numerous producers that declared both sides of the split. British-owned firms were far more reluctant to do so as you can tell when looking at who did and who would not declare both.

Croft is by far my favorite 1991 along with Nacional; although the Vargellas, Ferreira, Dow, Niepoort, Warre and Guimaraens are my other favorites. I believe the 1991 Vesuvio was the first good vintage (I am not much of a fan of the rustic, baked qualities of 1989/1990 today) produced in the modern era and I prefer 1992, but really do like both. Top bottles of Croft '91 are stellar and along with a truly wonderful Nacional ... are at the apex of the vintage, for my palate. If I had to pick a few faves from the next 6 (aforementioned VPs) very good ones, it would be the Vargellas then Dow and Warre. Due to the concentration from low yields (down 30% or so) of the grapes that year, these were very tannic when I first them and almost painful, unlike 1994 or 2007 which were very easy comparatively. Mine were snapshot views in those early days and some were tasted twice but never more than that. I have had some of them since and own quite a bit of 1991 (and 1992) but very rarely open them as they are still a decade away from being ready for the most part ... especially 1991s.

Interestingly, there were almost exactly 2x as many declarations in 1991 as 1992 if I remember correctly (about 40 vs. 20). At the time, Suckling had come out and mentioned that the 1991s were too long in coming, because of the six year gap (from 1985) and questioned "impatience" and whether 1992 was going to be much better as he loved the Taylor and very much liked the Fonseca in 1992 ... and for a good reason. Mayson was another budding writer/critic back then who seemed to like 1992s more than 1991. Like Tom and others, I have long championed 1987 (which had about 30 declarations) and even felt 1989 was overlooked (about 20 declarations) although I thought going 1983/1985/1987 was the better choice than 1989 in the mix with the first two.

The two rainfalls in mid-Sept of 1991 (had it not been for the extremely hot summer) could have been disastrous, but with yields already decimated, the growers got very lucky. Plenty of sulfur usage resulted in virtually next to no oidium. The 1991s today continue to show very well at the top end of things. The ones I've mentioned above will really start to drink well towards the middle to latter part of the next decade at the earliest, imo (except for the Ferreira which is already so delicious!).

1992 began as a drought year ... big time and with yields significantly down the prior year, the water tables were a big concern in the Douro. There was a brief spell of thunder showers in August and the harvest was only a week earlier than normal and in cool, if not downright cold conditions ( ... for the Douro). There was a weird pattern of heavy storms but it hit in areas of the Cima Corgo but not up in the Douro Superior almost at all ... and these strange storms lasted for several weeks to almost a month, moving around like the crazy hail storm in 2006, very sporadic ... where your next door neighbor was not even touched. Some producers had "stuck fermentations" others couldn't get 'em going and used artificial means of warming them, to do so. I also like the 1992 Ferreira, probably my favorite producer who declared both. Ignore both Calem's, both of which are forgettable at best (some might find the 1991 elegant?). Really it boiled down to when the growers picked. Those like Niepoort that waited (at Passadouro) wound up with intense VP and the 1992 is considerably better than its '91 sibling. I remember outside of the big names, I was a huge fan of the Quinta do Infantado 1992 and bought a bunch. For whatever reason, nobody was talking about them much back then and they also did a rather pleasant but unremarkable 1991. Try the 1992 though, if you can ever get your hands on a bottle. Taylor is clearly the gem of the 1992s with Fonseca also very good but not in the same league.

To give you guys several examples of US pricing pre-release for both vintages, I know I paid:

1991 Croft = $28
1991 Vargellas = $26
1991 Vesuvio = $33
1991 Fonseca-Guimaraens = $24
1991 Warre = $21

1992 Martinez' Eira Velha = $15
1992 Niepoort = $29
1992 Fonseca = $27
1992 Quinta do Infantado = $29
1992 Taylor = $27

Just one Port dork's historical perspective.

Thanks Tom!

[Michael M.]

Interesting read. Thank you, Roy.
You did not mention 1991 Graham's VP among the favored. Anything wrong with it?

Michael

[Axel P]

Thanks, Roy, very interesting read from someone who has actually been there.

Axel

[Roy Hersh]

Michael,

The Graham's from 1991 is solid but nothing out of the ordinary, say, on a par with 1983. I prefer the Dow by a good margin.


Axel,

Having been there just means I am old.

[DRT]

Michael,

The Graham's from 1991 is solid but nothing out of the ordinary, say, on a par with 1983. I prefer the Dow by a good margin.

I love the Graham's 91 but today, purely on the basis of the above post, I purchased some Dow 91

[Alex Bridgeman]

...nothing out of the ordinary, say, on a par with [ed: Graham's] 1983.

Ahem!


Have I understood this right? I actually rate the Graham's 1983 as something of a slumbering giant of a wine ... or is this American sense of humour that was missed by a Brit.

Aha. I see. Revenge for our British humour. Very subtle.