Which VPs will last 100 years?

[uncle tom]

I have 17 bottles of F66 - should keep me nicely supplied for a decade or three - but more than that, I'm not sure..

Tom

[Alex Bridgeman]

I'm slightly doubtful about the F66's longer term prospects - a fine but delicate flower methinks...

"fine", "delicate" and "flower" are all words I have failed to use when describing that robust beast that is Fonseca 1966.

But always one to admit the error of my ways, I am willing to reconsider.

Party at Tom's, anyone?

[mosesbotbol]

"fine", "delicate" and "flower" are all words I have failed to use when describing that robust beast that is Fonseca 1966.

But always one to admit the error of my ways, I am willing to reconsider.

Party at Tom's, anyone?

How about "sweet" and "yummy"?

[DRT]

"fine", "delicate" and "flower" are all words I have failed to use when describing that robust beast that is Fonseca 1966.

But always one to admit the error of my ways, I am willing to reconsider.

Party at Tom's, anyone?

How about "sweet" and "yummy"?

How about "apart from NN63, the darkest, least mature and most tannic vintage port from the 1960's today"?

[uncle tom]

How about "apart from NN63, the darkest, least mature and most tannic vintage port from the 1960's today"?

My last encounter was of a wine that was approachable soon after decanting, was mature, and also very fine and elegant; but also one that wilted with surprising speed..

..still, that's over a year ago now, which gives me a perfect excuse to schedule another for death row..

Tom

[DRT]

How about "apart from NN63, the darkest, least mature and most tannic vintage port from the 1960's today"?

My last encounter was of a wine that was approachable soon after decanting, was mature, and also very fine and elegant; but also one that wilted with surprising speed..

..still, that's over a year ago now, which gives me a perfect excuse to schedule another for death row..

Tom

That doesn't sound like at least 4 examples of this wine that I have tasted in the past 3 years, the latest of which was in June this year. Perhaps your last one was not typical?

[marc j.]

I'd probably add 1955 Niepoort, 1970 Taylor, 1945 Grahams & 1994 Taylor to that list. Although it is a tad early to speculate on the 1994 Taylor and where it
might go. The other three are sure to be alive at the 100 year mark.

Marc

[Chris Doty]

1967 Quinta do Noval

I'm refering to the ultra rare non-Nacional version

I had never seen it listed before, but this morning I stumbled upon two stray bottles of the N67. I'd be more than happy to use your next visit to NY as an excuse to pop one of them (feel free to bring along the old Nacional!)

The other bottle, of course, will be saved for some TBD tasting at TCP

[mosesbotbol]

How about "apart from NN63, the darkest, least mature and most tannic vintage port from the 1960's today"?

1967 Nacional is still a baby, a real baby. Will it ever be mature enough to drink in our lifetime?

[Chris Doty]

How about "apart from NN63, the darkest, least mature and most tannic vintage port from the 1960's today"?

1967 Nacional is still a baby, a real baby. Will it ever be mature enough to drink in our lifetime?

Why is it that whenever an exalted bottle fails to deliver on its hype, people are so eager to defend it? Whether it is food pairing, bottle age, decanting time, serving order, serving temperature, etc etc etc, the answer is almost never 'maybe the wine is just waaaay over-hyped?'

That's how I feel about the Nacional in general, and the NN63 and NN67 are excellent specific examples of this issue (not that they were bad, just that they weren't spellbinding).

At some point, greatness just needs to be defined by its ability to perform when you want it to, no? "No excuses, play like a champion."

Said differently, how is it possible for a wine that cannot be reliably enjoyed 44 years after the harvest be considered one of the greatest ports ever made?

Does this issue not bother anyone else?

[jdaw1]

Does this issue not bother anyone else?

There is much concurring comment on .

But always a but a forum such as this might perhaps attract knowledgeable geek collector types. Perhaps, at least eventually. And such types, were any to register for , might want to try all the famed vintages. Yes, that fame might be wrong or based on a lucky bottle, but geek collector types might still want to try them.

And might then be disappointed.

[mosesbotbol]

That's how I feel about the Nacional in general, and the NN63 and NN67 are excellent specific examples of this issue (not that they were bad, just that they weren't spellbinding).

At some point, greatness just needs to be defined by its ability to perform when you want it to, no? "No excuses, play like a champion."

Said differently, how is it possible for a wine that cannot be reliably enjoyed 44 years after the harvest be considered one of the greatest ports ever made?

Does this issue not bother anyone else?

Well, how many times have you had NN '67? I've only had it once and it sure performed. There are a few on this site that had it along with me. A 40 year old port that needs 24 hour decanting is pretty special.

What is the greatest port ever made? Noval has one of the top five with Noval 1931; so they own 20% of the best ports ever made list and we have 4 to go...

[g-man]

i've heard that the 1948 fonseca could be mentioned with the noval's ...

Chris, ahem, interested in finding and sharing a bottle?

[Chris Doty]

Well, how many times have you had NN '67? I've only had it once and it sure performed. There are a few on this site that had it along with me. A 40 year old port that needs 24 hour decanting is pretty special.

All vintages of Nacional I have had (11), I have only had once. The 67 and 63 I had at Berrys, from the cellars of Noval, with the tasting MC'd by Christian Seely, so I trust they were in immaculate shape, and served with all due attention and care. I actually asked if they were representative, and he said he believed that they were.

I'd be more than happy to try them again, but for the ~2K that they were listed at Berry's for, I'd rather take a few cases of the 1970 Dow, the 1980 Graham, the 1985 Fonseca, and the 1994 Vesuvio

[Andy Velebil]

1967 Quinta do Noval

I'm refering to the ultra rare non-Nacional version

I had never seen it listed before, but this morning I stumbled upon two stray bottles of the N67. I'd be more than happy to use your next visit to NY as an excuse to pop one of them (feel free to bring along the old Nacional!)

The other bottle, of course, will be saved for some TBD tasting at TCP

I would be most happy to accept your offer and while I don't have a NN67, I will bring something appropriate for the occasion. I will probably be in NY sometime next year.

[Andy Velebil]

How about "apart from NN63, the darkest, least mature and most tannic vintage port from the 1960's today"?

1967 Nacional is still a baby, a real baby. Will it ever be mature enough to drink in our lifetime?

Why is it that whenever an exalted bottle fails to deliver on its hype, people are so eager to defend it? Whether it is food pairing, bottle age, decanting time, serving order, serving temperature, etc etc etc, the answer is almost never 'maybe the wine is just waaaay over-hyped?'

That's how I feel about the Nacional in general, and the NN63 and NN67 are excellent specific examples of this issue (not that they were bad, just that they weren't spellbinding).

At some point, greatness just needs to be defined by its ability to perform when you want it to, no? "No excuses, play like a champion."

Said differently, how is it possible for a wine that cannot be reliably enjoyed 44 years after the harvest be considered one of the greatest ports ever made?

Does this issue not bother anyone else?

I think the issue is more of a label bias than anything else. As with any old wine, sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. There is nothing wrong with saying a bottle didn't live up to normal expectations, but sometimes people have a hard time saying such.

As for the 1963 NN, I've had it a few times now and it has always been a killer bottle. Now is it worth the price, well that is something each person has to determine for themselves. As for the experience, for me it has always been an amazing bottle and worth it. That said, I have preferred the regular '67 Noval to the '67 NN when served blind at the Quinta (and another time with just the '67 NN alone) and that is saying a lot, as the NN was a smoking good bottle. But for me the regular Noval was a bit better, YMMV.

[g-man]

1967 Quinta do Noval

I'm refering to the ultra rare non-Nacional version

I had never seen it listed before, but this morning I stumbled upon two stray bottles of the N67. I'd be more than happy to use your next visit to NY as an excuse to pop one of them (feel free to bring along the old Nacional!)

The other bottle, of course, will be saved for some TBD tasting at TCP

haha you know, I gotta remember you're on this site too

I called about the same 2 bottles 3 weeks ago but was headed on holiday so didn't pull the trigger

[JacobH]

Why is it that whenever an exalted bottle fails to deliver on its hype, people are so eager to defend it? Whether it is food pairing, bottle age, decanting time, serving order, serving temperature, etc etc etc, the answer is almost never 'maybe the wine is just waaaay over-hyped?'

That's how I feel about the Nacional in general, and the NN63 and NN67 are excellent specific examples of this issue (not that they were bad, just that they weren't spellbinding).

At some point, greatness just needs to be defined by its ability to perform when you want it to, no? "No excuses, play like a champion."

Said differently, how is it possible for a wine that cannot be reliably enjoyed 44 years after the harvest be considered one of the greatest ports ever made?

Does this issue not bother anyone else?

I think it does, which is why I am pleased that most of the tastings we organise through are blind. That does allow us to separate the hype from the reality in a way which I don’t think is always possible if you just taste sighted. The consequence of that is that I do think there are several Ports which are perhaps over-rated or, rather, over-expensive for what they are. Nacional is the obvious example; I’ve only tried it a couple of times but did think that I would rather buy six or twelve of the normal version instead. For the money it just didn’t seem worth it. But then, if I owned a thousand bottles of Vintage Port, I might have a different opinion.

I often think the same way about Taylor. In the UK, at least, you pay a premium for its Vintage Port which I have never felt is quite justified by the quality. It is good Port, of course, but perhaps not quite as good as you might hope. However, since the premium is not so high, I don’t mind buying it from time-to-time, even if it is not such good value-for-money as other shippers.

[Glenn E.]

I do think there are several Ports which are perhaps over-rated or, rather, over-expensive for what they are. Nacional is the obvious example; I’ve only tried it a couple of times but did think that I would rather buy six or twelve of the normal version instead. For the money it just didn’t seem worth it. But then, if I owned a thousand bottles of Vintage Port, I might have a different opinion.

I believe that I have only ever tasted 3 Nacionals. Two times were sighted, one was blind, and every time I was pretty disappointed. My thought at the time of the two sighted tastings was "this is the ever-hyped Nacional?" I didn't have that reaction to the blind tasting, but the results spoke for themselves - I rated the Nacional last in the (fairly large) tasting.

Full disclosure: the blind Nacional was a 1984. I know of nothing from that vintage that has a stellar reputation, so I wasn't surprised when the '84 Nacional was lackluster. Still... I rated it 2 points lower than an '80 GC that some thought might be corked.

Now to be fair I could see what people like about Nacional in the sighted examples. It was very youthful for its age, powerful, and well built. But - and this is the crux of the issue - what good is it for a Port to last 100 years if it doesn't taste that exceptional to start with? Head-to-head I'd rather have a '66 Fonseca than a '67 Nacional. Factor in the price difference and it's no contest on any level.

I think Nacional is a collector's wine. When you have 1000 bottles in your cellar, as Jacob says, then it might make sense to have a Nacional or two just for the "crown jewel" aspect. You don't drink them, you just show the bottle(s) to your friends so everyone can ooh and ahh about how cool it is to have one while you're drinking your '66 Graham or '70 Taylor.

[g-man]

I think Nacional is a collector's wine. When you have 1000 bottles in your cellar, as Jacob says, then it might make sense to have a Nacional or two just for the "crown jewel" aspect. You don't drink them, you just show the bottle(s) to your friends so everyone can ooh and ahh about how cool it is to have one while you're drinking your '66 Graham or '70 Taylor.

that's a shame, I'd open one for you if i had any left.

[Glenn E.]

I still kick myself for failing to act immediately when I found a pair of 1970 Nacionals for $350 each. It took me a week to convince myself that they'd be worth the cost which delayed me long enough for an ordering snafu to occur that prevented me from getting them.

[JacobH]

Since we are on the subject of Nacional, out of interest does anyone know at what age the vines in that vineyard average? I think the vineyard was first planted in the 1920s, but I was wondering whether they have a higher attrition rate there because of phylloxera and have to replant more frequently than in other vineyards.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Since we are on the subject of Nacional, out of interest does anyone know at what age the vines in that vineyard average? I think the vineyard was first planted in the 1920s, but I was wondering whether they have a higher attrition rate there because of phylloxera and have to replant more frequently than in other vineyards.

If I recall correctly, I was told that the vines average around 25-30 years of age on the Nacional parcel. They do have to be replaced more often than grafted vines because of the attack of the phylloxera louse, but the effects of the louse also produce smaller bunches of concentrated grapes more quickly than seen on grated vines.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Well, how many times have you had NN '67? I've only had it once and it sure performed. There are a few on this site that had it along with me. A 40 year old port that needs 24 hour decanting is pretty special.

All vintages of Nacional I have had (11), I have only had once. The 67 and 63 I had at Berrys, from the cellars of Noval, with the tasting MC'd by Christian Seely, so I trust they were in immaculate shape, and served with all due attention and care. I actually asked if they were representative, and he said he believed that they were.

I'd be more than happy to try them again, but for the ~2K that they were listed at Berry's for, I'd rather take a few cases of the 1970 Dow, the 1980 Graham, the 1985 Fonseca, and the 1994 Vesuvio

I've been catching up on old threads over the last few days and read the discussion on Nacional with some considerable interest. I wrote a guest corner article for Roy back in 2008 on what I considred to be the 10 finest vintage ports I had drunk up to that point. In that top 10, I had 3 different vintages of Nacional (2003, 1994 and 1963). The first time I tried the 1963 Nacional it was served blind and I was just blown away; it had such a concentration of fruit and multiplicity of layers of flavour. It remains the only port which I have scored at 100 points. I've tried a number of different Nacional vintages (including the 1931 at a tasting organised by Linden Wilkie's Fine Wine Experience; but I was not impressed) many of which I have found to be average in quality and weaker than good examples of port from the same vintage from other shippers.

However, the best port I have ever had remains the 1963 Nacional. (My top 10, from 10 to 1, was Fonseca 1963, Vesuvio 1994, Croft 1945, Gould Campbell 1977, Nacional 2003, Noval 1997, Morgan 1945, Croft 1927, Nacional 1994 and Nacional 1963.)

But then there is also the debate about the price of Nacional compared to other port and the value for money issue. In my mind, there is definitely a label premium for Nacional wines. They are in very limited supply, not released as frequently as the regular Noval and have a romanticism attached to them which all combine to make them desirable and collectible ports. This allows a significant premium to be attached to the selling price of the bottles. For example, Fonseca 1963 sells in the UK today for £130.80 while Nacional 1963 sells for £1,650. Which would you rather have - 12 bottles of Fonseca 1963 or 1 bottle of Nacional 1963?

And that's a personal preference to which your answer may well change overtime. If you're at an early stage of building a cellar and have only a handful of bottles, you may well prefer the case of Fonseca 1963. On the other hand, if you've already got 2 cases of Fonseca 1963 and another 1,000 bottles in the cellar then you might feel that one bottle of Nacional is worth the cost. It gets to be an even more interesting question if we look at ports from the 1980s, when Noval was going through a bad patch and the Nacional wines were also below par. Warre 1983 @ £50 or Nacional 1982 @ £300?

And I guess the answer is that we are all looking to build balanced cellars, cellars which will provide us with decent drinking now and in the future. Some may feel that no Nacional needs to be included in a balanced cellar, some may feel that a handful are worth having and others may love the challenge of collecting and be actively seeking to acquire as many different vintages of Nacional as they can. I hope that any bottle of Nacional that I have or may acquire is opened and drunk in due course - I only buy port to drink it, not to collect it and show it to people...that's what I use my collection of empty bottles for!

[mosesbotbol]

I hope that any bottle of Nacional that I have or may acquire is opened and drunk in due course - I only buy port to drink it, not to collect it and show it to people...that's what I use my collection of empty bottles for!

Nacional is just about all I drink these days. You know how I roll...


Then I move on the Kirkland Tawny.