Dow's 2007 Vintage - 100 PTS Wine Spectator

[SushiNorth]

For the interested:
Dow's 2007 is still for sale in the Netherlands at 55EUR per bottle.
http://www.colaris.nl/Colaris/TradePoin ... =PORTDOW07

Seems pricey to me, but then again i got a nice deal (64ea) on a 6-pack when this craziness all started. Given that D07 was on my list top-4 list, i don't regret that price. I also picked up a 6-pack of the G07, which i expect to be better simply by virtue of house style.

[Glenn E.]

In another decade, and long before this wine is mature, the vintage will be doubtless well re-visited, and the results will tend to eclipse the initial reviews; especially as the internet databases gain integrity and status.

That's a good theory, but it does not appear to be practice. Take a look at the 1977 Fonseca if you need an example.

It may be different in the UK, but in the US that 100-point rating will stick with it forever. Stores use multiple critics and only display the highest scores regardless of critic. So one Port might show a WS rating, while the one sitting next to it might show a RP rating, and the third one might show a WE rating, all so that the highest possible rating can be displayed. (Yes, stores still display RP scores even though Parker hasn't rated Port since... the 1994 vintage?) 1977 Fonseca is still discussed in stores using hushed tones as a 100-point Port (WS), despite the more prevalent opinion that while it is very good it is not worth 100 points.

It does seem to be true that wines that were underrated eventually receive their due, but again the cynic in me says that is because of sales/marketing. Stores are happy to revise scores upwards on their shelves so that they can increase their prices. Thankfully scores rarely rise (from critics) unless the Port actually deserves the higher rating.

[RonnieRoots]

For the interested:
Dow's 2007 is still for sale in the Netherlands at 55EUR per bottle.
http://www.colaris.nl/Colaris/TradePoin ... =PORTDOW07

Seems pricey to me, but then again i got a nice deal (64ea) on a 6-pack when this craziness all started. Given that D07 was on my list top-4 list, i don't regret that price. I also picked up a 6-pack of the G07, which i expect to be better simply by virtue of house style.

Actually, for the Netherlands that is a pretty good price. Young vintage port tends to be much more expensive there than in e.g. the UK, because the importers treat it like a luxury product, jacking up margins to ridiculous rates.

Whether it's the best of the vintage or not, worth 100 points or 98, I don't really care. I am a fan of the Dow's style (much more than of the Graham style) and apparently this is a very good Dow. That's enough reason for me to buy.

[g-man]

1977 Fonseca is still discussed in stores using hushed tones as a 100-point Port (WS), despite the more prevalent opinion that while it is very good it is not worth 100 points.

Dunno about you, but it's pretty damn close

i think the lowest I've ever scored the bottles I've had is 96 pters including double blind where i had no idea someone surprised me. 96-100 could basically be the same wine with bottle variation attributing the 1-3 pts.

[SushiNorth]

1977 Fonseca is still discussed in stores using hushed tones as a 100-point Port (WS), despite the more prevalent opinion that while it is very good it is not worth 100 points.

Dunno about you, but it's pretty damn close

i think the lowest I've ever scored the bottles I've had is 96 pters including double blind where i had no idea someone surprised me. 96-100 could basically be the same wine with bottle variation attributing the 1-3 pts.

I have had fonseca 70 and Fonseca 66 that were better than Fonseca77. However, i found all of them to be flawless -- simply the best wine i had ever had. Yet clearly they were not equals. Does one deserve a 99 or a 98? Is 100 a measure of achievement, or a ranking?

[g-man]

1977 Fonseca is still discussed in stores using hushed tones as a 100-point Port (WS), despite the more prevalent opinion that while it is very good it is not worth 100 points.

Dunno about you, but it's pretty damn close

i think the lowest I've ever scored the bottles I've had is 96 pters including double blind where i had no idea someone surprised me. 96-100 could basically be the same wine with bottle variation attributing the 1-3 pts.

I have had fonseca 70 and Fonseca 66 that were better than Fonseca77. However, i found all of them to be flawless -- simply the best wine i had ever had. Yet clearly they were not equals. Does one deserve a 99 or a 98? Is 100 a measure of achievement, or a ranking?

i'd say it'd be like rating your favorite children. Would you dare rank them? No, but you can rate them and they both can potentially be 100 pters but be different

Ugh, birthday jet lag and hangovers is never fun!

[Glenn E.]

I have had fonseca 70 and Fonseca 66 that were better than Fonseca77. However, i found all of them to be flawless -- simply the best wine i had ever had. Yet clearly they were not equals. Does one deserve a 99 or a 98? Is 100 a measure of achievement, or a ranking?

Now this is just the way I do things, so I could be entirely off base. But here's my perspective...

In order to get a rating over 90 points there can be no flaws that are immediately obvious. (Something more than a minor flaw, but less than a major flaw.) One or two minor flaws might get into the low 90s if the Port is otherwise exceptional.

For me to give a rating over 95, the Port must have no flaws at all. So what does that leave? Well, no flaws != perfect. A flawless finish could be bested by a phenomenal one. A flawless nose could be bested by a gorgeously expressive one, etc.

For me to give 100 points the Port must transcend mere description. It has to blow my mind and leave me speechless. 100 points is not something to be awarded just because a Port is very, very good. A lot of Ports are very, very good. 100 points is an epiphany. 100 points opens your mind to things you never thought possible in a Port. This isn't Highlander, so there can be more than one. But each one must achieve the same transcendent experience. "The best Port I've ever had" doesn't cut it, because I haven't had every Port. For some people, I'm sure that Cruz Ruby is the best Port they've ever had. Sad, but it doesn't make Cruz Ruby a 100 point Port even for those people. 100 points is saying that not only is this the best Port you've ever had (by definition), but that you also can't even imagine a better Port.

I've had the F77 once, but it was before I started giving out ratings using the 100 point scale. Based on my notes, though, I estimate that I would have put it in the 95-97 range. It was the best 1977 at the 2009 Port Gala (out of 8), but oddly I had it tied with the Ferreira using the crude system I had at the time. It did handily beat Dow, Graham, Taylor, and Warre though.

Is it worth niggling over 3-5 points? I say yes. 1 point here or there is no big deal. 2 points, to me, is saying that one Port is pretty clearly better than the other, but there might still be argument. At 3 points, though, the line has been drawn. With a 3 point difference I think an experienced taster should put them in the same order every time when tasted blind.

To me it's even more important at 100 points. You can be off by a point one way or the other at 97, but you can't at 100 because there is no 101. Unless, apparently, you're Robert Parker.

[g-man]

I have had fonseca 70 and Fonseca 66 that were better than Fonseca77. However, i found all of them to be flawless -- simply the best wine i had ever had. Yet clearly they were not equals. Does one deserve a 99 or a 98? Is 100 a measure of achievement, or a ranking?

Now this is just the way I do things, so I could be entirely off base. But here's my perspective...

In order to get a rating over 90 points there can be no flaws that are immediately obvious. (Something more than a minor flaw, but less than a major flaw.) One or two minor flaws might get into the low 90s if the Port is otherwise exceptional.

For me to give a rating over 95, the Port must have no flaws at all. So what does that leave? Well, no flaws != perfect. A flawless finish could be bested by a phenomenal one. A flawless nose could be bested by a gorgeously expressive one, etc.

For me to give 100 points the Port must transcend mere description. It has to blow my mind and leave me speechless. 100 points is not something to be awarded just because a Port is very, very good. A lot of Ports are very, very good. 100 points is an epiphany. 100 points opens your mind to things you never thought possible in a Port. This isn't Highlander, so there can be more than one. But each one must achieve the same transcendent experience. "The best Port I've ever had" doesn't cut it, because I haven't had every Port. For some people, I'm sure that Cruz Ruby is the best Port they've ever had. Sad, but it doesn't make Cruz Ruby a 100 point Port even for those people. 100 points is saying that not only is this the best Port you've ever had (by definition), but that you also can't even imagine a better Port.

I've had the F77 once, but it was before I started giving out ratings using the 100 point scale. Based on my notes, though, I estimate that I would have put it in the 95-97 range. It was the best 1977 at the 2009 Port Gala (out of 8), but oddly I had it tied with the Ferreira using the crude system I had at the time. It did handily beat Dow, Graham, Taylor, and Warre though.

Is it worth niggling over 3-5 points? I say yes. 1 point here or there is no big deal. 2 points, to me, is saying that one Port is pretty clearly better than the other, but there might still be argument. At 3 points, though, the line has been drawn. With a 3 point difference I think an experienced taster should put them in the same order every time when tasted blind.

To me it's even more important at 100 points. You can be off by a point one way or the other at 97, but you can't at 100 because there is no 101. Unless, apparently, you're Robert Parker.

sounds like a proper tasting for us in the states, where we can do a proper 100 pter tasting.

"When is a 100 pter, not a 100pter"

[uncle tom]

That's a good theory, but it does not appear to be practice.

If the status quo persists, then I would agree; but my suspicion is that the rise and increasing sophistication of internet community notes will gradually supplant the often out-of-date notes of a handful of prima donnas..

..we shall see!

Tom

[Michael M.]

Tom, although I disagree with most of your point of view in this case your post is very interesting as it catches some of the leading points in that matter. Thanks for that.

For those using the 100 point system there has been a gradual grade creep in scores over the years, to the extent that any wine that is made correctly, and has no obvious defect, can now expect to get 90+ ...
If this trend continues, the number of 100pt scores is likely to increase, so de-valuing its status. It would also be likely that the absurdities of this scoring system would be more widely recognised.

The last two 100 pointer from Suckling are 1994 Fonseca VP and 1994Taylor VP 13 years ago. So I do not see any inflation here.

In another decade, and long before this wine is mature, the vintage will be doubtless well re-visited, and the results will tend to eclipse the initial reviews; especially as the internet databases gain integrity and status.

Did Suckling ever revsit a 100 pointer following a downgrade? I do not know. But I will doubt.

But if you are only motivated by the opinion of a single publication, then you are the fool rushing in..

I disagree. Suckling counts. Have a look at the websites of the shipper and online dealer who is quoted mostly first. A Suckling 100 pointer for about 65 EUR is a nobrainer. There is nothing to loose at all.

At this rate, it will be twelve years before I contemplate paying £100/bottle; but I suspect I will secure it for less before then.

I think that everyone who bought at 65 EUR today will be lucky in 10 years. 6.200 cases of 2007 Dow VP produced. Even in a very small crop as it was in 2000 Taylor produced 14.500 cases and Fonseca produced 12.500 cases of VP.
All in all I would conclude that the price of 2007 Dow VP will only know one direction in the medium term. Up north.

Michael

[Glenn E.]

my suspicion is that the rise and increasing sophistication of internet community notes will gradually supplant the often out-of-date notes of a handful of prima donnas..

We can hope!

For now, though, we're saddled with this silly system that seems, at least to me, to be chock full of holes that no one is trying to plug.

I have to agree with Michael, too. I suspect that anyone who bought the 2007 Dow at or below 65 Euros is going to be happy in the future. Not because they have a 100 point Port - though that may also ultimately prove to be correct - but because that 100 point rating is going to stick with it forever and keep its price unreasonably high.

1992 Taylor (100 RP) is currently about $225 in the US. It has actually increased from about $180 (which is what I paid) a year or so ago.
1994 Taylor (100 WS) is currently about $150 - $165 in the US, down from its peak of about $180 in the US. (I got one mag for $200 and one for $290.)
1994 Fonseca (100 WS) is currently bout $170 - $180 in the US, down from its peak of about $190 in the US. (I managed to find my bottles for $140.)

Even in the worst world-wide financial crisis that any of us have ever lived through, the 100-point Ports don't fall far.

[g-man]

my suspicion is that the rise and increasing sophistication of internet community notes will gradually supplant the often out-of-date notes of a handful of prima donnas..

We can hope!

For now, though, we're saddled with this silly system that seems, at least to me, to be chock full of holes that no one is trying to plug.

I have to agree with Michael, too. I suspect that anyone who bought the 2007 Dow at or below 65 Euros is going to be happy in the future. Not because they have a 100 point Port - though that may also ultimately prove to be correct - but because that 100 point rating is going to stick with it forever and keep its price unreasonably high.

1992 Taylor (100 RP) is currently about $225 in the US. It has actually increased from about $180 (which is what I paid) a year or so ago.
1994 Taylor (100 WS) is currently about $150 - $165 in the US, down from its peak of about $180 in the US. (I got one mag for $200 and one for $290.)
1994 Fonseca (100 WS) is currently bout $170 - $180 in the US, down from its peak of about $190 in the US. (I managed to find my bottles for $140.)

Even in the worst world-wide financial crisis that any of us have ever lived through, the 100-point Ports don't fall far.

you should probably just pay me the difference and buy your port for you glenn,

I got the f94 last year for 90$/bottle

[Glenn E.]

I got the f94 last year for 90$/bottle

Those are retail prices, not auction. I purchased all of those bottles back in 2008 before I was comfortable using the online auction sites. In fact, I got the F94 from a local B&M that marked them down 30% during an inventory reduction. Someone else beat me to the pair of T94 that they had marked down to $120. The also had a pair of G55s, but I couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a bottle since they'd started at around $500.

I don't check daily or even weekly, but I've never seen any of those 3 Ports anywhere close to $100/bottle at retail since then.

[SushiNorth]

I got the f94 last year for 90$/bottle

Those are retail prices, not auction. I purchased all of those bottles back in 2008 before I was comfortable using the online auction sites. In fact, I got the F94 from a local B&M that marked them down 30% during an inventory reduction. Someone else beat me to the pair of T94 that they had marked down to $120. The also had a pair of G55s, but I couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a bottle since they'd started at around $500.

I don't check daily or even weekly, but I've never seen any of those 3 Ports anywhere close to $100/bottle at retail since then.

Through consigners:
Last year: $90 for T94 -- bought a bunch.
This year: $60 for F94 and T94 (only one each) -- Bought both, got F94, but consigner is having trouble finding the T94 in their cellar to send me (he has a pic from orig inventory, just doesn't know where the bottle is as cellar is in transition).

What this means: ALL wines, even ones we consider expensive or hard to find, are available. Sometimes B-rated wines are available through retailers at silly prices (GC80 @$35, 83'2 and 85's at $27-33, C00 at $25). Sometimes top notch wines turn up at great prices through unexpected sources (consigners, old little retail shops with bottles lingering, garage sales, online sites with sales, etc). The best approach is to keep your eyes open. The downside is finding too many "deals" and buying way more than you could possibly drink

[g-man]

and fellow tpf'ers swooping in on the same stash!
/me eyes sushinorth

[SushiNorth]

and fellow tpf'ers swooping in on the same stash!
/me eyes sushinorth

says the man who tried to nick C63 outta my penciled in order
/me eyes gman

thankfully, the crew of loyal port lushes here in NYC is small enough that just about anything one buys, the others get to taste

[Glenn E.]

What this means: ALL wines, even ones we consider expensive or hard to find, are available.

Of course, but those gone-in-a-flash prices aren't terribly useful for purposes of tracking trends because they come and go so quickly. Plus I didn't know about consigners when I bought my bottles!

The prices I've listed are pulled from the same source (wine-searcher.com) using the same methodology, so should be a reasonable indicator of pricing trends. Are they the lowest prices possible? No, of course not. They aren't now, and most likely weren't then either. But since wine-searcher surveys a very large number of retailers I think it does make for a reasonable approximation of the "going price" for wine and Port.

[SushiNorth]

What this means: ALL wines, even ones we consider expensive or hard to find, are available.

Of course, but those gone-in-a-flash prices aren't terribly useful for purposes of tracking trends because they come and go so quickly. Plus I didn't know about consigners when I bought my bottles!

The prices I've listed are pulled from the same source (wine-searcher.com) using the same methodology, so should be a reasonable indicator of pricing trends. Are they the lowest prices possible? No, of course not. They aren't now, and most likely weren't then either. But since wine-searcher surveys a very large number of retailers I think it does make for a reasonable approximation of the "going price" for wine and Port.

Yes, i would agree that wine-searcher gives a good approximation of the price of a bottle.

[clawhit]

Harrods have it at £55/bottle and if you have a Harrods reward card you can get 10% off taking it down to £49.50/bottle

[Joost]

I found Dow VP 2007 in the Gall&Gall of all places!!! (This is the largest chain of winestores, but only selling wines under 10/15€ usually)
They sell it for 60€, but I managed to get a 10% discounts... So thats 54 €...

Santé,
Joost

[RonnieRoots]

I found Dow VP 2007 in the Gall&Gall of all places!!! (This is the largest chain of winestores, but only selling wines under 10/15€ usually)
They sell it for 60€, but I managed to get a 10% discounts... So thats 54 €...

Santé,
Joost

Not bad! It would even be better during the WildWineDays, when they give the second bottle at a 50% discount.