Summarise a vintage, concisely

[LGTrotter]

This 1970 thing is an itch I can't stop scratching. I have been looking through my wine books published in the eighties and nineties to see what the sentiment is about the 1970 vintage. I am finding it harder to find references than I thought.

Many writers just don't mention them, skipping from 63 and 66 straight to 77 when talking of great vintages. For example Harry Waugh in his wine diary lists 45, 55, 63 and 77 as the postwar vintages. Others do but simply as part of a list of declared years. Several writers do speak of it as an outstanding wine, Wyndham fletcher for example, but he then rather disconcertingly goes on to praise the 67 over the 66.

For those who do remember further back can you put me out of my misery and let me know if I am imagining that the 1970 has only reasonably recently arrived at the current level of critical acclaim?

I shall read on...

[djewesbury]

And please could you put your replies into a bullet-pointed list entitled "the 5 best pieces of wine journalism about the 1970s"

[jdaw1]

The Wine Society catalogue, June to September 2002.

[LGTrotter]

From Oz Clarke's pocket wine book 2000.

Port vintages rated out of 10;
1963-10
1966-9
1970-8
1975-5
1977-9

From Robert Joseph's 'the wine lists' published in 1985:
1970- Not overpraised, this is very fine port, for drinking between 1985-1995.
1977- Really great. The one to drink on New Year's Eve 1999.
1963- Another great year.

[djewesbury]

I'll have a look when I get back home tonight. I have books of my mother's from the 80s and 90s which might be revealing.

[LGTrotter]

Thank you Daniel.

Thinking about the wine society list I wonder how to compare 'classic' with 'exceptional' and 'outstanding'.

[AW77]

I just had a look at the older editions of Hugh Johnson's Pocket Wine Book I have: between 1977 and 2002 there are no Vintage summaries. After that we have the usual "classic year" characterisation for 1970. 1970 is only mentioned as a declared year when Johnson talks about specific port houses (but it's not in bold and thus is only mentioned as "other vintage currently avaiable").

[LGTrotter]

Broadbent on 1970:

An underrated year...Sound, healthy wines resulted, much sturdier than originally considered, and with plenty of life ahead of them. The more I taste and drink the 1970s the more impressed I am.
Minor shippers drink up; major well into the present century.

Also when talking of the 85s he says; "almost, but not quite of the calibre of the 1945, 1963, and 1977". No mention of the 1970 in his greatest line up.

From "Wine Vintages" published 2003.

[DRT]

Mayson (2004) - "1970 ***** classic, thight-knit wines; the best with a long future ahead. Early tastings tended to play down the 1970 wines and they are only now being judged in their true light."

I don't have the 1999 edition but suspect that was the source of those words. So 16 years ago Mayson thought 1970 a classic. Good enough for me.

[djewesbury]

Mayson (2004) - "1970 ***** classic, thight-knit wines; the best with a long future ahead. Early tastings tended to play down the 1970 wines and they are only now being judged in their true light."

I don't have the 1999 edition but suspect that was the source of those words. So 16 years ago Mayson thought 1970 a classic. Good enough for me.

There is nothing to suggest that Mayson would have based his vintage summaries on what he'd written 16 years before. I'm sure he updated them; even if he is a journalist.

[djewesbury]

Most of my Mum's books are not accessible at present; however I was able to lay my hands on Jancis, thankfully. In the '95 edition of her 'Wine Course', she says:

1985 A flattering year: luscious and fragrant for mid-term drinking.
1983 A shade behind 1985. Good, sometimes exceptional. Maturing relatively fast.
[…]
1977 Destined to be legendary, these have monstrous weight and power and will probably last forever! Similar to 1970.
1975 Widely declared but an under-performer
1970 Superb, big, full and deep. Now ready, will last very many years.

[DRT]

There is nothing to suggest that Mayson would have based his vintage summaries on what he'd written 16 years before. I'm sure he updated them; even if he is a journalist.

The 2004 and 2014 descriptions are identical. There is nothing to suggest 1999 wouldn't be the same but I was hoping someone would have one and confirm one way or the other. Regardless, for 11 years, and therefore two years before I tasted one, Mayson has considered 1970 a classic.

[Alex Bridgeman]

So what conclusion have we come to?

That 1927 was the greatest vintage of the 20th century and that 1970 is not clearly any better than 1945, 1955, 1963, 1966, 1977, 1985, 1994 or 1986 (surely a Dotyism!).

Yawn! Only 2 hours before Souperbowl coverage starts...

Not sure I'll be awake for it. A month of abstinence and then a bottle of Sandeman 2009 LBV is having its effect.

[djewesbury]

So what conclusion have we come to?

That 1927 was the greatest vintage of the 20th century and that 1970 is not clearly any better than 1945, 1955, 1963, 1966, 1977, 1985, 1994 or 1986 (surely a Dotyism!).

Yawn! Only 2 hours before Souperbowl coverage starts...

Not sure I'll be awake for it. A month of abstinence and then a bottle of Sandeman 2009 LBV is having its effect.

The Souperbowl sounds like a Homer Simpson-ish event.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Yawn! Only 2 hours before Souperbowl coverage starts...

The Souperbowl sounds like a Homer Simpson-ish event.

The spelling was deliberate.

I shall probably manage the first 15 minutes of coverage and then fall asleep for the remainder.

[Andy Velebil]

The Wine Society catalogue, June to September 2002.

They forgot 1992 Delaforce was declared as well.


Two posts moved by jdaw1 to Superbowl 49.

[CaliforniaBrad]

2015: It's not been made into wine yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

[jdaw1]

Some 31 posts moved by jdaw1 to Merits of 1983 versus 1985. The subjects were a little entangled, so continuity might be imperfect.

[Chris Doty]

As my other commentary has been moved, let's try:

1983: Ready now and enjoyable if inexpensive (<$60), but in no instances "exceptional." Blue Horseshoe prefers Ramos Pinto. Graham is also charming, but not up to the level achieved in '85. In summation, '83 is entirely skip-able as a vintage (though admittedly better than 75, 87,....crickets....). YMMV

[PhilW]

1983: Ready now and enjoyable if inexpensive (<$60), but in no instances "exceptional." Blue Horseshoe prefers Ramos Pinto. Graham is also charming, but not up to the level achieved in '85. In summation, '83 is entirely skip-able as a vintage (though admittedly better than 75, 87,....crickets....). YMMV

Summarise a vintage,concisely.
It may be a vintage on which a previous poster has commented, or a different vintage.
Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.

[djewesbury]

The best ports in 85 were excellent but everyone else had big hygiene problems.

More people made good port in 83 and it's cheaper.

I take it as a given that your mileage will vary.

[DRT]

1983 - A Marmite vintage.

[CaliforniaBrad]

2002: Mother Nature was balancing karma for '00 and '03


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

[djewesbury]

I disagree with Josh (SushiNorth) somewhere or other that 2010 was just awful. The only 2010 I have tried more than once is the Senhora da Ribeira which is wonderful.
2010: Just before the huge media storm of 2011, a vintage that was written off, but which may prove (very) good for SQVP.
Perhaps this is a problem: the top SQ terroirs are so good that they can easily produce at least 'good' wine unless it's a total washout year. So should we find a dividing line whereafter we exclude SQVPs, so as not to keep having to say "but may make excellent SQVPs"?

[Glenn E.]

Perhaps this is a problem: the top SQ terroirs are so good that they can easily produce at least 'good' wine unless it's a total washout year. So should we find a dividing line whereafter we exclude SQVPs, so as not to keep having to say "but may make excellent SQVPs"?

I agree with the premise, which is why when I see someone say "a good SQVP year" I assume it means something above and beyond the fact that those big Quintas can produce good SQVPs in just about any year. For example, 1995 and 2005 are both "good SQVP years" for Vesuvio. I think those are both superb SQVPs that go beyond just "oh yeah, Vesuvio made another SQVP that year."

So to answer Daniel's question, it is assumed that the big Quintas can make a quality SQVP in all but the worst years, so specifically mentioning the potential for SQVPs from a vintage means that there will be a larger selection to choose from than just Vesuvio, Malvedos, Vargellas, Guimaraens, et al, and that the SQVPs from the big Quintas will be higher quality than in an average vintage.