ThePortForum.com

I'd add Tesco 94 to the list. I opened another one, and perhaps got lucky again, but it drank well. These will keep my sticky paws off those with more potential that I should leave in the dark. I must get around to cutting and sticking those marvellous decanter labels.

Tesco 94 was not at all bad last night at our offline!

djewesbury wrote:Tesco 94 was not at all bad last night at our offline!

But not as good as it can be. The T94 I have had recently beat last night, which I found a little stewey.

Yes, probably true. I only came to it right at the end so felt I was being a little harsh on it after some other good things; it was better than the G85...

The Tesco 94 is something I open quite regularly. So I must think it is worth opening. However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket. I have had these faintly stewed ones before and I think that it doesn't like being moved about too much (what port does?), despite the various theories which abound round this port. It is certainly worth opening, but I think it will be all the more worth opening in about five years, maybe ten.

djewesbury wrote:Yes, probably true. I only came to it right at the end so felt I was being a little harsh on it after some other good things; it was better than the G85...

Always overrated that Graham 85, can't think why anybody has the stuff, sell immediately before the fruit turns rotten. At slightly less than the Tesco 94 retails at...

LGTrotter wrote:However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket.

The answer is simply to buy enough. Christmas is coming. I'll be getting more when on (hopefully) special offer.

I mulled over the Wine Society 06 Crusted (Fonseca) but I think Tesco 94 beats it on value, and both current drinking and future potential.

DaveRL wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket.

The answer is simply to buy enough. Christmas is coming. I'll be getting more when on (hopefully) special offer.

I mulled over the Wine Society 06 Crusted (Fonseca) but I think Tesco 94 beats it on value, and both current drinking and future potential.

Buying enough, even when it's £15 a bottle on offer is tricky. I have two streams in my 'cellar', one for proper vintage that needs keeping, or I don't have too much of and a second stream of drinkers, I bought two cases (24 bottles) for drinking and that is exactly what I have done. In a year. I bought another two cases to put by which I have already started nibbling at the corners of. And then there is the Graham's Crusted 98 to be considered, which may well overtake the Tesco wine in quality.

I cannot disagree with your sentiments on the Fonseca crusted. Or anything else, mores the pity.

I really like Vesuvio 98 for current drinking - probably my favourite VP from the 90s for drinking right now.

Of course, there are some Warre / SW LBVs in good drinking windows if you are not thinking solely of VPs.

I have also had good luck with 99s - all of Sandeman Vau, Passadouro and Niepoort Secundum from that year have given me pleasure and value for money.

On the more esoteric side, De la Rosa 1991 is drinking very well. Martinez 94 as others have mentioned. Cavadinha 91/92 are both solid (from memory)

Agrer reg Martinez 94. Opened one this past weekend and finished it today. V nice, surprisingly so. In a great place for drinking up!

Andy Velebil wrote:Many of the 1995's are drinking nicely right now while waiting for some of the top producers of the classically declared years to come round.

I've had a couple Noval Silvals over the last year, as well as a Fonseca Guimarens and all were drinking very nicely without any crazy decants. '95s are also pretty reasonably priced over here (all of mine have come from flash deal sites).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LGTrotter wrote:

DaveRL wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket.

The answer is simply to buy enough. Christmas is coming. I'll be getting more when on (hopefully) special offer.

Buying enough, even when it's £15 a bottle on offer is tricky. I have two streams in my 'cellar', one for proper vintage that needs keeping, or I don't have too much of and a second stream of drinkers, I bought two cases (24 bottles) for drinking and that is exactly what I have done. In a year.

I was careless and inaccurate. One can never have enough.

I just got 4 Mz94 from Seckford's on the strength of these unwavering recommendations. However I fail to see the value in Tesco 94 if it's really as variable as all that.

djewesbury wrote:I fail to see the value in Tesco 94 if it's really as variable as all that.

Each to their own but I have always been delighted with the Tesco 94, there has been some variation but I find it so much easier to cope with when I have paid £12 to £15 a bottle rather than when I have spent, say, £65 per bottle that Berrys were offering the Quarles Harris 94 a few years back. I can't think of a vintage port which offers a better QPR, not that it is a terrific port, it's just that I can't find a 1994 of any kind for the price. Anybody heard of a 94 for a tenner? If so I should be very glad to hear of it.

Tesco 94 must be a candidate for label bias. Would it perform better blind or in a decanter labelled Skeffington?

If there is variation, is it any more than other ports suffer, such as the Graham 80: perhaps a quick case study is in order?

If there is a question mark over a bottle, opening another £15 bottle is easy. A reputation is formed. It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

DaveRL wrote:Tesco 94 must be a candidate for label bias. Would it perform better blind or in a decanter labelled Skeffington?

If there is variation, is it any more than other ports suffer, such as the Graham 80: perhaps a quick case study is in order?

If there is a question mark over a bottle, opening another £15 bottle is easy. A reputation is formed. It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

I'd agree with all of this. I have found most of the T94 I have drunk to be very consistent and good. Only had one bottle which was sub par.

I thought the Tesco 94 ok the other night (although better at the start than at the end). However, I'm not sure where it is likely to go to (if anywhere) over the next few years and my preference would still be for the Graham's Crusted 98 presently, albeit this seems to be being slowly replaced on the supermarket shelves by the 2004 version.

DaveRL wrote:
It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

I don't think this chimes with my experiences. Dow 77, various 85s and Niepoort 97 (amongst others) all spring to mind as having less than stellar reputations despite falling into that category.

If anything I tend to think people more forgiving of Tesco 94, which can be very stewed at times (whether this is because there were variable lotes when the VP was first bottled, or two distinct VPs sold under the same Tesco 94 label, or storage issues at Tesco's end....)

RAYC wrote:

DaveRL wrote:
It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

I don't think this chimes with my experiences. Dow 77, various 85s and Niepoort 97 (amongst others) all spring to mind as having less than stellar reputations despite falling into that category.

I sort of agree with both of you ( which also means I sort of disagree with both of you). I have seen people (admittedly not so knowledgeable as we have here) trying to explain that pricey tosh is supposed to taste like compost soup fairly regularly. And being gracious I nod and smile. On the other hand I see less evidence here of this bias, my bias being that I am more likely to forgive my Tesco 94 than my Quarles Harris 94 on grounds of price.

I think that the point about bottle variation seen, for example in the 'case study', show that while generalisations can be made, like pointillist painting it is more coherent from a distance than very close up. I would also concur with the view of Flash that Tesco 94 is not so cranky as has been suggested.

Excellent. Thank you. I found myself down from the fence in no man's land (apologies for mixing) and was wondering how to climb back onto it.

I think Tesco 94 is good value and usually more than OK but never great. Sometimes it is worth aiming for great. Those times when everything comes together are worth the disappointments when it doesn't, although when the bottle was expensive it can be quite the disappointment.

I still think that excuses are commonly made on label bias, but perhaps not here!

And here is further reading material on the subject of label bias; http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.p ... Label+bias

There will be a short quiz next lesson.

To get back to the original question:
I think that the following ports from the '90s are worth opening today:
- 1997 Croft Roeda
- 1998 Warre Cavadinha
- 1999 Noval Silval

All SQVP as might be expected.

Isn’t Quinta do Noval Silval a second-label rather than an SQVP? Whilst I think they did a SQVP in the past from Quinta do Silval, as with everything from Noval the key question is whether it says “Quinta d*” on the bottle or not.

Some of the lighter 1991s are probably pretty good these days. It’s a while since I’ve tried them but I would have thought the Barros, Quinta de la Rosa and Churchill would all be quite good to drink.

JacobH wrote:Isn’t Quinta do Noval Silval a second-label rather than an SQVP? Whilst I think they did a SQVP in the past from Quinta do Silval, as with everything from Noval the key question is whether it says “Quinta d*” on the bottle or not.

Hm, in a way, all VPs of Quinta do Noval are SQVPs as there is simply only one quinta. But I get your point, Silval is more like Fonseca Guimaraens than Taylor Vargellas. I had a look at the label of the '99 Silval. It says "Silval Vintage Port Bottled and shipped by Quinta do Noval".

AW77 wrote:Hm, in a way, all VPs of Quinta do Noval are SQVPs as there is simply only one quinta. But I get your point, Silval is more like Fonseca Guimaraens than Taylor Vargellas. I had a look at the label of the '99 Silval. It says "Silval Vintage Port Bottled and shipped by Quinta do Noval".

Sorry, I wasn’t being clear. Whilst all of their Vintage Port claims to be from a single quinta, most of their other products are blended from more than one property. The difference is shown on the label: wines from the Quinta say “Quinta do Noval”, whilst wines which include a blend say just “Noval”. Looking at their current range, it appears that only the Vintage Ports, unfiltered LBV and colheitas are from the quinta, itself. That surprised me a bit: I would have thought their older tawnies would have been single quinta, too, and possibly one of their rubies (like Graham’s Six Grapes), but perhaps there is only so much wine one vineyard can produce.

Silval seems to fall into the latter category. The website says, about the grapes for it: “They are taken essentially from the Quinta do Noval vineyard, but also from A-rated vineyards at the heart of the Douro Valley.”. I suppose that puts Noval into an unusual position: their first label is SQVP and their second label is like a normal VP!

Anyway, the curious thing is why it is called “Silval” since there is a Quinta do Silval a little further North. I don’t really know how the two properties interlink (it seems too much to be a co-incidence), although Quinta do Silval is now producing wines under the Magalhães name.

The explanation is beyond my capabilities while typing on a phone. The Silval question has a very complicated answer.