Merits of 1983 versus 1985

[SushiNorth]

First 31 posts of this thread moved by jdaw1 from Summarise a vintage, concisely.


Since I'm late to the party: Great topic, and I'm enjoying reading everyone's responses.

I would suggest amending 85 from "some great ports, some very good, most merely average" to "some excellent ports, some good, most merely average" There are a few 85's that are simply outstanding (F, D, G), and everything else just falls by the wayside that year (Ch, which is pretty good, ... and... that's all i can think of. Martinez?)

Where I think our list so-far is lacking is the 2000's. We've spent years on this forum analyzing vintage reports, mailing around cask samples, and holding tastings for new releases -- let's label 2000-2012 as "[To early to confirm]" and put together some ratings for them. 2003? 2009? or even 2010 ("2010: [Too Early to confirm] Sad it sucked" lacks elegance, but might be accurate)

[Glenn E.]

I would suggest amending 85 from "some great ports, some very good, most merely average" to "some excellent ports, some good, most merely average" There are a few 85's that are simply outstanding (F, D, G), and everything else just falls by the wayside that year (Ch, which is pretty good, ... and... that's all i can think of. Martinez?)

We tasted 31 different 1985s over the weekend.

F, G, W were "outstanding" in my 94-96 range. There were a handful on the low end of "excellent" for me which is 90-93, then ~20 in the 80-89 range. So my original summary seems to hold true, at least in internet-speak. The reality is that 80-89 spans from "good" through "very good" but then my ratings are normally higher than all of yours by ~3 points so I'm sure many of you would have had several bottles rated in the lower 80s or possibly even the high 70s.

[LGTrotter]

I would suggest amending 85 from "some great ports, some very good, most merely average" to "some excellent ports, some good, most merely average" There are a few 85's that are simply outstanding (F, D, G), and everything else just falls by the wayside that year (Ch, which is pretty good, ... and... that's all i can think of. Martinez?)

We tasted 31 different 1985s over the weekend.

F, G, W were "outstanding" in my 94-96 range. There were a handful on the low end of "excellent" for me which is 90-93, then ~20 in the 80-89 range. So my original summary seems to hold true, at least in internet-speak. The reality is that 80-89 spans from "good" through "very good" but then my ratings are normally higher than all of yours by ~3 points so I'm sure many of you would have had several bottles rated in the lower 80s or possibly even the high 70s.

Martinez is a bit sucky in my experience.

Glad to hear you got some outstanding ports from the 85 Glenn, I am a bit surprised by the Warre being one of them but I know others would agree with you. I think we may be being a little mean to the lesser wines of 85. There are not many that I wouldn't be glad of a glass of. Perhaps with a bit more age they may come right, then 94 and 1970 could have a fight on their hands.

[DRT]

Interesting. Not quite concise, but interesting.

[LGTrotter]

Interesting. Not quite concise, but interesting.

Interesting as in 'he might have something there' or interesting as in 'these are the drunken ramblings of someone who clearly doesn't understand port vintages'?

[LGTrotter]

But the 66s are no slouches.

But, four years ago, were the 1966s given the same plaudits that the 1970s are today? Come to think of it, yes they were. Oh dear! Does that mean we are only a year away from 1975 being declared the vintage of the century? No. 1970 was.

Your percipience has once again forestalled my next move. I would remind people of the time that the 1970 was a humdrum vintage of middling wines. And it was not so very long ago. Somebody said we should stock up on 83 as it was the best of the eighties, and they do have the same reputation as the 70 had a dozen years ago, so I'm off to buy a gross of the Fonseca and Graham before the market rises.

I think that may be less than concise, so here it is in shortened form:

1983; next vintage of the century (yawn).

[jdaw1]

1983 - Mostly rather nice, but don't wait too long
1983 - a sleeper; time may crown this the vintage of the 1980s
1983 Never had a top-rank reputation; always over-rated.
1983: Average, with a few pleasant ports.
1983: General declaration
1983: Is this the right room for an argument?
1983; Hard wines which are usually ungenerous and may not have the longevity often associated with this style of port.

I am utterly unconvinced by 1983s. Indeed, Sandeman’s 1982 is better than most 1983s, big names included.

[Chris Doty]

The Wine Society catalogue, June to September 2002.

1983 "An exceptional vintage, approachable now" .......hmmmmmm......I wonder how many cases of that stuff they had to flog.

'passable' or maybe even 'good' if I'm being generous. I have seen zero evidence of a single effort from 1983 meriting 'exceptional'.

[Glenn E.]

I routinely rate G83 in the excellent range on my scale (90-93), even when blind. Occasionally it warrants outstanding.

[Chris Doty]

I routinely rate G83 in the excellent range on my scale (90-93), even when blind. Occasionally it warrants outstanding.

Yes Glenn, this is the key issue with 83 - Graham and Fonseca are the two best efforts, as they are in 85. Except they're both better in '85, and available in better quantities (and in magnum, at least for G), and often at identical (or very very similar) prices. Personally, I think Ramos Pinto punched above its weight in '83, and that's really the only shipper I seek out in this vintage (and even then, above ~$50 a bottle, there are better buys out there). Gould also did reasonably well, but again, I prefer their '80 at the same price.

As a whole, and in summation, '83 is entirely skip-able. Yeah, maybe they're better than '87, and more consistent at least than 77, but why buy them when you can go for the 85s, and certainly the 70s?

To call the vintage - the vintage(!) 'exceptional' is a complete joke. YMMV

[LGTrotter]

The 1983 has a very distinctive style, one that I think will help it stand out in the long run. I mention 'in the long run' as I have joined the ranks of those who think they will be dead in the ground before the 83s pack up. Whilst there is no doubt you are right that the Fonseca and Graham are both better in 85 you are equally wrong to dismiss the 83s, as the Fonseca is a delight and the Graham strongly fancied by those who's views are not to be dismissed.

1983; not better than the 85, not worse, just different.

[DRT]

'83 is entirely skip-able.

+1

[Chris Doty]

the [83] Fonseca is a delight and the [83] Graham strongly fancied by those who's views are not to be dismissed.

1983; not better than the 85, not worse, just different.

By all means LGTrotter, buy them all! Nothing pleases me more than disagreeing with fellow wine drinkers as to how to best utilize scarce resources. Please buy all the 83s. Feel free not to buy 70s, 11s, and a small number of wines in between that I have mentioned in a post above.

cheers

[PhilW]

the [83] Fonseca is a delight and the [83] Graham strongly fancied by those who's views are not to be dismissed.

By all means LGTrotter, buy them all! Nothing pleases me more than disagreeing with fellow wine drinkers as to how to best utilize scarce resources. Please buy all the 83s. Feel free not to buy 70s, 11s, and a small number of wines in between that I have mentioned in a post above.

I like F83, and would buy D83 as well if at good value; but I would never choose them over the '70s (can't see anyone doing that), finances allowing.

[To call the vintage - the vintage(!) 'exceptional' is a complete joke.

Agreed.

[Chris Doty]

I like F83, and would buy D83 as well if at good value.

Sure Phil, but would you buy the f83 over the 85 at the same price? Or the d83 over the d80 at the same price? (I've had some muted bottles of the d85 lately, but when that's on form, id also take it over the d83.

I mean, there is some truth in "no bad bottles, only bad prices", but the market tends to treat 80, 83, and 85 the same (at least from what I've seen), and of those three, 83 appeals least to my wallet. I really don't need the competition, but it seems that port is much easier to assess in terms of quality/value than burgundy, Bordeaux, Riesling, champagne, etc.

Again, ymmv.

I am sober (105pct tax on foreign wine), watching perhaps the lowest quality professional girlball of my life (Bangalore vs Bharat - nil nil in the 53rd, of course, with plenty of flailing about). At least the chai here is legit. *mercifully, the good guys have moved ahead in the 78th. BFC! BFC! *

Woo woo

[Andy Velebil]

'83 is entirely skip-able.

+1

+2 With some exceptions, such as Warre's, Dow, Graham's. Otherwise, what went wrong with this generally declared vintage?

[Alex Bridgeman]

1983 is an odd vintage. It has a few ports that I really like (Warre, Graham, Dow, Ramos Pinto) and many that I am very happy to drink. I've generally found this vintage is priced lowe than most of its peers and as I result I've accumulated a fair amount for future drinking. I wouldn't describe it as an exceptional vintage, perhaps a vintage that is providing good drinking while waiting for better wines to reach their peak.

So how about "1983 - an excellent vintage to consume now while waiting for better wines to mature."

[PhilW]

I like F83, and would buy D83 as well if at good value.

Sure Phil, but would you buy the f83 over the 85 at the same price?

At the same price, no; but F83 tends to go at about 60% of the price of F85, at which point I'm less sure (this is partly because I seem to have been in the unlucky camp of having tried several underperforming F85s, though I have tasted some very good F85 recently).

Or the d83 over the d80 at the same price? (I've had some muted bottles of the d85 lately, but when that's on form, id also take it over the d83.

D80 is an odd one; I've yet to be particularly impressed with it. I'd probably put them in order as D85>D83>>D80, but I think the gap is closer on the Dow than on most others (whereas Fonseca 83 and 85 are very different animals) and I've tended to see D83 at lower prices than D85. I'd be interested to try RP83/85 by comparison.

[Chris Doty]

F83 tends to go at about 60% of the price of F85

Curious. I tend to see merchants offer them equally (e.g., http://www.hdhwine.com/retail-wine-deta ... Port/11631 and http://www.hdhwine.com/retail-wine-deta ... Port/17735)

[LGTrotter]

Pricing wise I always thought the 85 a bit dearer than the 83 which was a bit dearer than the 80. I think the differential was becoming more marked but it seems to have been skewed by large releases of ports from all three of these vintages from the shippers. Fonseca 85 is the one that springs to mind, all of a sudden there's loads of it.

I don't think I shall buy exclusively from the 83, but I shall certainly be getting a few more 83 Fonseca, which while not much cheaper than the 85 is so different and so lovely. I also need a few of the Graham 83 to remind me how much I prefer the 85. And if I keep seeing these £400 a case Warre and Dow 83s I will probably end up drinking a few boxes of that too. Compared with the price of any 1970 at the moment these seem like bargains.

The Dow 80 has caught some sort of disease which means it is a third more expensive than any other port from the eighties, can't think why it mainly seems unbalanced to me. Unbalanced in the Charles Manson way.

1983; Yeah, right!

[DRT]

The Dow 80 has caught some sort of disease which means it is a third more expensive than any other port from the eighties, can't think why it mainly seems unbalanced to me. Unbalanced in the Charles Manson way.

Oil prices and elderberry prices rise and fall in unison like a seesaw.

[CaliforniaBrad]

F85 is clearly the standout of the 83 and 85 wines, but I've found my two examples of RP83 to be very worthwhile, and at the right price (to mitigate the cork risk) the 83 Cockburn is impressive as well. It seems that the main driver of which wines from the 80s you'd like seems to be a less objective and more price based decision, as prices for 80s wines seem to vary widely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

[Glenn E.]

Based on my notes from the two horizontals that we held in Seattle, my previous impressions seem to have mostly held true.

1985 has a better top end. There is nothing from 1983 to compete with F85 or G85, though G83 can get close from a good bottle. RP83 hits far above expectations for that brand, but as much as I like it I know deep down that it doesn't really compare to F85/G85.

After those four outstanding examples, each vintage has a reasonable assortment of Ports in what is for me the excellent range. I had 8 in this range for both vintages, though that's not counting a rather odd duck bottle of Warre from the 1985 tasting that was nothing like any Warre that any of us can remember.

It's the next tier down, though, that is telling. 1983 has a solid showing in the "very good" range for me, while 1985 doesn't. That next tier down for 1985 clusters around 85-87 vs 1983's range of 87-89. It's not a huge difference, but it's notable. That tier of 1985 Ports also seemed very uniformly... uninteresting. They were tasty, but they were also dull. The 1983 equivalents offered more variety to me. I also came away from these two tastings with a distinct impression that there's more room for improvement from additional aging in 1983 than there is in 1985, particularly in the 87-92 range. 1985's Ports in that range feel mostly complete while 1983's feel like they're not quite there yet.

Ultimately, for a Port snob 1985 is a better vintage. A Port snob is only going to be drinking the best Ports, and 1985's top end is more heavily weighted. But 1983 seems to have greater depth through the middle tiers that a Port snob would rarely taste.

[djewesbury]

Based on my notes from the two horizontals that we held in Seattle, my previous impressions seem to have mostly held true.

1985 has a better top end. There is nothing from 1983 to compete with F85 or G85, though G83 can get close from a good bottle. RP83 hits far above expectations for that brand, but as much as I like it I know deep down that it doesn't really compare to F85/G85.

After those four outstanding examples, each vintage has a reasonable assortment of Ports in what is for me the excellent range. I had 8 in this range for both vintages, though that's not counting a rather odd duck bottle of Warre from the 1985 tasting that was nothing like any Warre that any of us can remember.

It's the next tier down, though, that is telling. 1983 has a solid showing in the "very good" range for me, while 1985 doesn't. That next tier down for 1985 clusters around 85-87 vs 1983's range of 87-89. It's not a huge difference, but it's notable. That tier of 1985 Ports also seemed very uniformly... uninteresting. They were tasty, but they were also dull. The 1983 equivalents offered more variety to me. I also came away from these two tastings with a distinct impression that there's more room for improvement from additional aging in 1983 than there is in 1985, particularly in the 87-92 range. 1985's Ports in that range feel mostly complete while 1983's feel like they're not quite there yet.

Ultimately, for a Port snob 1985 is a better vintage. A Port snob is only going to be drinking the best Ports, and 1985's top end is more heavily weighted. But 1983 seems to have greater depth through the middle tiers that a Port snob would rarely taste.

This post surely gets the prize for the most utterly confusing comparison of vintages ever attempted on . 85 has more 85-87s than 83, which has a lot of 87-89s. Did 83 have any 85s? How many 85s were either 83 or 85? I'm going to go and lie down.

[Glenn E.]

Based on my notes from the two horizontals that we held in Seattle, my previous impressions seem to have mostly held true.

1985 has a better top end. There is nothing from 1983 to compete with F85 or G85, though G83 can get close from a good bottle. RP83 hits far above expectations for that brand, but as much as I like it I know deep down that it doesn't really compare to F85/G85.

After those four outstanding examples, each vintage has a reasonable assortment of Ports in what is for me the excellent range. I had 8 in this range for both vintages, though that's not counting a rather odd duck bottle of Warre from the 1985 tasting that was nothing like any Warre that any of us can remember.

It's the next tier down, though, that is telling. 1983 has a solid showing in the "very good" range for me, while 1985 doesn't. That next tier down for 1985 clusters around 85-87 vs 1983's range of 87-89. It's not a huge difference, but it's notable. That tier of 1985 Ports also seemed very uniformly... uninteresting. They were tasty, but they were also dull. The 1983 equivalents offered more variety to me. I also came away from these two tastings with a distinct impression that there's more room for improvement from additional aging in 1983 than there is in 1985, particularly in the 87-92 range. 1985's Ports in that range feel mostly complete while 1983's feel like they're not quite there yet.

Ultimately, for a Port snob 1985 is a better vintage. A Port snob is only going to be drinking the best Ports, and 1985's top end is more heavily weighted. But 1983 seems to have greater depth through the middle tiers that a Port snob would rarely taste.

This post surely gets the prize for the most utterly confusing comparison of vintages ever attempted on . 85 has more 85-87s than 83, which has a lot of 87-89s. Did 83 have any 85s? How many 85s were either 83 or 85? I'm going to go and lie down.

Success! I win teh internets for today.