Vintage port & the adolescent lull

[BRPetrie]

Honourable Members,

When I was first introduced to vintage port (the best day of my life), the vintage ports I had ready access to were either current release, or around the 20-year-old mark - that is to say, the 1997, 2000, 2003 vintages and less commonly 2007. I derived much pleasure in drinking these ports, but as I’ve had the privilege (and the determination) to expand my palate, I’ve discovered that the most personal enjoyment for me lies in consuming the fiery peacocking glory of young VPs, or ones firmly footed in maturity, (35-40+ years in bottle),

With that mind, I started to notice a certain sullenness or disjointed disintegration in many 2000s, 03s and 97s at tastings and at home. A lack of precision and clarity and the ports’ transition from late primary to an early maturity.

Can it be generally accepted that vintage ports tend to sulk around this point (much like claret is known to do), and if so, is it largely vintage dependent? Or am I just drinking bad bottles …

[jdaw1]

Bottles do. Or did — I have heard it argued that the improved quality of the spirit should lessen the sulk.

[Glenn E.]

That phenomenon has been referred to by various names. The one that I use is the "teenage funk" because in the past it tended to be most obvious when the Ports were in their teens. They'd come out of it right around 20 or 21 years old, which is one of many reasons that people used to do horizontals at 20 or 21 years old to see how the Ports were maturing. Modern winemaking seems to have changed things fairly significantly, as has the use of dramatically improved aguardente to fortify the wine.

For one, Ports are now much more enjoyable when very young than they used to be (or so I've been told). They can be boisterously fruity, vibrant, and full of energy right after bottling and this lasts for several years now. Older classic vintages were brutal when young, and while many still liked to drink them in that state, they're much more approachable at that young age now.

Another difference is that top tier Ports don't seem to "drop off a cliff" into their teenage years like they used to, sometimes seeming to never really hit a funk at all anymore. They lose their boisterousness as they age into their teens, but don't seem to close down the way they used to. So while the funk is technically still there, it is so much milder that one could be forgiven for not even noticing it anymore.

Thirdly, that admittedly milder funk seems to have shifted slightly older. Whereas Vintage Port used to drop into this funk while still single digits' years old and would stay there until 20 or 21, it now seems to drift slowly into the funk over many years, potentially reaching the "worst" point between 15 and 20 years old, and then slowly rises out of it again through its 20s. It seems to me that modern VP now emerges between 25 and 35 years old (depending on vintage and producer) at which point it is a very pleasant and nicely mature drink. Some early to mid-90s VPs are really very nice right now, but there are still a handful of mid to late-80s VPs that haven't quite fully emerged yet.

Note that bottle variation can have a significant impact on this - over the last several years I have had many bottles of 1985 Fonseca, some of which have still seemed young and almost brutal, while others seemed fully resolved and delightfully mature. Which leads me to believe that 1985 Fonseca as a whole is just finishing its maturation process and still "emerging" from its funk even though it is almost 40 years old.

[MigSU]

What remains to be seen is whether that young "brutality" played a part in giving the wines such longevities as we see in (some) Ports from the 1920s/30s/40s (and even older), and if these modern, 'more-approachable-when-younger" Ports will have the same 100+ year longevity.

But alas, that's something that will not be tested for a long time.