Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Anything to do with Port.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4193
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by Glenn E. »

Roy Hersh wrote:Do the 1991 vs. 1992 whenever you want but in 2012, there should be a 100 year retrospective of the 1912 Vintage Ports (& Madeiras), preferably on the 100th anniversary of the infamous sinking of the Titanic in April 1912. I'd fly over for that with a bottle in hand! :D Heck, I'd even help in organizing it with some crazy old bottles.
+1! Except that I would have to adopt, as I have no 1912 bottles and acquiring one in the US would be prohibitively expensive for me.
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
Axel P
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2027
Joined: 08:09 Wed 12 Sep 2007
Location: Langenfeld, near Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by Axel P »

I am sitting over a Warre Cavadinha 92 presently and do extremely like it.

However, as all the Symington general declared Ports are 91s I think that the 92 SQVPs of them are definite bargains. Warre is very good and Dow and Grahams are to like as well.

In general I agree, but would take the Symington 92s as exceptions. Taylor and Fonseca are totally overrated and -priced.

Axel
worldofport.com
o-port-unidade.com
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by JacobH »

Andy Velebil wrote:
Portman wrote:I picked up a six pack of Vesuvio 1992 a couple years ago and drank them all over a year as cellar defenders. Every bottle was consistently underwhelming, marked by thin fruit and a woody, disjointed character. Not horrible, but certainly not up to expectations. They all seemed much older than their actual age and unlike other vintage Vesuvios I know and love.
I too have generally been under-impressed with the 1992 Vesuvio. Clearly 1991 was a better year for this Quinta and is significantly better IMO. But if you can find it cheap, the 1992 does make a good cellar defender.
When we did that complete Vesuvio tasting back in February, I also found the 1991 to be much better, (though there was also a huge jump in quality from 1994 onwards which made all the early years slightly disappointing...)

But back to the topic...I just don’t see much in the way of 1991s or 1992s around...Looking through my notes the best Port I’ve drunk from either vintage is a 1991 Niepoort Colheita (but that probably doesn’t count :P )
Image
User avatar
marc j.
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 103
Joined: 04:44 Tue 07 Jul 2009
Location: Malibu, CA.

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by marc j. »

I too have been somewhat disappointed by the '92s, but I'm hoping that they may come into their own in the next five years or so. So far, the best experiences I've had were from Niepoort half-bottles so I'm thinking that the 750s should turn the corner fairly soon.

Marc
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14916
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

There are good reasons that the perceived rule of thumb in the UK for several generations has been that you do not drink vintage port until it reaches the age of maturity - 21at the time the rule became widely accepted.

While there may have been exceptions, most vintages show poorly compared to their potential between the ages of about 4 and 21. Apart from the Morgan 1991, I have tasted very few ports from 1991 / 92 because they are not enjoyable and not representative of what they will offer in a few years time. Be patient - if you have some then wait another 3-5 years and if you don't have any then consider buying some if the right price presents itself.

I've tasted the 1991 and 1992 Vesuvio against each other at least once a year since 2005 and have found that (a) my taste prefers the 1992 vintage and structure and (b) that the 1992 is improving with the extra time to bottle mature.

I do like the idea of a 1991 vs 1992 comparative tasting, but would suggest that this should be done in 2013 when the 1992 wines will have reached the age of 21. Known pairs but vintages blind, perhaps, as we did with the 1966 vs 1967?

And, if we are bored waiting for the '92s to mature then we can organise Roy's suggested theme of the 100th Anniversary of the 1912 Vintage - but they may be a little challenging to get hold of...
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
Axel P
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2027
Joined: 08:09 Wed 12 Sep 2007
Location: Langenfeld, near Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by Axel P »

AHB wrote:I do like the idea of a 1991 vs 1992 comparative tasting, but would suggest that this should be done in 2013 when the 1992 wines will have reached the age of 21. Known pairs but vintages blind, perhaps, as we did with the 1966 vs 1967?
... and another excellent idea for a tasting, but as most producers did produce both Vintages this will be a big one.

Axel
worldofport.com
o-port-unidade.com
User avatar
mosesbotbol
Warre’s Otima 10 year old Tawny
Posts: 598
Joined: 19:54 Wed 18 Jul 2007
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Is '92 the most over-hyped vintage?

Post by mosesbotbol »

I can wait for VP to hit the 20 year mark. Why rob the cradle on a bottle you could be kicking yourself for opening early 10 years previous? If it's for curiosity, or liquor store in a pinch bottle; that's different.
F1 | Welsh Corgi | Did Someone Mention Port?
Post Reply