ThePortForum.com

Interesting (free for all) news article on Jancis site from Fladgate dropping the hint that they may declare (obviously they will be ramping any future vintage they need to sell).

Interesting indeed.

It is hard to separate the truth from the marketing messages in this article. When a winemaker advises that "collectors will be well advised to set aside funds for 2007 Ports" it is difficult to work out if this is good, well intentioned advice or just the start of the hype required to clear the shippers cellar at ridiculous release prices.

I also think that the statement "St George’s Day 2009, the traditional date for announcing Declarations by The Fladgate Partnership, will be a moment when the success of the 2007 vintage will be revealed."is rather premature. I think that moment will come no earlier than St George's Day 2047

Derek

Copyright aknowledged for the quotes in bold type above.

Shame on Taylor Fladgate - SHAME!!

After keeping Schtum about this year's harvest to date, they've given Jancis an 'exclusive' in perfect Blair speak..

..this is utterly nauseating - we knew '07 was ordained to be a declared vintage, but the jury was out as to whether it was up to the mark or not.

Now we know that they are going to declare a sub-standard year.

This looks like '75 re-visited..

..DON'T BUY!!

Tom

..DON'T BUY!!

How can you know until you tasted them?

Don't buy - because:

a) TF do not deserve to be rewarded for Blair-ish news management.

b) They will probably be much cheaper five years after they are released.

Tom

uncle tom wrote:b) They will probably be much cheaper five years after they are released.

I don't think that sentence needed the word probably

Derek

don't buy for a while...too much value out there already!

Let's see, 1980's or 2007... Both about the same price. Tough choice since I am living to 125 years old...

Now we know that they are going to declare a sub-standard year.

This looks like '75 re-visited..

..DON'T BUY!!

Maybe I should have added the previous two sentences. I wondered how you can know if it's a sub-standard year if you haven't tasted the wines yet.

The remarks about pricing are, of course, more than true. Sadly...

Ronnie,

My reading of Tom's classification of 2007 as a sub-standard year is that he is seeing through the hype and openly saying what most of us think which is that 2007 will probably be a general declaration but will never be a classic vintage. Some of the comments from winemakers and journos would have us believe otherwise but that is the bit the I think is marketing hype. True greatness would be accompanied by a self-assured, quiet smugness in the trade rather than this brash over enthusiastic nonsense.

Derek

PS: I look forward to my 82nd birthday when I can say "I was wrong about those 2007's - they've outlasted the 2003's just like the 66's done to the 63's "

Derek - you couldn't have said it better..

Tom

PS: I look forward to my 82nd birthday when I can say "I was wrong about those 2007's - they've outlasted the 2003's just like the 66's done to the 63's

Nope - but expect the best '05's to go on for eternity...

Tom

uncle tom wrote:

PS: I look forward to my 82nd birthday when I can say "I was wrong about those 2007's - they've outlasted the 2003's just like the 66's done to the 63's

Nope - but expect the best '05's to go on for eternity...

Tom

Tom,

I think we should agree to meet on St George's Day in 2047 at The Bell to debate this further

Derek

Indeed!

Tom

It's in my diary. Suggest you order 2 x 82 ounce fillet steaks, 2 x 21 yr old nurses and an ambulance

Derek

Make that 3Ã .

It's in my diary. Suggest you order 2 x 82 ounce fillet steaks, 2 x 21 yr old nurses and an ambulance

...21??

- 18 is more than old enough...

..Thai, of course..

Tom

Jdaw - Noted.

Uncle Tom - take a cold shower NOW!.

Derek

Time for sweet dreams maybe..

Tom

I completely agree with you that producers (or better: marketeers) are trying to hype a vintage at an earlier stage every year. I don't think this is a good thing. That being said, I've heard quite a few remarks from winemakers that were really positive about the quality of the juice. That's why I say: taste first and judge afterwards.

On a sidenote: I'm not really convinced about the lasting quality of the '03 wines. I found a lot of wines to be overripe, jammy and lacking in freshness. 2005 on the other hand, may surprise many people in 30 years time.

Derek T. wrote:PS: I look forward to my 82nd birthday when I can say "I was wrong about those 2007's - they've outlasted the 2003's just like the 66's done to the 63's "

You know what I'm like for not taking notes, and forgetting what I've had in the past, but I trust my 'general' memory.
I've only had a few 66's but wish to state I strongly disagree with your ascertion! (Thats always good for kicking off a debate )
The couple of times I've tasted them together, I've considered that 66 is a watery version of 63. Julian suggested my taste concentrates on Mouthfeel, and maybe thats why, but I wish to register my dissension!

Alan

Conky,

Each to their own. Your dissension and lack of experience are both noted.

66 = watery - oh dear

Derek

I've had a few of each and I think that 1966 Ports tend to have a better backbone of tannins and acid. 1963s are currently more rounded and ready to drink but the 66s have the power and longevity.

Just to put some context around this. I have had 4 x 66's in my recent memory:

• Sandeman - past its best but extremely nice
• Dow - fabulous
• Warre - even better than the Dow
• Fonseca = best port I have ever had.

Can't remember "watery" cropping up in any of these

Derek

Derek,

If you're going to dismiss me, and you're very welcome, at least get the formula right.

66 = Watery (In comparison to 63!)

I think 66 is a marvelous year, but is trumped by 63.

Alan

Derek,

How could you forget the Graham's? It was an absolute stunner.

I get your point, Alan. I disagree but I get your point.

Conky wrote:Derek,

If you're going to dismiss me, and you're very welcome, at least get the formula right.

66 = Watery (In comparison to 63!)

I think 66 is a marvelous year, but is trumped by 63.

Alan

That was a popular opinion, but not now. The 63 is undoubtably fabulous, but at only 3 years older than the 66's is starting to show it's age. This was starkly evident at the 2005 FTLOP multi-horizontal-multi-vertical-multi-cuboid-multi-diagonal Offline. Whilst the 63's showed fabulously their 3 yr younger cousins were showing years of development to come.

My view, and I believe I am not alone, is that 1966 was actually a better year than 1963 but it suffered from living in the shadow of a huge production of a classic vintage.

The acid test is to find a way of buying or tasting a 63 v 66 anything and then try to explain why the 63 is almost twice the price

Derek

On reflection "undoubtably" probably isn't a real word

Derek

You bring up a very good point, when you talk of price.

If 66's are only half the price of 63's, what tremendous value for money, which ever way you care to compare them.

Alan

We need more Emoticons! I would have used a clapping one or similar in this Post.

Undoubtedly is

KillerB wrote:Undoubtedly is

Yes, but what does it mean? ...and is it the same as undoubteabley?

Der...ek

undoubtably

I am undoutiddlyumpilly overtired and emotional so no more explanations will register from this point forward.

2007, vintage year?, yes.

Derek

Well, 2007 is too little too late for my vintage-2006 daughter. Like it or not, she’s getting a case of 2003, whenever Uncle T. says that the time right because the price is minimal.

jdaw1 wrote:Well, 2007 is too little too late for my vintage-2006 daughter. Like it or not, she’s getting a case of 2003, whenever Uncle T. says that the time right because the price is minimal.

But why note buy her a case of 2006 vintage? There are bound to be some good ones out there - Vesuvio, Noval, Vargellas will probably all declare and will produce wines that I have no doubt will develop for 30 years and will probably hold for another 20 after that.

By the time your daughter is 50, you'll be far more worried about how you're going to drink your way through the rest of your cellar before you pop your clogs than she will be worried that the wine you bought her from her birth year is starting to show signs of fading.

But that's from a man whose children were born in '94 and '95...

Alex

I don't think you can say that either '66 or '63 is superior.

'63 was a forward year - but not as dramatically forward as '94 - while '66 kept it's head down.

Now we are at the stage when the 66's are really blossoming, and many 63's are starting to run out of steam.

I'm expecting s similar story to unfold with '94 and '97 - but possibly to a greater extreme - my gut feeling is that most '94's will be noticeably in decline by their 40th birthday.

Of recent vintages, my picks for longevity are:

1991
1997
2000
2005 (probably)

Tom

uncle tom wrote: Of recent vintages, my picks for longevity are:

1991
1997
2000
2005 (probably)

Tom

Are you then admitting you tasted many of these very young Port Tom? 2005 is a hard choice as there will be no general declaration, they are full of fruit but soft and fruity Port. 1991, appart for Dow's and Croft, I haven't tasted any that I feel will not be well past their prime after 40 years. For me 91 does look older than many Ports declared between 77 and 87 at the moment... Fine Port but not for long ageing. 97 and 2000 I love both and 2003 has the fruit of the 94 plus great acidity and tannins that should make them age better. 94 will probably age longer but will certainly evolve differently than anything we have seen so far, as it has already proved.

The '91's are mostly in 'Kevin' mode at the moment, but I feel they have the components to be excellent in the long term.

For the '97's and 00's I base my judgement on a small amount of personal experiance and a lot of comparative reportage.

For 2005 I can only go on the climate of the year and the sentiment of others.

As a broad rule of thumb, the more respect a vintage gets from the trade (as opposed to hype..) - the better it's long term prospects..

Tom

uncle tom wrote:
For 2005 I can only go on the climate of the year and the sentiment of others.

Tom

I was expecting great quality too from 2005 and was surprised it was not declared from what I did read around the web following the harvest. From what I'd taste:

here what I'd buy :
Qta do Vesuvio
Niepoort

I might consider :
Qta do Roriz
Qta do Cavadinha

I would not buy:
Quinta do Vale Meao
Quinta do Vale dona Maria
Quinta do Senhora Ribeira
Quinta do Crasto
Quinta do la Rosa
Quinta da Gricha
Quinta da Ervamoira
Pintas

Unfortunately I did not have the time to taste all the Port that day as my time was over. Obviously 2005 will give me a break for my bank account though Bordeaux will cost me an arm Taylor/Fonseca/Noval were not present and I would really have like to taste them along others to see how they compare.

Are these Ports made in an easy, over ripe, soft style because this is what they could do with the Vintage or are they are made this way because the market is not ready to buy a declaration and these will please the american palate in hope for easy to drink young VP.

Don't get me wrong, these are not bad Ports(only 3 were), just not the type I'm looking for to put in my cellar.

I would not totally write off 2005, as it was a good year. I've had a fair number now and although some will be very good mid-term drinkers. Some are also quite good and have the stuffing to make the grade. There are also some really good SQVP's that will be worth buying.

However, this would have never been a generally declared year after coming on the heels of 2000 and 2003. Call it what you want, but it would have been poor marketing making another generally declared year when the market was still flooded with the '00s and '03s. Business is business after all.

AHB wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Well, 2007 is too little too late for my vintage-2006 daughter. Like it or not, she’s getting a case of 2003, whenever Uncle T. says that the time right because the price is minimal.

But why note buy her a case of 2006 vintage? There are bound to be some good ones out there - Vesuvio, Noval, Vargellas will probably all declare and will produce wines that I have no doubt will develop for 30 years and will probably hold for another 20 after that.

When you say “good†, do you mean “2003-grade good† or “stuff I’d be more than happy to drink OK†? If it were me I’d rather have a nearly-the-right-date-fabulous-port year than a correct-digits-OK-port year.

However, this would have never been a generally declared year after coming on the heels of 2000 and 2003

But 1985 was declared following 1980 & 1983, and there has been much written about the 2000 production being low in volume.

Maybe they have become a little too greedy when it comes to setting prices..

Tom

I've only tasted the '05's as barrel samples and seeing the list of Fred makes me eager to try them again now they are in bottle. I was not half as enthusiastic about the Niepoort as most of the reports I've read so far on sevaral boards, thought it was a bit hollow on the midpalate. I did, however, feel that Vale D. Maria was one of the stars of the vintage, showing a dark, concentrated style. The most complete port I've ever tasted from this estate. I was also really positive about the Pintas, combining the structure of '04 with the fruit of '03.

jdaw1 wrote:When you say “good†, do you mean “2003-grade good† or “stuff I’d be more than happy to drink OK†? If it were me I’d rather have a nearly-the-right-date-fabulous-port year than a correct-digits-OK-port year.

Well, that's a little tough to say since I've only tasted the 2006 vintage out of the lagar at the moment. Perhaps next year once the samples are out I'll be able to tell you a bit more clearly.

Personally, I suspect that there will be wines of the 1991 or 1987 Vargellas class on offer from 2006. Wines which are atypically good for the year and which will last and have the power to compete against the average wines for a generally declared year.

Purely from a personal point of view - I would rather have a case or two of the best port from my own birth year than a couple of bases of marginally better port from a year that was close to my own.

But, I stress, that is purely my personal view - you can always buy both for her and then choose which to give her later!

RonnieRoots wrote:I've only tasted the '05's as barrel samples and seeing the list of Fred makes me eager to try them again now they are in bottle. I was not half as enthusiastic about the Niepoort as most of the reports I've read so far on sevaral boards, thought it was a bit hollow on the midpalate. I did, however, feel that Vale D. Maria was one of the stars of the vintage, showing a dark, concentrated style. The most complete port I've ever tasted from this estate. I was also really positive about the Pintas, combining the structure of '04 with the fruit of '03.

I don't like to bash wines/producer. But try Vale D. Maria uppon opening and you'll be amazed by the stuff, just like I was too. 3 days later and it was dull, over the top and non interesting. Pintas was even worse, tasting strawberry juice. It was very sad to see those Port evolving this way. I did like the 04 Pintas a lot too, but the 05 did not convince me from the opening t'ill 3 days after.

One thing interesting, Vesuvio that was really good in bottle was even better from a cask sample I was able to taste. One sure thing, is that from cask, you taste the best one, from bottle, you taste the blend.

So far I haven't bought any 2005, but Vesuvio is certainly high on the list.
This is not true, BTW. I did buy 2005. I bought a half bottle of Niepoort last week. I saw it in a store and couldn't resist. I'll have to open it soon and see if I like it better now it's in bottle.

It's good (and also a bit sad) to hear your judgement on the Vale D. Maria and Pintas. I will give them another try too somewhere soon.

RonnieRoots wrote:So far I haven't bought any 2005, but Vesuvio is certainly high on the list.
This is not true, BTW. I did buy 2005. I bought a half bottle of Niepoort last week. I saw it in a store and couldn't resist. I'll have to open it soon and see if I like it better now it's in bottle.

Ronnie, please do report your impressions on Niepoort Vp 2005.

Cheers
Michael

Here's another producer, Quinta do Portal, that is speaking quite highly of the 2007 vintage.

The agriculturist Miguel Sousa (Quinta do Portal) says in his harvest report: "The 2007 harvest was later than usual due to the delay in the vegetative cicle of the vines, more evident in the white varieties. The weather was dry and generous (with the exception of some rain in the beginning of October) and the grapes were very healthy at the time of picking. Despite all the difficulties we had a production increase of 10%.

And winemaker Paulo Coutinho wrote: "The harvest has finally reached its end. The Red wines finished the melolactic and the last white wines are now finalising the alcoholic fermentation. It is truly an unsual year. But the news are very good: the average quality of the wines is high, and if the ageing confirms it, we'll have again (after 4 years) a Portal Vintage Port and the Quinta do Portal AURU. Great premiere for the new winery!"

Despite all the difficulties we had a production increase of 10%.

So they made more wine - but it doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the quality.

I'm not sure that I have a complete list of the years that Q. Portal have declared a vintage - they declared six vintages in the ten years between 1995 and 2004, but have they declared 2005?

If they havn't declared '05 then they may be feeling the 'need' for a declaration..

I remain hopeful that '08 will be a sufficiently good year to put '07 firmly in the shade!

Tom

Well this is a producer that has reestablished the property in recent years and is looking to make a top notch product since they know putting out a bad product will only hurt them, not help them, at this stage. Their property also sits on the north side of the Douro River, but over the hill, so the climate can be a little bit different than those that sit on the river. I've been to the winery numerous times, as have others here, and its a Quinta that is only interested in a quality product for their VP's. They make a lot of other things, and VP is only a small percentage of their overall line up.

Remember 2005 was good for some, but most were average or just above average. Very few were exceptional, so while 2005 was a decent year, it will never be a "Classic" year. BTW, Portal did put out a 2003 and 2004 VP. The 2003 was very very good and the 1999 is awsome.