Advice please Gentlemen

gonzo · Post by **gonzo** » 12:48 Mon 13 Oct 2008

As a long time lurker and an infrequent poster I know exactly where to come for great advice on port choices! With Christmas just around the corner i'm thinking about what port to drink and have been offered Vesuvio 1995 for £26 a bottle. Wine spectator has it at 95 points and 4th in the top 100 wines of that year...
so ,two questions: is this indeed a great port to buy and does this seem like a good price?

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 19:51 Mon 13 Oct 2008

Gonzo,

it always depends on what you expect: Vesuvio 95 is clearly one of the weaker Vesuvio as 95 being one of the weaker years anyway. Though it is fun to drink now, it is not what you expect from a Vesuvio Vintage Port after all. Having drunk almost all the Vesuvios in Dec last year I liked the 95 the least.

26 GBP is not a very high price, though fairly expensive for a Port like this. I would pick up a single bottle, open it and try it myself. That is what Port is all about.

Axel

ajfeather · Post by **ajfeather** » 20:36 Mon 13 Oct 2008

I would agree, my least favoured Vesuvio (and I like them a lot) and I would hope something more interesting could be found north of GBP25.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 22:39 Mon 13 Oct 2008

Well, err, cough, splutter...

I've not tried the V95, but can say that '95 is a seriously good year that is very much for the long haul. If you have any port from '95 I would advise that you tend it carefully, but for now, drink something else..

For an affordable Xmas quaff, you can't go far wrong with a '70; a vintage that is so consistantly pleasing, even from the less well known houses.

The best quality value ratio on the 70's is probably the Gonzales Byass (yes, they used to make Port as well as Sherry) - and don't pass on a Calem - if you can find one..

Tom

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 23:26 Mon 13 Oct 2008

I've found the 95 vesuvio, the one time i've had it, to be extremely enjoyable and a very worthy port of aging.

But I believe other posters have mentioned that Vesuvio seems to have some consistency issues.

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 08:29 Tue 14 Oct 2008

I would say that for Vesuvio, it's a good price. But if you want a pleasant drink this Christmas you can either do as Tom says and buy something aged, or if you want to try a port from around '95 (and why not, they're a lot of fun to drink) you can probably find some others cheaper. Look for Taylor's Vargellas, Warre Cavadinha or Graham's Malvedos for some nice values. There are many others of course, but these should be widely available. Good luck!

gonzo · Post by **gonzo** » 13:36 Tue 14 Oct 2008

As ever gents,some clear advice with some interesting alternatives....thanks

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 18:51 Tue 14 Oct 2008

When has 1995 been considered a weaker vintage?

1994 was so vaulted, that 1995 relegated to SQ's when it could've been a formally declared vintage. The few 95's I have tried have all been good at minimum. As for Vesuvio 95, I do not think £26 is a deal, but is not robbery either.

Maybe the '94 & '95 is even closer than '83 and '85 were? Most will say the '85 was better, but there's excellent port from both vintages. I think it's worth picking up any 1995 vintage if the price is right. 20 years from now, you'll be glad you did.

I've only had a few of '94 and '95, but own a decent amount.

Frederick Blais · Post by **Frederick Blais** » 20:54 Tue 14 Oct 2008

mosesbotbol wrote:When has 1995 been considered a weaker vintage?

1994 was so vaulted, that 1995 relegated to SQ's when it could've been a formally declared vintage. The few 95's I have tried have all been good at minimum. As for Vesuvio 95, I do not think £26 is a deal, but is not robbery either.

Maybe the '94 & '95 is even closer than '83 and '85 were? Most will say the '85 was better, but there's excellent port from both vintages. I think it's worth picking up any 1995 vintage if the price is right. 20 years from now, you'll be glad you did.

I've only had a few of '94 and '95, but own a decent amount.

I've had the Vesuvio 95 twice and I did not consider it a weak Port. As for 95 Vs 94, even though 95 was a great year, we'll never know if it will be better than the Classic declaration as single quinta Port are clearly not made in the same way as the regular blend. But I agree with you Moses that 94 is getting more hype than it should for general quality as a few ports I've tasted are already mature or showing more age than they should after 12-14 years. Even a Taylor served to me blind recently from pristine cellar condition was looking more like a Colheita 95 to me than a 100pts VP, I was shocked as so many taster around the table too.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 21:05 Tue 14 Oct 2008

To my experience I would never mention the Vintages 94 and 95 in one sentence. I think 94 is an exceptional Vintage, maybe the best of the second half of the 20th century, while 95, though having produced some "quite nice" VPs, is a classic SQVP-year to me.

Axel

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 14:09 Sat 18 Oct 2008

I would judge that '94, '95, '96 & '97 were all declarable years - probably the best string of four vintages in the 20th century.

'94 has been much lauded, but the wines seem a little too approachable at this stage, and may lack the stamina for the long haul, so some may be wilting by the time they turn 40. The '95's are very solid wines, but also firmly closed still. '96's seem more approachable, but have much more to offer. The '97's look promising for the long haul, but are much too young and closed at this stage.

Tom

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 14:14 Sat 18 Oct 2008

I agree that 1995 is no sluoch of a year.

Tom,
Other than Vesuvio, what other top 94's do you consider too approachable at this stage?

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 19:18 Sat 18 Oct 2008

Other than Vesuvio, what other top 94's do you consider too approachable at this stage?

I'm not sure I've ever tackled the V94, although I have a stash in the cellar. I regard the vintage as a bit young still for my mainstream quaffing, so am only extracting a couple of bottles a year at present (most recently the Ervamoira)

However, comparing my notes with those of others does reveal a consistant theme, and regrets that a '94 was much too young and immature are notable by their absence.

Although I've yet to pop any of my own, encounters with the 2000's at offlines, and in Portugal, make me suspect that they are also fairly forward wines; more so than was predicted when they were released - but still early days yet.

Tom

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 12:10 Sun 19 Oct 2008

I challenge you to open a bottle of all the top VP's from 1994 and put them side by side and taste them over a few days. I'm sure that will change your mind...and not to be taken the wrong way, but since you've not had a lot of 1994's thats a pretty bold statement, and IMO incorrect, to make about the entire vintage. If a particular Port isn't performing as well as you expect, no problems, lets discuss it. But you're painting a very broad picture with limited experience.

As for the 2000's, almost all i've had over the past year or so have been totally shut down or well on their to shutting down and not showing the best at the moment. I would not recommend drinking them at this time unless a very long decant is given, and even then best to just avoid them for the time being.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 14:16 Sun 19 Oct 2008

I challenge you to open a bottle of all the top VP's from 1994 and put them side by side and taste them over a few days. I'm sure that will change your mind...

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here

Are you trying to argue that the '94's are closed surly wines that are very much for the long haul? - because that doesn't fit with my notes or those of others.

Historically, wines that have been approachable in their teens have had a tendency to run out of steam relatively early, so there's no rocket science in my conclusions, just historical precedent.

Tom

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 02:53 Mon 20 Oct 2008

What I'm trying to get at is that you keep making these broad generalizations about things based on little to no first hand knowledge, just what you've read in a book or elsewhere. Which is fine up to the point where you start making assertations that the whole of the vintage is not going to be good soley based on some historical facts and little actual experience.

The 2007 weather and harvest issue comes to mind and so does this thread. We've debated the 2007 to death and so far everyone I've spoken to has unofficially (of course) stated that 2007 will be declared. Irregardless of it ending in a 7, it was a very good year. Having seen the 2006, 2007, and now the 2008 harvest first hand, I can say that the producers were far more excited about 2007 than the other 2. Even seeing the color extraction in the lagars there was a sizeable difference that was immediately noticable.

As for the 1994's, I don't understand how you can lump the entire vintage into one basket based on very limited first hand knowledge and what some others didn't write in a tasting note. I'm curious as to who else you used to form your opinion? Please, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with you decribing a specific bottle(s) you've had which you felt were no up to par...actually I would welcome it. But I think it is very irresponsable to lump all into one basket based on limited information.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 08:30 Mon 20 Oct 2008

Andy,

I think you're jumping to conclusions here.

I spend a lot of time reading tasting notes, from a wide range of sources, and comparing them with my own. From that cocktail of information, I draw conclusions about individual vintages.

Those conclusions are not cast in stone, it's an evolving story, and from every vintage there are atypical wines. Most vintages exhibit characteristics that most (but not all) the wines share, but there are also some that seem to comprise a fairly random mix of wines, with no general traits - 1980 for example.

I'm careful to qualify what I say, and avoid drawing conclusions when there is too little information to go on.

2007 was anointed as a declaration year before it had even begun. The producers have a love affair with '7' vintages to the total exclusion of '9' years - try working out the probability of that happening by chance, and you realise that it's too small to be credible!

I would love 2007 to be a great year, and am not engaging a blind vendetta against it, but after seeking the truth, and setting the hype to one side, I am not reassured..

Tom

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 12:04 Mon 20 Oct 2008

I' wasn't jumping to conclusions, Its just the wording of many of your opinions paint far to broad of a stroke for entire vintages. Sure there will always be winners and losers in every vintage, sometimes almost everyone loses (think 1993). But you've still not mentioned what bottles have you had from, say, 1994 that makes YOU feel that way. For example, I've read a lot of negative about Pink Port. I've now tried it and its no where near as bad as some people have made it out to be. Sure I'm not going to run and buy it, as its not my cup of tea personally, but I also rarely, if ever, buy basic Ruby's and Tawny's either. But when making statements that cover entire vintages based on a small amount of second or third hand information is irresponible IMO. At least point to some specific bottles that you've had that can back up that information.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 13:08 Mon 20 Oct 2008

I don't think it is irresponsible to assess vintages on a broad brush basis, provided you bear in mind that surprises sometime happen.

There are a very large number of wines for which there are no recent TN's available, and sometimes no TN's at all. An active discussion about the general characteristics of a vintage (and of the standing of individual producers) serves only to better inform the buying and drinking choices of the consumer.

You may prefer to have detailed discussions about individual wines, that is your preference, but each to his own..

Tom

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 19:01 Mon 20 Oct 2008

well it is when you are the only one saying the 07 harvest is not good and only being spoken of because it ends in 7. so how do you talk bad about A wine where's there no tn available? that makes no sense. espe ially when everyone else is saying the opposite.

But if you're going to talk bad about a vintage, 1994 for example, at least give some examples. Which you have still failed to do even after i've asked. When talking good or bad you still need to be able to back up what you are saying with some credible example. Not just generalizations. so what 1994's have you had that help lead you to your opinion?

Sent from my iPhone

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 21:50 Mon 20 Oct 2008

Andy,

You need to take a break here pal - I do NOT speak ill of a wine that has no TN and I do NOT speak ill of the '94's; only that the 94's are probably, most of them, for consumption in the nearer term rather than the the longer - which many would consider a bonus.

You seem to be drawing wierd conclusions from what I've written - time to take a rest eh?

Tom

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:57 Mon 20 Oct 2008

uncle tom wrote:the total exclusion of '9' years - try working out the probability of that happening by chance

Let’s assume that each year has a one-in-four chance of being declared, all years identically independently distributed. Then the probability that, during some particular century, no 9s are declared is (3/4)^10 ≈ 5.63%, Improbable, but not special. But the wrong question. What is the probability that there is a digit, whether 9 or something else, such that in some particular century, no year ending in that digit is declared? The answer is obviously 1 - ( ( 1 - ((3/4)^10)) ^ 10 ) ≈ 43.988%. That’s quite likely.

So the existence of a digit such that, during the last century, no years ending in that digit were declared, proves, in round numbers, nothing.

Let me rephrase: what is the probability that, during the nineteen-eighties, only ’80, ’83 and ’85 were general declarations? Answer: 0.2086%. Less than one percent?! Does that prove a conspiracy? Well, what is the probability that, during the nineteen-eighties, exactly three years were general declarations? Answer: 25%. So be careful about probabilities: a more specific question (‟nines?”) has a lower probability, whereas a question better capturing the whole class of perceived unusualness (‟some digit such that!”) has a higher probability.

(Number of declarations in some particular decade→probability under the now-traditional assumptions: 0→5.6%; 1→18.8%; 2→28.2%; 3→25%; 4→14.6%; 5→5.8%; 6→1.62%; 7→0.309%; 8→0.039%; 9→0.00286%; 10→0.000095%.)

But we know that at least one of: the assumptions are wrong; or there is prejudice in declarations. If each year has a one-in-four chance of being declared, all years identically independently distributed, then, given that a year is declared, there is a 7/16 = 43Â¼% chance that an adjacent year is declared. Almost half of consecutive declarations should be part of a consecutive sequence of declarations. So either: the shippers deliberately avoid this; or there is a process going on, such as a year being declaration-worthy so tires the vines that it is less probable that the immediately subsequent year is declaration-worthy. Take your pick.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 22:12 Mon 20 Oct 2008

Julian,

Probability maths does my head in, so i'm glad you've chipped in here, but I was was looking at the three times a decade scenario for the two recorded centuries when there has been no signficant declaration with a year ending in a 9, and that makes the odds of no '9' years come out at something less than 1000:1.

Of course, any one of the digits could fall prey to such discrimination, so the odds should therefore be reduced by a factor of ten.

The bit that gets difficult (for me!) is working out the odds of so many (but not all) '7' vintages being favoured, and the statistically correct way of linking these two eventualities.

In rough and ready terms, it looks like the probability of the least favoured nag winning the Grand National - possible, but very unlikely!

Tom

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:21 Mon 20 Oct 2008

uncle tom wrote:two recorded centuries when there has been no signficant declaration with a year ending in a 9, and that makes the odds of no '9' years come out at something less than 1000:1

Assuming a constant declaration frequency of one-in-four, the probability that there is a digit such that, over two particular centuries, no year ending in that digit has been declared, is 3.126%. That alone fails a 99% test. And if the probability of declaration was constant at one-in-five, there is a 10.949% chance of observing this outcome, and one-in-six takes that to 23.2%.

So the hypothesis that there is a shippers’ prejudice against some particular digit is statistically unproven.

Much stronger is the hypothesis that they don’t like consecutives.

Which sevens? ’27, ’77, ’97? 1907 no, ’17 I don’t know, ’37 no; ’47 not generally, ’57 no, ’67 not generally, ’87 not generally. Three or four in the last ten decades. Snorey dull.

Roy Hersh · Post by **Roy Hersh** » 00:24 Tue 21 Oct 2008

This discussion has very rapidly digressed to the point of being considered Meaningless Drivel. Whether it actually winds up in that area is anybody's guess, but the poignancy of this entire thread has certainly gone down hill and fast.

What I can't understand, is why Tom has remained so reluctant to give any example of which 1994 VPs have led him to espouse the opinion that the vintage overall won't make for old bones. I know many who believed this for the first five years after the release of the wines ... but I have not read any such opinion about '94s (speaking for the majority of the vintage) in more than half a decade. So like Andy, I'd be really interested to hear which '94s have led Tom to this conclusion.

Looking back at my own TNs from this year, I've had only 9 VPs from 1994 ... and I don't see any of my notes indicating that these VPs lacked the structure and balance to age for the long haul, while continuing to improve and deliver lots of drinking pleasure. I know Tom has a very astute palate and wish he would share his specific experiences from that vintage, so we can gain insight into his conclusion and understand his controversial stance.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 03:43 Tue 21 Oct 2008

Tom,

I know you have a very good palate as I've read your TN's and now drunk with you, which reinforced that opinion. But I am only asking you to point out some specific bottles that YOU feel are not going to make old bones, something you still have not done. Roy chimed in before I could, but I'd just like to know your opinons on some of the 94's you've had and why they lead to your opinion. I'm a very open minded person, and if you can point out some things, you may just sway my opinion. But without some specific and relatively current examples, I can't blindly walk down that road and I don't think others should to.

Jdaw1...WOW, that was a lot of numbers

(note: For those reading not familar, the best thing about this group of Port lovers is that we can have these great discussions and put the heat on each other in a friendly way.)

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 04:11 Tue 21 Oct 2008

94 churchills
94 duff gordons. ... tasted like duff beer =)
I don't think the croft 94 would come out of it either.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 04:30 Tue 21 Oct 2008

I suspect that there is one very human factor that's playing into the no-more-than-3-times-per-decade rule of thumb that isn't being considered.

Human beings like to think in round numbers. Therefore, 3-times-per-decade is far more likely to mean 3 times between 19x0 and 19x9 than anything else. If that is the case, which poor year is going to get excluded virtually every time unless it is absolutely stunning?

Yeah, 19x9. Because by then all 3 of the declarations for that decade will have been made. Without having done any research on the subject, I'd be willing to bet that 19x8 is pretty rare as well for the same reason.

Similar logic explains why 19x7 is so popular - that's about the point that the 3rd declaration needs to be made if they're going to declare 3 times. And if they haven't declared 3 times yet, there's going to be a lot of subliminal pressure to declare it anyway so that the next decade can start clean.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 06:05 Tue 21 Oct 2008

Which sevens? ’27, ’77, ’97? 1907 no, ’17 I don’t know, ’37 no; ’47 not generally, ’57 no, ’67 not generally, ’87 not generally. Three or four in the last ten decades. Snorey dull.

17,27,37 - probably intended, but many vintage lotes became colheitas when war spoiled the prospects for a declaration, 47 split with 48 despite 48 showing much bettter over time, 67 split with 66 again despite the other year showing better, 77, 87 - might have been, and probably justifiable, but for impending recession and close proximity to previous declarations, 97.

So only '07 and '57 abandoned completely..

..that's a love affair!

Tom

Roy Hersh · Post by **Roy Hersh** » 08:49 Tue 21 Oct 2008

1937 wasn't declared because there was a ton of 1927 still on the market. It was not only one of the greatest vintages of the past century, it was enormous in terms of yields and overall production by the Port trade. But then came 1931 which has been discussed all over the Forums enough times. What is not discussed about the decision with 1937, is that on top of the aforementioned vintages, came the split declarations of 1934/ 1935. There was a veritable flood of Vintage Port on the market (especially in England) by the time the fabulous 1937 grapes were picked. Colheita was the best choice and any Portuguese producer around at the time, made a '37 Colheita ... even some British Port shippers bottled Reserve Ports (Colheitas) that year.

Tom mentions 1957. After 1952, it is arguably the third best Colheita vintage of the 20th century, imo, while some believe 1940 was better. I have a vested interest in the '57, so will leave others to decide for themselves which was 4th best.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 12:00 Tue 21 Oct 2008

g-man wrote:94 churchills
94 duff gordons. ... tasted like duff beer =)
I don't think the croft 94 would come out of it either.

g-man,
Thanks for pointing out a couple. I've not had the Duff Gordon's, so can't comment on it, but I will trust that opinion. Thanks.

Tom....still waiting

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:25 Tue 21 Oct 2008

uncle tom wrote:
Which sevens? ’27, ’77, ’97? 1907 no, ’17 I don’t know, ’37 no; ’47 not generally, ’57 no, ’67 not generally, ’87 not generally. Three or four in the last ten decades. Snorey dull.
17,27,37 - probably intended, but many vintage lotes became colheitas when war spoiled the prospects for a declaration, 47 split with 48 despite 48 showing much bettter over time, 67 split with 66 again despite the other year showing better, 77, 87 - might have been, and probably justifiable, but for impending recession and close proximity to previous declarations, 97.

So only '07 and '57 abandoned completely..

..that's a love affair!

Naughty boy! You’re changing the rules to include semi or partial declarations. So let’s play that game. Let’s say that 25% are declared, and 15% partly declared. What is the probability that there is a digit such that, in any century, 7 to 10 of the years ending in that digit are â‰¥partly declared? For a named-in-advance digit, 5.476%. For any digit, 43.06%. So that could very easily have happened even without Tom’s purported ‟love affair”.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 17:50 Tue 21 Oct 2008

Naughty boy!

Of course..

But a telling detail for me was that on both the split vintages, it was the seven year that was the loser, and by a fair margin.

I suspect the truth is that rather more years have the potential to be declared than the producers care to admit to, and that they have therefore had a little bit of scope for romantic indulgence..

But things are slightly different now, with a whole raft of serious independent producers declaring vintages almost every year. It seems inevitable that future writers will judge the standing of individual vintages as much by the relative performance of those who declare annually, as they do from the performance of the declaration year blends.

If the declared years now fail to coincide with the best performance from the independents, the credibility of the declared years system will be seriously challenged.

It follows that the next declaration must be for the best year since 2003 - or better.. By failing to declare 2005, they have set the bar high for themselves.

Tom

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 18:35 Tue 21 Oct 2008

If I were a port house,
I'd bottle the sucker anyway. Taste it, wait to see if anyone declares, if no one does, I'll wait for next year .... taste that ... if people declare that year and i feel my previous year was better, I'd swap and keep the crappier year as a family bottling.

Is that bad?

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 13:09 Wed 22 Oct 2008

The independents could concentrate on crusted ports, but at a higher level than one normally thinks of. Dow has a market on it in USA, but not much else I have seen available (outside my case of Taylor crusted).

Blending the ports could really lend to a blockbuster down the road and also offer a more mature port than a regular VP and something a step up from LBV.

Having the bottling year the same as a major vintage will cover them should they want to have a bottle ready for that vintage.

I do not think having a vintage release every year is to their advantage. If a vintage is suppose to be release on the best harvests, that notion would not mean much...

Post by **DRT** » 22:17 Wed 22 Oct 2008

I can't leave you lot alone for 5 minutes

I've been away for a few days and almost passed up the chance of reading this thread!

Julian, what is the statistical probability that an argumentative and highly amusing thread such as this would emerge around 10 days after more than 10 port-soaked nutters gather together in one place?

Derek

PS: gonzo - the V95 is a fairly safe bet. Some Vesuvio vintages are outstanding but I have found that all but the 89 and 90 are good quality VPs. The 95 isn't spectacular but that just makes it good to drink now

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:39 Wed 22 Oct 2008

DRT wrote:Julian, what is the statistical probability that an argumentative and highly amusing thread such as this would emerge around 10 days after more than 10 port-soaked nutters gather together in one place?

That depends on our model of the underlying process.

E.g., let’s say that every month that passes causes a possible interesting conversation to come into existence. But, for reason not needing elaboration, the presence of DRT suppresses its publication. In that case a 10-day absence of DRT would be very likely to cause it to come into existence. Of course, other models might give different answers.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 13:55 Thu 23 Oct 2008

The independents could concentrate on crusted ports

All the producers could do that, and they could probably make superb Crusteds every year if the market was happy to pay top dollar for them.

Unfortunately, wine making is a business, and everything they do, either directly or indirectly, is driven by the bottom line. Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Tom

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 14:19 Thu 23 Oct 2008

uncle tom wrote:Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Independents could focus on just Crusted and even source the juice from different companies. They could come in a lot lower than Vintage too. It's could be an easier sell since they are not competing with big names in the vintage category. All they need is some positive press and good price point. Especially if they are not using their own stock.

Compete at the LBV level, but buy using different stocks, could blend something that is better than the run of the mill LBV.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 14:59 Thu 23 Oct 2008

It's could be an easier sell since they are not competing with big names in the vintage category.

It's the big names who should be worried about the competition..

Tom

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 11:47 Fri 24 Oct 2008

uncle tom wrote:It's the big names who should be worried about the competition..

Tom

Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 14:43 Fri 24 Oct 2008

mosesbotbol wrote:
Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

how so? Is it because you feel people like to pick the underdog? Or does the little guy just cares a little more? Why couldn't a big company just throw a bunch of money into advertising towards a specific audience?

Post by **DRT** » 16:46 Fri 24 Oct 2008

g-man wrote:
mosesbotbol wrote:
Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.
how so? Is it because you feel people like to pick the underdog? Or does the little guy just cares a little more? Why couldn't a big company just throw a bunch of money into advertising towards a specific audience?

I think what Moses is saying is that the information age has made it easier for little guys to reach their target audience. Not that it is easier for little guys than it is for big guys.

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 17:29 Fri 24 Oct 2008

The information age also seems to lead to rampant misinterpretation of forum posts

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 21:52 Sat 25 Oct 2008

mosesbotbol wrote:
uncle tom wrote:It's the big names who should be worried about the competition..

Tom
Look out for the little guy. In the information age, the little guy stands a much better chance to promote themselves at least to a specific audience.

This is true, and works extremely successfully in many industries, but I can’t help thinking that this will have less affect on wine producers than elsewhere. This is simply because wine is extremely expensive to ship and export in small quantities. The Internet may mean that I am aware of many more of the small single quinta producers than I would be otherwise, but getting hold of a case of their stuff is pretty difficult, even within the E.U. For wine we are still very much in the hands of the traditional supply chain (which tends to favour the larger producers) and I can’t see that changing soon.

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 09:55 Sun 26 Oct 2008

uncle tom wrote:Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Tom

No, it is LBV that most independents focus on, because that's where you'll find good margins and good revenue. Quinta do Crasto is a very good example of this. I know of another quinta (with limited production) that decided not to bottle its superb 2005 as vintage, but to use it for LBV. Quintas like Crasto, Vale d. Maria, Roriz and Vale Meao treat their vintage like a Bordeaux grower treats its Grand Vin. They'll try to make the best port they can every year, so that the consumer can see the different characteristics of different vintages. Makes perfect sense to me.

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 12:37 Mon 27 Oct 2008

RonnieRoots wrote:
uncle tom wrote:Until Crusted commands a better price than Vintage, (i.e. never), it'll be Vintage that the independents focus on.

Tom
No, it is LBV that most independents focus on, because that's where you'll find good margins and good revenue. Quinta do Crasto is a very good example of this. I know of another quinta (with limited production) that decided not to bottle its superb 2005 as vintage, but to use it for LBV. Quintas like Crasto, Vale d. Maria, Roriz and Vale Meao treat their vintage like a Bordeaux grower treats its Grand Vin. They'll try to make the best port they can every year, so that the consumer can see the different characteristics of different vintages. Makes perfect sense to me.

Been buying Q. Vale d. Maria 2000 at $300 a case, it's already competing with LBV. It's suppose to be good stuff, maybe in 10 years I'll open one of them...

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 19:41 Wed 10 Dec 2008

This was a very interesting thread to read through as I slowly catch up with messages and debates which have taken place while I was swamped at work. What an innocent question Gonzo asked, and what a torrent of debate came forth! Poor Gonzo, I do hope we have not put him or others off asking questions.

I've only had the 1995 Vesuvio twice, but both times rated it as a pretty good wine. It's not as good as the 1994 Vesuvio, but I would not turn it down. I also think it has the stucture and stuffing to mature very nicely for a good decade or two. At £26, the price would be a cheap UK retail price but is by no means a "buy all you can" price.

What did you decide to do in the end?

gonzo · Post by **gonzo** » 13:36 Thu 11 Dec 2008

Gentlemen,
far from being put off i was most pleased at the debate that ensued,a simple question answered comprehensively!
So to answer your question AHB I chose 3 ports to drink :
1995 Vesuvio
1995 Taylor's Vargellas
1995 Graham's Malvedos

I look forward to the drinking and thank everyone for their input.

G

gonzo · Post by **gonzo** » 13:44 Thu 11 Dec 2008

By the way, the Wine Spectator's notes:

1995 Vargellas:A gloriously crafted young Port, new from Taylor. Ancient vines from Vargellas. Inky-colored, with wonderful spice, plum and berry aromas. Full-bodied, medium sweet, with silky tannins and a long, long, sweet fruit finish. Not imported into the U.S. Best after 2008. Score 95

1995 Malvedos:Plenty of plummy, grapey aromas and flavors in this young vintage Port. Medium- to full-bodied, with medium, fine tannins and a sweet fruit aftertaste. Best after 2004. 7,500 cases made .Score 89

1995 Vesuvio:A ripe and rich '95 boasting a remarkable essence of crushed berries, this is classic Port. It's full-bodied and quite sweet, with the velvetiest of tannins and a long, long ripe fruit finish. At its best after 2008. 3,000 cases made. Score 95

So all in all a fine mix...i will be interested to taste whether or not the Malvedos contrasts that greatly in quality to the other two...