Declared - and declarable, some sums..

[uncle tom]

When it comes to general declarations, there is the often repeated mantra that only the best years are declared, at an average of three per decade. From that, one might infer that the benchmark for a declarable year is high; in the top 30%. However, a close examination of past declarations reveals otherwise.

The first thing one notices is the total absence of consecutive declarations. Are the vines so exhausted after a good year, that they cannot repeat the exercise without taking a rest? The answer, I think, is no.

The cocktail of factors that determine the outcome of a year are dominated by events in the six months prior to vintage, with events in the preceding six months having a role in setting the stage. The events of the preceding year seem insignificant, statistically, as far as quality is concerned, although there may be some influence on quantity.

Looking at declarations in the modern period, which I take to be from 1896 to the present day, there is also a great reluctance to declare after an interval of two years, except when the preceding declaration was split.

Five split declarations occurred in the 20th century, although the 66/67 split was very one sided, with only Cockburn/Martinez electing to go for ’67.

Following each split declaration there seems have been some sense of shame, and a need to show unity. The weather came to the producer’s aid after the 82/83 split with a sound vintage in ’85 and again following the 91/92 split with an excellent vintage in ’94; but they were less lucky following the 47/48 split with the ’50 vintage; arguably the second weakest declaration of the century.

Following the 34/35 split there was no declaration in ’37, but some evidence to suggest that one was planned, but abandoned due to the storm clouds of war; the numerous and excellent Colheitas bearing witness.

Setting aside the aftermath of split declarations, there has only been one instance of a general declaration following an interval of two years, while there have been several good years passed over, notably 1914, 1922, 1987 & 2005.

The one exception was the declaration of ’77, which was probably prompted by the realisation that they backed a lame horse in declaring ’75.

Thus it can be said that following a sound and un-split general declaration, no serious consideration is given to a further declaration until the third year.

I looked at the intervals following such declarations, discounting the interruption of WWII, but included 1931 as a year that would have been generally declared, but for the economic crisis of the day. When the following vintage was split, I used the dominant year. I also disregarded partial declarations, such as ’58 & ‘72

The intervals computed as follows:

3yrs - 45.5%
4yrs -31.8%
5yrs -18.2%
6 or more years ”“ 4.5%

So what benchmark of quality does the third and subsequent years have to attain, in order to be declarable? The first thing that is apparent is that it has to prove itself better than the following year, and if the fourth year is better, then that in turn has to prove itself better than the fifth, and so on.

The maths of this is quite complex, but after a lot of scribbling, I arrived at a figure that gave a remarkably similar predictive outcome, specifically:

3yrs - 45.5%
4yrs - 32.4%
5yrs - 14.5%
6 or more years - 7.6%

However, to achieve that similarity, the proportion of years that have to be ‘declarable’ is no less than 70%!

So it would seem that in truth, only the worst years cannot be declared..

Tom

[DRT]

the proportion of years that have to be ‘declarable’ is no less than 70%!

So it would seem that in truth, only the worst years cannot be declared..

Which means the decision to declare 1975 was even more ridiculous than we might have thought!!

[Andy Velebil]

The one exception was the declaration of ’77, which was probably prompted by the realisation that they backed a lame horse in declaring ’75.

Interesting analysis. I would take objection to this line though. They did not back a lame horse in '75. In 1975 there was 3-times as much VP produced in a single year as had ever been produced prior. After the instability in Portugal during the early 70's the Port industry bought all the grapes they could from the farmers to show them support and to give them some financial security. For without that, we probably wouldn't have much of a Port industry today. Most of the farmers in the Douro were struggling financially and most likely would not have survived a couple more years until another major declaration. So sure it wasn't a great year, but it also wasn't a lame horse. It was however a smart business decisions on the part of the Port industry as a whole to support those that provided them grapes in a major time of need so they could survive to carry on that tradition.

[uncle tom]

Whether '75 had an inadequate harvest, or the producers failed to make a tight enough selection, albeit with good intentions - or a combination of both factors - the bottom line is that the most of the wines declared were sub-standard, making the declaration the poorest of the century.

By the spring of '79, when the decision to declare '77 was made, the producers would have been aware of this.

Tom

[jdaw1]

If 30% of years are declared, what is the probability that a given year is part of a consecutive declaration?

Easy maths. Pick a year that is declared: say x. There is a 70% chance that x”“1 wasn’t declared, and a 70% chance that x+1 wasn’t declared, so a 49% chance that neither neighbour was declared. Hence a 51% chance that one (42%) or both (9%) were declared.

Thus if 30% of years are declared independently of other years, about half of all years should be part of a consecutive (not split, consecutive) declaration. Which suggests that a year being declared is not independent of neighbouring years being declared. As Tom said.

[Andy Velebil]

Tom,
I had a rather frank discussion about this with a producer and Julian was there as well. The 1975 vintage was declared to save to Port industry from certain doom. As I mentioned, that was why there was 3-times the amount of VP produced than in any other year prior. With some major economic hard times, the revolution, the arquardente scandel, the possible nationalization (which wasn't an issue by bottling time, but was at the time of harvest) etc the small growers were on the brink of economic collapse and would would have had to abandonded their fields to try to find paying work elsewhere just to live and support their families. Without all these smaller growers the Port industry would have totally collapsed. Although we like to think the major producers all have enough Quintas to provide their own grapes for everything, that is just not the case and especially back then before all the consolidation that we see today. Remember there are around 33,000 growers in the Douro region that provide grapes to the industry. The producers knew it wasn't a great vintage, but the choice was made, they bought all the grapes they could get their hands on to support their smaller growers and allow them to survive, they bottled most of it as VP, and the Port industry was able to survive and florish as we know it today as a result.

So it had nothing to do with an inadequate harvest or selection, it was declared to save the Port industry from what would have been certain doom. It may have been a poor year, but at least they producers were willing to put their money where their mouth is and support the growers by paying top dollar for all those grapes when they knew they weren't the best quality.

[DRT]

Andy,

I think you and Tom are violently agreeing here

My reading of both your arguments is that 1975 was declared out of nesessity rather than because the vintage was up to the usual standard to induce a declaration. Your positions actually compliment one another in than you are stating why it was declared and Tom is simply stating that it isn't very good wine.

My guess is that the quality of the grapes probably fell into what Tom calculates to be the lower 30% of vintages per decade that simply were not good enough to produce vintage quality wines in normal volume, never mind in triple-volume. However, the economic and social issues of the day led to the vintage being declared for reasons that nothing to do with quality.

OK?

Right, I'm off to sort out Afganistan now that this little conflict has been resolved peacefully

[Andy Velebil]

Sorry we already tried the Afgan thing..didn't work I may have been reading his statements a bit differently...I take his meaning to be that 1975 was a poor year that a declaration should not have been made. Yet from all who I've talked to 1975 wasn't that poor of a year overall. However, making 3-times as much VP something surley had to give...quality.

[Andy Velebil]

1975 really takes it in the shorts as people like to say it was a poor decision to declare and the industry missed the boat on this one. Thats just not the case. Tom correlates the 1977 declaration to the fact that by then the industry realized 1975 was of a poorer quality. However, They knew what they were getting themselves into in 1975 and you can call it a political decision, but I prefer to call it a smart business decision Though It was not a poor decision to declare.

What does strike me though is 3-times a much VP was produced, yet 1975's are relatively hard to find now days. I assume a good number of people had this vintage as their "91 Morgan"

[DRT]

What does strike me though is 3-times a much VP was produced, yet 1975's are relatively hard to find now days. I assume a good number of people had this vintage as their "91 Morgan"

Or there's tons of the stuff still in the cellars in VNG? It would be interesting to see how ex-cellars '75s from the top houses compare with those that have been kicking around on the secondary market would compare? Although not spectacular, they might be good QPR ports at the right price (which JDAW reckons is equivalent to £0/$0 )

[Andy Velebil]

What does strike me though is 3-times a much VP was produced, yet 1975's are relatively hard to find now days. I assume a good number of people had this vintage as their "91 Morgan"

Or there's tons of the stuff still in the cellars in VNG? It would be interesting to see how ex-cellars '75s from the top houses compare with those that have been kicking around on the secondary market would compare? Although not spectacular, they might be good QPR ports at the right price (which JDAW reckons is equivalent to £0/$0 )

That would be interesting to find out. The few I've had, while not blockbusters, have been quite enjoyable and at a decent price I would buy for a daily drinker VP.

[Roy Hersh]

A fun read, but one correction of fact, needs to be made from the initial post:

Five split declarations occurred in the 20th century, although the 66/67 split was very one sided, with only Cockburn/Martinez electing to go for ’67.

Actually, Quinta do Noval and the Noval Nacional were declared in both 1966 and 1967. There are at least another half dozen producers that declared in 1967. I know that Kopke, Niepoort, and Royal Oporto did. So did Quinta da Roeda as a SQVP, along with Vargellas, and then there was Robertson's, Wiese & Krohn, Guimaraens (which I almost forgot about) and Sandeman which also declared the 1966 as well. There are probably plenty of others, but I can't think of 'em. I know that Oldenburg believes there were 16 declarations in 1967.

Now are you ready: Taylor was also produced in 1967 ... obviously not part of a true declaration, but bottles have been out there!

[JacobH]

I’m not quite sure that I understand why the shippers felt a need to declare ’75 in ’77 even if too much of it was produced. Surely a lot of the weaker casks could have been turned into LBVs or kept to be blended into Crusteds, thus increasing the quality of the wine which was part of the declared vintage?

[Andy Velebil]

Jacob,
From what I've been told the producers bought everything they could get their hands on from the growers so the growers wouldn't go belly-up. You can only store so much wine without runnning out of room and the fastest way to turn it over and make space would be to use it for VP, where 2 years later it was bottled. Otherwise you'd be sitting on it for many more years, if not decades, taking up valuable space. Its easy for us to forget about how much smaller companies were back then, even the big guys.

[Roy Hersh]

True. Imagine if the consumption quota per capita from 50 years ago were in place today with all the new Port drinkers that are around the world. Even looking back to the 1960s there may have been 100 people who drank real Port in the USA, with any sort of frequency. Andy alone, has that many friends who drink Port nowadays and that is just in Los Angeles!

[jdaw1]

Imagine if the consumption quota per capita from 50 years ago were in place today

But, in the UK at least, yesteryear’s ‟port and lemonade” is today’s ‟Chardonnay”.

[uncle tom]

Actually, Quinta do Noval and the Noval Nacional were declared in both 1966 and 1967. There are at least another half dozen producers that declared in 1967. I know that Kopke, Niepoort, and Royal Oporto did. So did Quinta da Roeda as a SQVP, along with Vargellas, and then there was Robertson's, Wiese & Krohn, Guimaraens (which I almost forgot about) and Sandeman which also declared the 1966 as well. There are probably plenty of others, but I can't think of 'em. I know that Oldenburg believes there were 16 declarations in 1967.

Not forgetting Offley..

I'm not suggesting that '67 was a poor year, and most of the houses that declare more frequently declared both years; but there are very few that declared '67 and not '66. That one of the great shippers did so makes it a split declaration, but I think Cockburn was the only member of the factory house to dissent on declaring '66.

Tom

[RonnieRoots]

Actually, Quinta do Noval and the Noval Nacional were declared in both 1966 and 1967. There are at least another half dozen producers that declared in 1967. I know that Kopke, Niepoort, and Royal Oporto did. So did Quinta da Roeda as a SQVP, along with Vargellas, and then there was Robertson's, Wiese & Krohn, Guimaraens (which I almost forgot about) and Sandeman which also declared the 1966 as well. There are probably plenty of others, but I can't think of 'em. I know that Oldenburg believes there were 16 declarations in 1967.

Not forgetting Offley..

I'm not suggesting that '67 was a poor year, and most of the houses that declare more frequently declared both years; but there are very few that declared '67 and not '66. That one of the great shippers did so makes it a split declaration, but I think Cockburn was the only member of the factory house to dissent on declaring '66.

Tom

I didn't know Niepoort declared 1967. Are you sure Roy?

As single quintas are usually declared in a year thought unfit for general declaration, I would say these would not count. So the likes of Vargellas, Guimaraens, Roeda should be left out of the total.

[DRT]

Now are you ready: Taylor was also produced in 1967 ... obviously not part of a true declaration, but bottles have been out there!

One year and 3 days after it was posted I noticed this. I have now developed a NEED to find the elusive T67

[Chris Doty]

Order No.: SO-0000314292 Order Date: Mar 16, 2009 Status: Open
ACCOUNT - ORDER DETAILS
Wine Ordered Shipped Remaining Ready To ship Price/Bottle Total Price
1967 Taylor, 750 ML 1 0 1 1 $59.50 $59.50


I have one of these waiting for me in California. I'll see if I can't bring it back from the States in April.

[jdaw1]

That is exactly what TPF is about. Good man.

[JacobH]

I suggest that we are now obliged to repeat the '67 Vargellas Oporto v UK bottling and the '67 Vargellas v '66 Taylor tests, with the addition of the Taylor '67...

[DRT]

I suggest that we are now obliged to repeat the '67 Vargellas Oporto v UK bottling and the '67 Vargellas v '66 Taylor tests, with the addition of the Taylor '67...

Seconded.

Chris, thank you. What Julian said.

[uncle tom]

I have plenty of Vargellas '67, including both Uk and Oporto bottlings..

Tom

[Chris Doty]

It is a pleasure to introduce you all to a new port. I can hardly imagine a crowd more appreciative of this particular bottle.

Lots of pressure now...better hope they haven't mis-marked a vargellas

[Glenn E.]

I have plenty of Vargellas '67, including both Uk and Oporto bottlings.

Do you have both the '69 and '70 bottlings? I know that both exist (I've had the '70), but I don't know if there is any other distinguishing characteristic beyond bottling date. (For all I know Oporto was '70 and UK was '69, or something like that.)

[JacobH]

I have plenty of Vargellas '67, including both Uk and Oporto bottlings.

Do you have both the '69 and '70 bottlings? I know that both exist (I've had the '70), but I don't know if there is any other distinguishing characteristic beyond bottling date. (For all I know Oporto was '70 and UK was '69, or something like that.)

Last year we drank an Oporto 1970 bottling and a Corney & Barrow 1969 bottling at the Quinta de Vargellas tasting. Not sure if there are 69 Oporto bottles or 70 London ones in existence, though.

[Chris Doty]

It is with great sadness that I report that both the bottles of 'Taylor Vintage Port, 1967' I purchased (one from Premier Cru and one from Fine + Rare) have turned out to be Vargellas.

The search for the last golden ticket resumes...

[JacobH]

It is with great sadness that I report that both the bottles of 'Taylor Vintage Port, 1970' I purchased (one from Premier Cru and one from Fine + Rare) have turned out to be Vargellas.

The search for the last golden ticket resumes...

The Quinta de Vargellas 1970 is actually quite an interesting Port for historic reasons...If you have more bottles than you want I'm sure several people would be willing to take them off your hands

[Chris Doty]

Sorry -- it was the 1967 -- typo corrected (the other bottles in this parcel from F+R are 1970 Graham and Taylor).