Dow's 2007 Vintage - 100 PTS Wine Spectator

[raul_alex]

Dear all,

it was with an immense pleasure that the Wine Spectator Magazine just gave 100 points to the Dow's Vintage 2007 Port.

It is the 8th port wine to have this kind of honour, and it is the 1st Port from the 21st Century to get this kind of ponctuation.

I'm lucky to say that I have 6 bottles of this amazing wine!

Cheers!

[Portman]

Congratulations Raul! Here in the US 100pts from Suckling will be well received by port lovers, and it is nice to see a Symington property get that kind of recognition.

Speaking of port, my wife and I may be in Oporto in early August. Would you like to have a drink or two with us if we drive down from Galicia for the day or evening? Feel free to send me an offline message if you are available. Cheers, Bill

[Michael M.]

One of the most important sources for portwine in Germany already increased from 68 EUR to 98 EUR within 3 days.

[RonnieRoots]

That's insane, which store is that?
I was happy to get mine at 60 euro.

[Michael M.]

It's the only match you receive for Germany via winesearcher. Just the rules of market I'd say.
What me made angry was a call from a austrian shop I received today. I ordered 3 bottles of that Dow yesterday. A short while ago an employee told me that it is no more allowed to ship portwine from Austria to Germany for reason of customs. What cheek!
BTW: The dealer can be found via winesearcher. It's the only match you receive for Austria if you are looking for that Dow.

I was happy to get some @ 67,50 EUR or rather 65,00 EUR.

[smisse]

Just ordered 2 as well for 60,50EUR per bottle at http://www.tonovermars.nl before I have to pay the "german" prices

[Michael M.]

Dries, just a question of time I would suppose.

Now the second important German dealer increased from 65 EUR to 90 EUR.

[raul_alex]

It was an amazing news for us, that work in the Symington Family Estates but also for all the community that love port wine.
As a Portuguese, i'm also proud that a portuguese wine got recognized worldwide!
Cheers!

[Michael M.]

BTW: It should have been Number 9 (not Downing Street).

Pretty illustrious neighbourhood.

1927 Fonseca Vintage Port
1948 Fonseca Vintage Port
1977 Fonseca Vintage Port
1994 Fonseca Vintage Port
1963 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port Nacional
1931 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port Nacional
1994 Quinta do Noval Vintage Port Nacional
1994Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port

Anyone with a case of 1931 Nacional willing to have a case of 2007 Dow?

[raul_alex]

I just got access to the latest review on the 2007 Vintage Port that is going to be released on the Wine Spectator in May:
Dow's 2007 - 100 points;
Quinta do Vesuvio Vtg Port A Capela - 99 points;
Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas Vinhas Velhas - 97 Points;
Graham's 96 points;
Taylor's - 96 Points;
Niepoort - 95 Points;
Warre - 95 Points;
Fonseca - 94 Points;
Quinta do Vesuvio - 94 Points!
Quinta do Noval - 93 Points;
It is amazing, and taking the chance of beeing buyest, having 2 Vintage Ports in the first 2 places, and 3 ports in the TOP 5 is the proof that the symington's are doing a great job in winemaking! Congratulations to the Symington's and to the Portuguese Wine Industry!
But the greatest thing, is that Port wine, specially vintage port is getting his deserved recognition all around the world!

Cheers!

[g-man]

Interesting the noval is ranked lower considering fellow tpf's felt it was one of the best wines/

[Glenn E.]

Nothing but big names on the list, and all the usual suspects at the top. I smell label bias.

[uncle tom]

Nothing but big names on the list, and all the usual suspects at the top. I smell label bias.

Compared with Roy's appraisal, which was comprehensive, thorough and strictly blind, it is not hard to draw that conclusion; unless, of course, these were the only wines they tried..

I find it hard to set aside the events of 18 months ago, when the WS was tricked into giving an Award of Excellence to a restaurant that didn't exist, in the process demonstrating that they were more interested in making money than in providing accurate information.

It is possible that they appraised the 2007 vintage ports in a manner that was every bit as professional as Roy's, but in the light of that scandal, I am disinclined to accord much credence to their pronouncements.

Tom

[RonnieRoots]

Nothing but big names on the list, and all the usual suspects at the top. I smell label bias.

Compared with Roy's appraisal, which was comprehensive, thorough and strictly blind, it is not hard to draw that conclusion; unless, of course, these were the only wines they tried..

I find it hard to set aside the events of 18 months ago, when the WS was tricked into giving an Award of Excellence to a restaurant that didn't exist, in the process demonstrating that they were more interested in making money than in providing accurate information.

It is possible that they appraised the 2007 vintage ports in a manner that was every bit as professional as Roy's, but in the light of that scandal, I am disinclined to accord much credence to their pronouncements.

Tom

I don't buy these negative theories of the both of you. I've been following Suckling's tasting notes for some 10 years now and find them thoroughly reliable. According to the WS website their tastings are blind, and I have no reason to doubt that. These scores are, therefore, the result of Suckling's blind assessment of a large number of 2007 vintage ports, and I trust his judgment.

For those interested and in the possession of a WS-online subscription, all scores and notes can now be found on the WS website.

[Michael M.]

I don't buy these negative theories of the both of you. I've been following Suckling's tasting notes for some 10 years now and find them thoroughly reliable. According to the WS website their tastings are blind, and I have no reason to doubt that. These scores are, therefore, the result of Suckling's blind assessment of a large number of 2007 vintage ports, and I trust his judgment.

Very well said. What reasons for Suckling to consider anything or anyone? He should be by far the most respected journo when it comes to Port and thus absolutely independent. That's by the way his asset.

[uncle tom]

He should be by far the most respected journo when it comes to Port

I would suggest that Michael Broadbent's track record is superior when it comes to tasting young VP's and predicting their future prospect. Sadly, he appears to have now retired.

Whilst I hate to inflate his ego too much, I am impressed by Roy Hersh's recent work. He has clearly been working hard to hone his analytical skills when it comes to young VP, and has also evolved his own style of presentation; one that is both modest and informative.

However, it will be another twenty years before we know whether his forecast is correct or not..!

Tom

[g-man]

That Uncle Tom fella seems to know a thing or two also and seems to put his money where his mouth is and I apparently spied a case of 07 noval eh?

[uncle tom]

I apparently spied a case of 07 noval

Two cases in fact..

[JacobH]

I would suggest that Michael Broadbent's track record is superior when it comes to tasting young VP's and predicting their future prospect. Sadly, he appears to have now retired.

Broadbent also gets bonus points for not using these silly point scales...

[Zelandakh]

Just try to find someone with a decent price and some stock...! Listing some £40-£50 a bottle but not in stock.

[Glenn E.]

Nothing but big names on the list, and all the usual suspects at the top. I smell label bias.

Compared with Roy's appraisal, which was comprehensive, thorough and strictly blind, it is not hard to draw that conclusion; unless, of course, these were the only wines they tried..

I find it hard to set aside the events of 18 months ago, when the WS was tricked into giving an Award of Excellence to a restaurant that didn't exist, in the process demonstrating that they were more interested in making money than in providing accurate information.

It is possible that they appraised the 2007 vintage ports in a manner that was every bit as professional as Roy's, but in the light of that scandal, I am disinclined to accord much credence to their pronouncements.

Tom

I don't buy these negative theories of the both of you. I've been following Suckling's tasting notes for some 10 years now and find them thoroughly reliable. According to the WS website their tastings are blind, and I have no reason to doubt that. These scores are, therefore, the result of Suckling's blind assessment of a large number of 2007 vintage ports, and I trust his judgment.

I normally trust his ratings as well, but this particular set has me very ... suspicious.

This is the second set of scores that I've seen for these wines, and some of them have moved up markedly since his first blind tasting in Portugal. While it is absolutely possible that the Ports in question have improved somewhat during the intervening time (as I recall the original tasting was done at least partially from cask samples), I do not believe that any of them could have improved the 3-5 points that some of them have according to these new ratings. It is also possible that others have chimed in and added their impressions to JS's original scores in order to arrive at these final ratings for WS... I don't know for sure how they've labeled them as I haven't seen the full article. Even so, one would expect that JS's scores would hold more weight in the final ratings than the scores of others at WS, so again I don't see how some of the Ports could have moved as much as they have.

Is this the top 10 listed here? I don't have a WS subscription so I can't review the entire list on my own.

[JacobH]

This is the second set of scores that I've seen for these wines, and some of them have moved up markedly since his first blind tasting in Portugal. While it is absolutely possible that the Ports in question have improved somewhat during the intervening time (as I recall the original tasting was done at least partially from cask samples), I do not believe that any of them could have improved the 3-5 points that some of them have according to these new ratings.

I do think these very young VPs can change a lot in a short period of time; my view of the Vesuvio Capela changed from thinking it was good but unexciting to extremely good between the 13th November 2009 and the 22nd February 2010. I have no idea how these points systems work, so I can’t say if it was 3-5 points’ worth of change, but it was a substantial and notable change. That said, I can see an argument that a professional reviewer should be more attuned to how the cask samples can change...

[Roy Hersh]

Given the listing earlier in the thread, it was impossible to ignore that all VPs mentioned, came from 3 companies. There are lots of fine Ports in that list in 2007, but there are others that deserve to be there too.

As a comparative exercise and learning experience, I enjoyed seeing the WS scores today and putting the scores next to my own. It made me remember which of the 2007's stood out from the crowd.

[jdaw1]

Dow's 2007 - 100 points;
Quinta do Vesuvio Vtg Port A Capela - 99 points;
Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas Vinhas Velhas - 97 Points;
Graham's 96 points;
Taylor's - 96 Points;
Niepoort - 95 Points;
Warre - 95 Points;
Fonseca - 94 Points;
Quinta do Vesuvio - 94 Points!
Quinta do Noval - 93 Points;

Given the listing earlier in the thread, it was impossible to ignore that all VPs mentioned, came from 3 companies.

Symingtons; Taylor-Fladgate Partnership; and the new secret alliance about which Roy was sworn to secrecy, Noval-Niepoort.

[marc j.]

I must say that I'm not quite sure about the Dow score. Is it a good wine? Of course! Is it an outstanding wine? Sure! But is it a 100 point wine.....????? I too believe that there are a number of wines that have been overlooked that were not produced by the above mentioned three producers.

Marc

[raul_alex]

If i'm allowed to give my opinion, coming from a guy that works in the port wine trade, and be sure that when I write here, I write as a Port and Wine Lover and not as a Symington Employee.
I consider that these ratings are the proof that some of the big companies that were rated with top scores are definetely working better every year. The Symington's per example are investing every year in new techniques, in new vines, in new methods to improve the quality of their wines.
So I don't think that these ratings are buyest or related with the labels.
As a wine lover I say that these wine critics have to much influence in the wine markets and in the final opinion of the consumer.
I think that the best way of judging a wine is to try it yourself. I've tried all the 52 '07 Vintages in October and since the beginning my favourite was Dow, followed by Capella and then Vesuvio. But only after this review, people started to look for Dow's because now it is a collectible wine! Don't forget one thing and this is my way of living; Wines are suposed to give us pleasure and to be enjoyed with family and friends, so what is the point of keeping them in a cellar fro our hole life. Life is too short, we could die tomorrow and then what you'll do with the wines?! Don't go for labels but go for the magical experience that it is to open any kind of vintage! Even when it is bad you are learning!
As a guy in the trade, wine critics: We don't always like them but we can not live without them.I think that is really important what they do and take per example, Roy Hersh is doing an amazing job, he is fair in is judgment and it is amazing to know someone that is so passionate with port wine and with the Douro Valley.
But he does it because he loves this!
Going back to some comments I saw in this discussion, a young wine doesn't change that much in the bottle, but it has a certain evolution. JSuckling tasted cask samples which are slightly different from the main bottles, which could mean a difference in the final judgment.

Even so, i'm really happy with these ratings because it places my country in the world map of wines and it breaks the mith that only French wines are worthy of 100 points!
It is a pleasure to be involved in the port wine trade and i consider myself a very lucky guy because I get to see this amazing nectar being born and growing during the years.

Sorry for the big testemony

Cheers!

[Glenn E.]

I think that the best way of judging a wine is to try it yourself.

That is the best advice of all!

[Michael M.]

Dow's 2007 - 100 points;
Quinta do Vesuvio Vtg Port A Capela - 99 points;
Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas Vinhas Velhas - 97 Points;
Graham's 96 points;
Taylor's - 96 Points;
Niepoort - 95 Points;
Warre - 95 Points;
Fonseca - 94 Points;
Quinta do Vesuvio - 94 Points!
Quinta do Noval - 93 Points;

Given the listing earlier in the thread, it was impossible to ignore that all VPs mentioned, came from 3 companies.

Symingtons; Taylor-Fladgate Partnership; and the new secret alliance about which Roy was sworn to secrecy, Noval-Niepoort.

They all are Brits of course. Noval just stands for Seely. Ok Dirk. Isn't that an old English name? So what have you done again Mr. Bond? Number 10 involved?

[uncle tom]

The bottom line has to be the question:

Is it really credible that all the perceived 'first growths' of the port trade should have made this list, while none of the others got a look in?

Looking at my notes, and other people's notes, it is clear that this is not a vintage that has divided into 'the best' and 'the rest', and that many of the less well known players can have good reason to believe that they've outgunned at least a few of the names on this list.

If the reputation of the WS was beyond reproach, one would give their verdict the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, it isn't.

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Looking at my notes, and other people's notes, it is clear that this is not a vintage that has divided into 'the best' and 'the rest', and that many of the less well known players can have good reason to believe that they've outgunned at least a few of the names on this list.

Tom,
Your statement above echo's my thoughts as well!

[Glenn E.]

Looking at my notes, and other people's notes, it is clear that this is not a vintage that has divided into 'the best' and 'the rest', and that many of the less well known players can have good reason to believe that they've outgunned at least a few of the names on this list.

Tom,
Your statement above echo's my thoughts as well!

Mine too. And that's the crux of it - I've had some of those lesser-knowns and I know that they're equal to (or in some cases, better than) the big names, so why aren't they on this list?

Further, I've had both the Capela and the VVV and didn't think either one of them was significantly better than its primary label brother. I can see giving the VVV one more point than the Taylor as WS has done because that could simply be a matter of taste (I gave them the same rating), but I cannot see giving the Capela 5 points more than the Vesuvio. 5 points is a huge difference, especially between 94 and 99 which is "merely" outstanding vs nearly perfect.

As Tom pointed out, WS lost a lot of credibility 18 months ago. That's part of what makes the complete lack of underdogs in the top 10 seem very suspicious.

[g-man]

Looking at my notes, and other people's notes, it is clear that this is not a vintage that has divided into 'the best' and 'the rest', and that many of the less well known players can have good reason to believe that they've outgunned at least a few of the names on this list.

Tom,
Your statement above echo's my thoughts as well!

Mine too. And that's the crux of it - I've had some of those lesser-knowns and I know that they're equal to (or in some cases, better than) the big names, so why aren't they on this list?

Further, I've had both the Capela and the VVV and didn't think either one of them was significantly better than its primary label brother. I can see giving the VVV one more point than the Taylor as WS has done because that could simply be a matter of taste (I gave them the same rating), but I cannot see giving the Capela 5 points more than the Vesuvio. 5 points is a huge difference, especially between 94 and 99 which is "merely" outstanding vs nearly perfect.

As Tom pointed out, WS lost a lot of credibility 18 months ago. That's part of what makes the complete lack of underdogs in the top 10 seem very suspicious.

As oppose to broadbent's scale max of 5 stars, would they both merit 5 stars then? or would the difference be 4 1/2 stars and 5 stars?

[Glenn E.]

As oppose to broadbent's scale max of 5 stars, would they both merit 5 stars then? or would the difference be 4 1/2 stars and 5 stars?

No idea. I don't follow Broadbent's ratings so I have no idea what he rates at 4, 4.5, and 5 stars.

I just know that when I'm rating a Port, 94 is an excellent Port with no discernable flaws plus something extra to make it outstanding. Maybe it has a great finish, or an especially nice nose, or an intriguing flavor that goes beyond the norm. A 94 is a Port that you mention and recommend to friends, but won't necessarily come to mind when picking your top 10 Ports of the last year. Unless you had a slow Port year.

To get a 99 on the other hand, the Port has to knock my socks off. A 99 is a transcendant moment that you remember for years. It's not just in your top 10 for the year, it's #1. Unless you had an unbelievably great Port year.

[SushiNorth]

i haven't tasted many of these, though I hope to. Based on the reviews that i read from my fellow TPFers and in particular JDaw and JS's cask tasting notes, i made the following 07 list for myself:
Dow, Graham, Warres, Noval, and maybe some Vesuvio.

I am amused to see how close that mirrors the results in WS that were announced.

[Glenn E.]

Ronald Wortel over at ftlop.com gathered up both sets of ratings and produced this list:

(Original ratings are given between brackets)
DOW: 100 (94-97)
VESUVIO CAPELA: 98 (93-96)
VARGELLAS VV: 97 (97-100)
GRAHAM: 96 (96-99)
TAYLOR: 96 (94-97)
NIEPOORT: 95 (93-96)
WARRE: 95 (95-98)
FONSECA: 94 (92-95)
VESUVIO: 94 (92-95)
CHURCHILL GRICHA: 93 (92-95)
NOVAL: 93 (94-97)
CROFT: 92 (89-92)
GOULD CAMPBELL: 92 (92-95)
MARTINEZ: 92: (90-93)
NIEPOORT PISCA: 92 (92-95)
POCAS: 92 (91-94)
RORIZ: 92 (86-89)
VALE D. MARIA: 92 (92-95)
VALE MEAO: 92 (93-96)
OFFLEY BOA VISTA: 91 (89-92)
DE LA ROSA: 91 (89-92)
SANDEMAN: 91 (93-96)
BROADBENT: 90 (88-91)
COCKBURN: 90 (86-89)
FERREIRA: 90 (90-93)
INFANTADO: 90 (86-89)
NOVAL SILVAL: 90 (90-93)
QUARLES HARRIS: 90 (91-94)
VENTOZELO: 90 (87-90)
CHURCHILL: 89 (88-91)
COCKBURN CANAIS: 89 (90-93)
CRASTO: 89 (86-89)
DELAFORCE: 89 (87-90)
PASSADOURO: 89 (85-88)
SMITH WOODHOUSE: 89 (89-92)
TEDO: 89 (90-93)
TEDO SAVEDRA: 89 (91-94)
PINTAS: 89 (86-89)
PORTAL: 88 (88-91)
ROMANEIRA: 88 (89-92)
ROMARIZ: 88
ROYAL OPORTO: 88 (88-91)
ROZES GRIFO: 88
BORGES: 87
NIEPOORT CALCADA: 87
RAMOS PINTO: 87 (88-91)
ROZES: 87 (88-91)
BARROS: (86-89)
BURMESTER: (89-92)
CALEM: (88-91)
KOPKE: 89-92
RAMOS PINTO ERVAMOIRA: (84-87)
SANTA BARBARA: (84-87)
SKEFFINGTON: (89-92)

So it appears that my recollection of JS's original ratings was inaccurate, because there aren't any Ports that were re-rated 4-5 points outside of his original ranges. Mea culpa. There were a couple that moved 3 points, and if you're a professional giving a 4-point range for the initial ratings I think missing by 3 points is a pretty huge swing, but it's not as bad as I thought.

That doesn't change my opinion that the final list looks biased, though. 5 SFE, 3 TFP, Noval, Niepoort, and Churchill's Quinta da Gricha tied for 10th doesn't look like a normal distribution to me. I would expect to see some underdogs doing better than that in any year. Then again, this is the first vintage that I've ever followed the ratings as they've been released, so perhaps my expectations are unreasonable. It's entirely possible that the big producers really are just that much better than everyone else, though I do consider it statistically unlikely. When there are as many producers as there are in the Douro, SOMEONE unexpected is bound to hit it out of the park every year.

[JacobH]

When there are as many producers as there are in the Douro, SOMEONE unexpected is bound to hit it out of the park every year.

Does that mean there's a hidden gem for 1993 waiting to be discovered?

[Glenn E.]

When there are as many producers as there are in the Douro, SOMEONE unexpected is bound to hit it out of the park every year.

Does that mean there's a hidden gem for 1993 waiting to be discovered?

But yes, actually, had everyone bottled their 1993s it is very likely that at least one of them would have been significantly better than expected.

I'm not saying that there's going to be a 100-point Port every year, just that there should be an unexpectedly better than usual Port from some producer every year. In a case like 1993, that probably means that someone has a pipe of something quite good that they didn't bother to declare, but which you might be able to sample on a private tour some time in the future and wish that you could purchase.

[RonnieRoots]

Ronald Wortel over at ftlop.com gathered up both sets of ratings and produced this list:

Thanks for copying the list here Glenn. I meant to do it myself but didn't get to it yet. Saves me the work!

[Glenn E.]

LOL... didn't realize it was the same person!

[differentdave]

francos 203-966-9571 http://www.francoswine.com/home.asp has 10 half bottles left at a price of 43.99 per botgtle and they will ship to NY
IF I had more $$$ I would have purchased all 24 instead of 14

[SushiNorth]

francos 203-966-9571 http://www.francoswine.com/home.asp has 10 half bottles left at a price of 43.99 per botgtle and they will ship to NY
IF I had more $$$ I would have purchased all 24 instead of 14

FYI: I picked my d07 750's up at 64, and just saw em at full retail for 70.

[Glenn E.]

I was in two different wine stores today looking to buy the 2007 Noval, and talked to employees who had tasted at least several 2007 VPs. Neither of them could figure out why the 2007 Dow received 100 points. Both were happy that it did - it means they get to mark up the price and make significantly more profit per bottle - but both volunteered that they liked the Graham, Taylor, and Vesuvio better than the Dow. (Both stores have had and sold all 4 Ports, so it wasn't a case of promoting their own wares.)

Neither had tried the Noval, so couldn't offer an opinion other than to say that they'd heard it was very good and that they'd be happy to order it for me... at $90/bottle. *sigh*

[Mark D]

Man, news like this made everyone's head spin. We sold out suddenly last weekend, so did my distributor. I had to fight, kick, and claw to get three of the last six cases. ETA on new arrivals? No firm answer. Even the 375mls are closely guarded.

Funny though, Graham's 2007 was 99 points and I don't see as much hype.

Exciting stuff, though. Good for Dow's.

[Glenn E.]

Funny though, Graham's 2007 was 99 points and I don't see as much hype.

99 points is the biggest loser when there's a 100-point wine in the vintage.

Which works out well for us, because it means we can get the Graham for significantly less than the Dow.

[DRT]

Funny though, Graham's 2007 was 99 points and I don't see as much hype.

99 points is the biggest loser when there's a 100-point wine in the vintage.

Which works out well for us, because it means we can get the Graham for significantly less than the Dow.

Hmm? Interesting theory.

Vintage Port X scores 99 points and costs £50
Vintage Port Y scores slightly less than X and costs £45

Vintage Port Y is awarded a score of 100 points and the price jumps to £100

What makes the price of Vintage Port X more attractive than it was before?

[g-man]

Funny though, Graham's 2007 was 99 points and I don't see as much hype.

99 points is the biggest loser when there's a 100-point wine in the vintage.

Which works out well for us, because it means we can get the Graham for significantly less than the Dow.

Hmm? Interesting theory.

Vintage Port X scores 99 points and costs £50
Vintage Port Y scores slightly less than X and costs £45

Vintage Port Y is awarded a score of 100 points and the price jumps to £100

What makes the price of Vintage Port X more attractive than it was before?

there are soo many 100 (100*)pointers in this world,
why would one bother with a pedestrian 99pter.

[Glenn E.]

Vintage Port X scores 99 points and costs £50
Vintage Port Y scores slightly less than X and costs £45

Vintage Port Y is awarded a score of 100 points and the price jumps to £100

What makes the price of Vintage Port X more attractive than it was before?

Nothing, if that's the order that things happen.

But often what happens is that all of the ratings come out at about the same time and the 99 pointers, which in another year might have jumped their prices to £90, stay at £50 because of the existence of the 100 pointer. Or maybe they jump to £60... what matters is that the existence of the 100 pointer prevents a nearly perfect Port from jumping its price as high.

Of course, it's even better to taste and buy in before the ratings come out so that you don't get gouged at all...

[uncle tom]

So, wise investment? - or fools rushing in?

For those using the 100 point system there has been a gradual grade creep in scores over the years, to the extent that any wine that is made correctly, and has no obvious defect, can now expect to get 90+

If this trend continues, the number of 100pt scores is likely to increase, so de-valuing its status. It would also be likely that the absurdities of this scoring system would be more widely recognised.

This wine has been well reviewed, but only one publication (with a slightly tarnished image..) has given it top marks.

Then there is the fact that wine publications tend to come and go - none have been publishing for generations, and little attention is paid to past reviews in defunct publications.

In another decade, and long before this wine is mature, the vintage will be doubtless well re-visited, and the results will tend to eclipse the initial reviews; especially as the internet databases gain integrity and status.

So if, from your own personal encounter with this wine, you believe that this is the new Noval 31; then go out and buy, pay what it takes to secure.

But if you are only motivated by the opinion of a single publication, then you are the fool rushing in..

Personally, I am taking a sober view. I will probably buy this wine eventually. However, my spreadsheet indicates a purchase price limit as of now at just £17.39/ bottle, increasing at 0.04% per day, which compounds to 15.7% p.a.

At this rate, it will be twelve years before I contemplate paying £100/bottle; but I suspect I will secure it for less before then. However, as there's no rush, I can wait!

Tom

[KillerB]

As I've pointed out in another thread about some alternate sticky stuff, WS has awarded 100points to the Campbell's Merchant Prince Muscat, a wine of genuine loveliness. Personally, I prefer the Isabella Tokay (with a paltry 98 RP points), at exactly the same price. Campbell's kept both at their standard price but due to demand will only sell one bottle of MP at a time at the cellar door, whilst you can slug as much Izzy as you like.

I have tried the Dow 2007, as you all know, and I can live with that and never have to pay the price again. I can live without it and drink the Graham's, which I preferred, instead at a lower price. Say Lavvy.

[smisse]

For the interested:
Dow's 2007 is still for sale in the Netherlands at 55EUR per bottle.
http://www.colaris.nl/Colaris/TradePoin ... =PORTDOW07