100 Point scale with a twist...

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15786
Joined: 22:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

100 Point scale with a twist...

Post by DRT »

Today I took delivery of ‟Drinking History” (2005), by Pekka Nuikki.

This is a stunning book in terms of the quality of its presentation and, from the impression I have gained in the few hours that I have owned it, contains some fascinating insights into many great wines, including Vintage Ports.

But one passage that caught my eye that I thought would be interesting to others here is the author's description of how he rates wines. It is a 100 point scale, but a 100 point scale with a difference, which I like !
Cover.png
Cover.png (210.46 KiB) Viewed 1690 times
p10.png
p10.png (158.8 KiB) Viewed 1690 times
p11.png
p11.png (97.3 KiB) Viewed 1690 times
Having tasted many old Vintage Ports that are past their prime I do like the idea of including the historical significance in the scoring in place of potential future development.

DRT
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3429
Joined: 12:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 100 Point scale with a twist...

Post by g-man »

wouldn't it be just as valid to score based on what company you're sharing your port with?

for example if you were sharing a bottle with Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, that should always be pretty close to 100pts.
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 15:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 100 Point scale with a twist...

Post by JacobH »

I was thinking about a similar issue to this at the 80s tasting. I think there is a certain tendency amongst Port drinkers to do what is being advocated here, particularly by judging the Port against its age. I think this can lead to the praising of the very slow-maturing black-strap Port without objectively assessing what is nice to drink.

For example, the Fonseca 1970 is often praised because it is so youthful, despite being over 40 years old, and wines such as the Vesuvio 1994 is often praised because it has the potential to mature similarly slowly. But is this a good thing? I’ve often noticed that when tasting blind there is a tendency to guess the slow-maturing Ports as from weaker shippers as well as from younger vintages. At the 80s tasting, I, for example, guessed the Dow 1980 as a Vargellas 1987, and previously guessed a Fonseca 1970 as a Warre 1985 or Warre 1991. Although my palate is pretty poor and I’m not very good at that game, I’m sure I’m not alone in doing this.

Without, I hope, saying anything heretical, I do wonder whether some Ports are simply produced with too much tannin, and too much colour. For example, something like the Quinta da Colmaça 2003--the most dry, tannic and dark 8-year-old Port I have ever tried--looks like it will simply never mature within my lifetime. It may even go the way of some of those South-Amercian malbecs which never mature because by the time the tannins fade, the fruit and bouquet are completely gone. If we judge a wine, not just as a ‟tasting experience” as DRT’s book seems to suggest that we should, then I do think we lose a certain amount of objectivity. The apparent youthfulness of ancient Port may give it a higher rating than it deserves and defects such as not maturing in an appropriate way may come to be praised.

Whilst this is no problem when drinking and enjoying a bottle for one’s own pleasure, I think it may become an issue when one thinks about Port for the purposes of making informed decisions as to what to buy. Here, I think objectiveness is vital but then I would prefer to have a case of the Royal Oporto Quinta Das Carvahlas 1970 than, say, the Vesuvio 1989 (assuming I was only allowed to drink and not sell nor swap any bottles! :twisted: ). But perhaps I am alone in this view? What would others do?
Image
User avatar
jdaw1
Dow 1896
Posts: 25062
Joined: 14:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 100 Point scale with a twist...

Post by jdaw1 »

JacobH wrote:I think there is a certain tendency amongst Port drinkers to do what is being advocated here, particularly by judging the Port against its age.
A phenomena seen clearly, for example, in a sampling of 1934 Warre.
User avatar
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3429
Joined: 12:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 100 Point scale with a twist...

Post by g-man »

I think it's fair to judge a wine by it's youthfulness because in 2020, if i wanted to celebrate iwth a 50 year old bottle, what other prime candidates would there be if not the Fonseca?
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Glenn E.
Cálem Quinta da Foz 1970
Posts: 4510
Joined: 21:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: 100 Point scale with a twist...

Post by Glenn E. »

g-man wrote:I think it's fair to judge a wine by it's youthfulness because in 2020, if i wanted to celebrate iwth a 50 year old bottle, what other prime candidates would there be if not the Fonseca?
I disagree. Does the fact that the Port will still be alive in 2020 have anything to do with the way it tastes now? No. It merely means that it will continue to receive a good rating in the future, whereas a lesser Port's rating will drop off as it ages.
Glenn Elliott
Post Reply