When will the '94s be ready?

[Alex Bridgeman]

I have a daughter who turns 21 in 2015. Those reading this with mathematical ability will realise that means she was born in 1994.

John Owlett's post here in which he said

I've more or less accepted that my existing 1994 Port won't be fully ready for another decade...

made me start to wonder when the 1994s will make enjoyable drinking.

Traditionally this is in their 21st year, but I am really enjoying some of these now. Some had shut down to some extent 2-3 years ago but seem to be coming back into balance now. The Vesuvio 1994 I tasted at Berry Brothers a couple of weeks ago was wonderful, dense and powerful. This year I've also had the Dow (great after a long decant) and the Graham (surprisingly evolved). This leads me to believe that it might be worth starting to pull the 1994s slowly out of storage next year and onwards.

Give them another decade as John suggests and I agree with him that the '94s will be even better. The debate we're having over which vintage is the best from the '80s will pale once the '94s have had the extra decade to mature. I need to try to fix my current impression of the best of the 1980 / 1983 / 1985 / 1987 vintages in my mind so that I can compare the best of the '80s today against the best of the '94s in a decade's time.

Or am I wrong - are the '94s still too closed and tight to make them worth opening now or in the near future?

[uncle tom]

The maturation of port is something of a roller-coaster.

Wines can seem closed for eternity and then suddenly spring into life, as we've seen with F85; and vintages can sometimes appear solid and enduring, only to enter a 'Peter Pan' era when they appear to be growing old without growing up, before re-surfacing with some dignity, as we've seen with 1977.

And then you get vintages that everyone convinces themselves are in 'drink-up' mode, only to be found holding steady three decades later, such as 1960.

I was surprised - almost shocked - by the degree of evolution on the G94 at Berry's two weeks ago, and it wasn't a very good evolution either. Although I've always had '94 marked down as an early drinking vintage, one doesn't expect that amount of development so soon.

1994 was the start of a new era in vintage port, following the 'dark ages' of 1971 - 1993. And whilst this bold new era only really got its act together with the 2000 vintage, it does beg the question as to when we should start drinking them in earnest.

Perhaps the best answer is: 'when the 83s are finished'

[John Owlett]

Thank you for picking up this theme, Alex for it's the main reason I've emerged from lurking on the forums again.

I stopped posting to the Port forums a few years ago, when it became clear that you folk were encouraging me to buy far more Port than I could drink in a lifetime! At that time, I had enough Port for 25 years drinking; all I've done since then is maintain that level; this year I bought half-a-dozen 2011 QVVV which we shall drink in 2038.

All seemed well until I reviewed this "25-year Port ladder" recently and had to answer the question, "What shall we do when the 1985 Fonseca is all drunk next year?"

The conventional answer, if I wish to stay with a 25-year ladder, is to drink the occasional bottle of 1994 to see which brand is most ready, and perhaps also drink some 1997 to see if that will be ready first.

Alternatively -- something I'm seriously considering -- I could buy a few cases of Port from the 1970s and 1980s, and reconfigure my drinking plan as a 30-year Port ladder.

Quite a daunting thought for a 65-year-old!

Later,

John

[g-man]

i love the taylor 94 i had last year

it's silky smooth yet shows some great depth in the spices and mouth feel.

The question is if you consider ready to be mature, or simply drinkable

[Glenn E.]

It seems that you're really asking two questions: when will the '94s be enjoyable to drink, and when will the '94s be mature?

To me, 1994 started the trend toward Ports that can be enjoyed early in their lives. Many of them have been approachable all along, if not wonderful. It does not surprise me to hear that people are enjoying them now or that people think they'll be "ready to drink" soon.

But they are far from mature. I think that most of them will need at least 30 years to be considered mature, and the better ones will probably need 40 if not 50 years.

I tend toward the view that "ready" means "mature." So for me, I doubt that the '94s will be "ready" until at least 2024. I'm going to do my best to leave mine untouched until then, and I'm not worried about it because I'm quite certain that others won't be able to keep their hands off of theirs so I'll get to try one or two before 2024 arrives.

[jdaw1]

I was surprised - almost shocked - by the degree of evolution on the G94 at Berry's two weeks ago, and it wasn't a very good evolution either. Although I've always had '94 marked down as an early drinking vintage, one doesn't expect that amount of development so soon.

But they are far from mature. I think that most of them will need at least 30 years to be considered mature, and the better ones will probably need 40 if not 50 years.

Interesting disagreement.

[g-man]

The churchills is an early drinking and early maturer. I'd put cockburn in the same boat.

The dow I'm on the fence on.

The fonseca and taylor though are what I feel 20-30 year wines!

[Alex Bridgeman]

I like the idea that the '94s will be ready when the '83s (or F85) runs out.

I was also surprised by the evolution of the Graham 1994 at Berry's a couple of weeks back. I didn't consider it evolved in a bad way, just more forward than I would have expected, making it quite enjoyable to drink now and not a port I would necessarily look as a long term keeper - but I would probably put that down to sub-optimal storage.

The '94s do seem to be approachable now. Some are approachable and drinking well (Moses suggests Churchill and Cockburn), some approachable with care and in the knowledge they will be better in 10-30 years (I suggest Vesuvio and Noval).

But before I really start laying into my '94s I think I will drink up my few '91s (which seem to be pretty soft and ready now) and my '97s (which I am amazed at how evolved they are when I get to taste them).

But John, I recommend you stick to your 25 year drinking plan because then we can't be accused of encouraging you to buy more than you will drink! But of course, if you want any help in deciding the order in which to open the bottles in your cellar then we'd love to argue about it here!

[CPR 1]

The G 94 at Berry's port walk was very different from other bottles I have had in the last year, much thinner and more evolved, thus I am not sure this is a good example other than to remind me the difference of storage conditions! The other bottles I have had have been excellent if very young.

I had a bottle of Martinez 94 at the weekend and after a 10hr decant this was very good, and ready to be enjoyed for my taste.

[jdaw1]

In its youth, 1994 was heralded as a real giant, a son of Anak. The 1994s I’ve tasted in the last half-decade have all fallen short of this. Much of it has been fine Port, some excellent, but fine Port amongst other fine Ports. Some have decades ahead of them, whilst stocks remain. But very few now taste massive. Or is this just me?

[RAYC]

I was also surprised by the evolution of the Graham 1994 at Berry's a couple of weeks back. I didn't consider it evolved in a bad way, just more forward than I would have expected, making it quite enjoyable to drink now and not a port I would necessarily look as a long term keeper - but I would probably put that down to sub-optimal storage.

Think back to the Symington "Half Century of Superlative Port" tasting in 2010 (here's your TN for reference!) - I don't think those at the BBR tasting were representative bottles even if we are now 3 years later.

The '94s do seem to be approachable now. Some are approachable and drinking well (Moses suggests Churchill and Cockburn), some approachable with care and in the knowledge they will be better in 10-30 years (I suggest Vesuvio and Noval).

Ramos Pinto is drinking quite nicely now. My opinion on Vesuvio changes by the bottle - I did enjoy it at the BBR tasting but it did also make me wonder whether the explosion of primary flavour that made it enjoyable then was the type of thing that just dulled over time rather than becoming better. However, I have hedged my uncertainty by buying not insignificant quantities.

[John Owlett]

But John, I recommend you stick to your 25 year drinking plan because then we can't be accused of encouraging you to buy more than you will drink! But of course, if you want any help in deciding the order in which to open the bottles in your cellar then we'd love to argue about it here!

Thank you.

The three Ports which vie for the rôle of "Port for the year" once the 1985 Fonseca has been drunk are 1994 Dow, 1994 Quinta do Vesúvio, and 1997 Niepoort. In the absence of advice to the contrary I was thinking of trying them out in that order. But do I compare them against each other ... or compare each in turn against the 1985 Fonseca?

What say you all?

John

[AW77]

Before deciding on the '97 Niepoort you should read this thread here:
http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6334

[g-man]

but certainly not a bad wine

http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=54805
=)

[John Owlett]

Thank you for the links about 1997 Niepoort.

I already have the Niepoort, which I bought a long time ago. In the first years following its release, the independent reviews I read praised it ... of course, the reviewers did not know then the problems with leakage and volatile acidity that have since affected so many bottles.

Not, perhaps, one of my most prescient purchases.

John

[jdaw1]

Are you storing at home, or professionally? If professionally, then drink the Ni97s next, because there is no advantage in paying more of their annual storage cost.

[RAYC]

Are you storing at home, or professionally? If professionally, then drink the Ni97s next, because there is no advantage in paying more of their annual storage cost.

\if you are storing professionally, you could sell....

[John Owlett]

Thank you again.

We are fortunate enough to have a wine cellar under our house, and that's where much of our Port, including the 1997 Niepoort, is stored.

One of the delights of a community like this is that different minds will latch onto things which I hadn't realized were important.

Later,

John

[jdaw1]

Let’s return to the question of what should you drink next.

One of the delights of a community like this is that different minds will latch onto things which I hadn't realized were important.

We have already been given one fact about you

a 65-year-old!

but need more.
• How long will you live? Or, perhaps easier, if your father is dead, at what age did he die?
• Do your children appreciate Port?

Some possibilities.
â—Š Your parents died at about your present age, and your children have no appreciation of good alcohol. ⇒ In which case, drink the good stuff soon.
â—Š Your parents are still alive. ⇒ In which case you have good and bad to do. Drink the bad faster than the good, so that, as well as enjoying some of the good stuff now, you can look forward to the years in which everything is good.

(No need to post here the answers to the question; but you might want to tell us the conclusion.)

[djewesbury]

Let’s return to the question of what should you drink next.

One of the delights of a community like this is that different minds will latch onto things which I hadn't realized were important.

We have already been given one fact about you

a 65-year-old!

but need more.
• How long will you live? Or, perhaps easier, if your father is dead, at what age did he die?
• Do your children appreciate Port?

Some possibilities.
â—Š Your parents died at about your present age, and your children have no appreciation of good alcohol. ⇒ In which case, drink the good stuff soon.
â—Š Your parents are still alive. ⇒ In which case you have good and bad to do. Drink the bad faster than the good, so that, as well as enjoying some of the good stuff now, you can look forward to the years in which everything is good.

(No need to post here the answers to the question; but you might want to tell us the conclusion.)

What admirable directness. Presumably the 'conclusion' can be communicate via seance if necessary?

[John Owlett]

Thank you, Julian.

The information you've requested is in no way secret, so here is probably more than you need.

A gross simplification of the West's increasing longevity is that, on average (and nobody is average), a man lives to be 6 years older than his father; a woman lives to be 6 years older than her mother. (My apologies to any of you who have just realized that you are statistically dead. )

My father died at the age of 72. My wife's mother didn't wake up on her 99th birthday. So my wife will be likely be drinking the Port for longer than I ... and our daughter needs to make good provision for her pension.

But nobody is average. My father's respiratory system was permanently damaged by his service in WWII. My respiratory system is fine, but, like my wife, I have diabetes. So I see no reason why I should not make 80; I shall be very pleased to make 90.

The diabetes is relevant because, although Port is in no way forbidden, every sufferer has to decide for himself or herself how to balance an acceptable sugar intake ... and we usually drink fewer than 6 bottles of Port a year.

Our three children all enjoy wine, including Port, and will happily take over our wine cellar when we are no more.

The way I have approached life expectancy and wine inheritance is to set up what I call "wine ladders". I want to have a case of good, mature Red Burgundy each year. So each year, I buy a case en primeur from the year before last to add to the ladder; and remove a case of 11-year-old Red Burgundy from the other end of the ladder for drinking. At any time, I have 9 cases of red wine maturing in our cellar or at Berrys'. Likewise, to have a case of good 7-year-old White Burgundy for drinking each year, I have 5 cases of white wine in another ladder.

This means that we have good Burgundy to drink each year ... and our children will sometime have to think of something to do with the 14 cases of Burgundy I know I shall be leaving them ... even if I do not, and cannot, know which vintages.

In comparison with 14 cases of Burgundy, 25 half cases of Port (or even 30 half cases of Port) is not such a big deal. My "Port ladder" is not as cleanly constructed, for two reasons ...

... I cannot buy an equal amount of the best wines each year, and

... the ladder has not been running for 25 years -- in the late 1980s, mortgage repayments and school fees dominated our financial planning.

Later,

John

[uncle tom]

John,

The Gibson family of Saffron Walden were celebrated philanthropists and Quakers. As bankers, their bank ultimately became (I am told) the first branch of Barclays outside of Norwich.

Their mantra was simple:

'Build as though you will live forever, live as though you will die tomorrow'

Another mantra comes from the Portuguese, this time in question and answer mode:

Q: Who will drink this vintage port?

A: God knows, because we will be dead by then.

In other words, don't think of your cellar in terms of your own mortality. Be grateful to those who are no longer alive and left port for others to enjoy..

..and reciprocate!

[jdaw1]

Thank you for engaging with the reasoning as I intended. You have made it easy: the Ni97s need to be drunk, and probably by you. They aren’t getting better, and might be getting worse. Whereas there is less hurry for the Fonseca 1985.

[John Owlett]

Thank you. Most useful. Shall do.

I went down to the cellar this afternoon, and opened the first of the 1997 Niepoort cases. Fortunately, there are no signs of leakage.

John

[djewesbury]

Thank you. Most useful. Shall do.

I went down to the cellar this afternoon, and opened the first of the 1997 Niepoort cases. Fortunately, there are no signs of leakage.

John

Going on personal experience that's a very good result.

[Glenn E.]

Thank you. Most useful. Shall do.

I went down to the cellar this afternoon, and opened the first of the 1997 Niepoort cases. Fortunately, there are no signs of leakage.

John

Going on personal experience that's a very good result.

Likewise. Good Ni97s are very good and, IMO, still improving. Bad ones are, well, bad. Luckily a visual inspection usually seems to be sufficient.

[RAYC]

Luckily a visual inspection usually seems to be sufficient.

Only for the leak problem. Plenty of non-leakers are still riddled with VA....

Magnums and halves (which did not seem to have leak problems) also have problems with VA unfortunately.

[Glenn E.]

Luckily a visual inspection usually seems to be sufficient.

Only for the leak problem. Plenty of non-leakers are still riddled with VA....

Magnums and halves (which did not seem to have leak problems) also have problems with VA unfortunately.

I wouldn't know. I'm almost as insensitive to VA as I am to TCA.

[djewesbury]

Luckily a visual inspection usually seems to be sufficient.

Only for the leak problem. Plenty of non-leakers are still riddled with VA....

Magnums and halves (which did not seem to have leak problems) also have problems with VA unfortunately.

I've had vey leaky halves; thankfully were quite good and not affected by VA.

[LGTrotter]

I wouldn't know. I'm almost as insensitive to VA as I am to TCA.

Me too, I think.

With the '94s I am drinking Tesco 94 by the gallon but in no way are the big wines ready for me. But I think that I like an older style. Fonseca eighty five is one I find hard to resist even though it is still youthful to my mind.

[uncle tom]

VA and TCA are both big spoilers, but they have to be very severe to stop me drinking.

I sometimes wonder whether the people who make a song and dance about trace elements of these faults do so because they are either not very good (or not very confident..) when it comes to otherwise discerning the good from the bad and the ugly...

[djewesbury]

I sometimes wonder whether the people who make a song and dance about trace elements of these faults do so because they are either not very good (or not very confident..) when it comes to otherwise discerning the good from the bad and the ugly...

I do think some people are just more sensitive than others. But surely with VA it must also be a question of personal preference. Some people will drink very acid wines and love them; others will say that the bottle is riddled with VA.

[LGTrotter]

I find it reassuring that I'm not the only one who gets on with drinking the stuff. I think that I have only ever thrown away one or two bottles.

[RAYC]

But surely with VA it must also be a question of personal preference. Some people will drink very acid wines and love them; others will say that the bottle is riddled with VA.

The way i understand "VA" (in the terms that i have heard the phrase used) is characteristic that ranges from a slightly sharp / high-toned aroma that tickles the nostrils to the overwhelming smell of nail varnish. The former (in port, most commonly encountered by me in older tawny/colheita) can often be a pleasant feature that adds an extra dimension to the experience of a wine, the latter makes me shrivel my nose and gag.

But in each case i think it's a distinct characteristic, and not one that i would regard as being part of the spectrum of "acidity" of a wine in the more general sense (which for me comes across differently on the nose and is much more apparent on taste than "VA").

[djewesbury]

But surely with VA it must also be a question of personal preference. Some people will drink very acid wines and love them; others will say that the bottle is riddled with VA.

The way i understand "VA" (in the terms that i have heard the phrase used) is characteristic that ranges from a slightly sharp / high-toned aroma that tickles the nostrils to the overwhelming smell of nail varnish. The former (in port, most commonly encountered by me in older tawny/colheita) can often be a pleasant feature that adds an extra dimension to the experience of a wine, the latter makes me shrivel my nose and gag.

But in each case i think it's a distinct characteristic, and not one that i would regard as being part of the spectrum of "acidity" of a wine in the more general sense (which for me comes across differently on the nose and is much more apparent on taste than "VA").

That's very interesting - would you say that the distinction is as clear with other wines, with Claret for example? That VA is distinguished by being perhaps more primarily on the nose, and general 'acidity' primarily in the mouth?

[RAYC]

VA and TCA are both big spoilers, but they have to be very severe to stop me drinking.

I sometimes wonder whether the people who make a song and dance about trace elements of these faults do so because they are either not very good (or not very confident..) when it comes to otherwise discerning the good from the bad and the ugly...

Possibly - though in my opinion TCA can never add to a wine (in the way that a bit of volatility can), so there's less flexibility there. It's also the type of thing that, once you pick up in a wine, is very hard to ignore simply because it simply tastes wrong / out of place / unclean / like it might be vaguely unhealthy or give you a bad hangover (whether or not it actually is / does).

[RAYC]

That's very interesting - would you say that the distinction is as clear with other wines, with Claret for example? That VA is distinguished by being perhaps more primarily on the nose, and general 'acidity' primarily in the mouth?

With VA, i certainly get it more on the nose (albeit you often seem to get a sense of it again at the finish). It also feels like a fairly simple linear relationship to me - whether there's "a little" or "a lot" of VA, the fundamental sensory characteristic seems to be broadly the same. But with wines where VA is sufficient to be considered a flaw, I often feel that - if you can get past the initial haze of unpleasantness - the merits of a wine can reveal themselves when actually tasted in the mouth. Perhaps in very extreme cases this does not hold and it seems to permeate the whole experience.

The relationship of "acidity" to a wine's aroma is probably more complicated than i could ever grasp with my limited oenological knowledge/understanding - beyond the truisim that a certain amount of acidity is necessary to keep a freshness to the fruit, i'm not sure i can tell the characteristics of different levels of malic / tartaric / lactic acids or how they interact with other properties of a wine to affect bouquet over the course of the ageing process. For a very acidic wine it may be that there are certain hallmarks on the nose (tart, hard, flat, almost cool?) but for me it is the sourness / biterness at the expense of other flavours in the mouth that is most apparent.

As for bordeaux - i'm not sure that i've opened or drunk enough to have a particular view. I've certainly had some unpleasantly acidic bordeaux (even more so with hard, tough, fruitless young barolo...), and i think it is the taste rather than the smell that has put me off. I've also had a lot of "vinegary" bordeaux where the smell as much as the taste has put me off, but i suspect that's just because it is "over-the-hill" and actually on its way to vinegar as opposed to having a specific "VA problem" in the same way as is meant in the context of eg: 90s Niepoorts (though someone will now probably tell me the processes are one and the same!).

[DRT]

This discussion has drifted away from the original question. Does it deserve a separate thread?

[Andy Velebil]

In its youth, 1994 was heralded as a real giant, a son of Anak. The 1994s I’ve tasted in the last half-decade have all fallen short of this. Much of it has been fine Port, some excellent, but fine Port amongst other fine Ports. Some have decades ahead of them, whilst stocks remain. But very few now taste massive. Or is this just me?

I generally would agree. But with the caveat that some (such as 94 Vesuvio/Nacional) have gone into a phase IMO and aren't showing all that great at the moment. So maybe that has something to do with it.

I'd also suggest that most VP matures around the 20-30 year mark and only a smaller handful of the top ones reach that maturity much later in life. So many are now past that "massive" stage, leaving only a small handful still in it.

[Andy Velebil]

This discussion has drifted away from the original question. Does it deserve a separate thread?

Yes, please do.

[mosesbotbol]

I haven't been digging the top 94 VP's right now and would hold off from drinking for the near future. Re-visit 4-5 years.