DRT wrote:I was merely commenting that the implied wishes of the original poster were not necessarily being taken into account.
jdaw1 wrote:VP was indeed the OP’s intention, but the thread can accommodate colheitas. Please could folks clearly mark colheita comments as such.
Permission was granted. Update of first post, and sticky (and/or move to reference?, would be good. I suggest submitter name be added to end of each line in the summary, unless we're planning to vote a consensus with single comment for each year (probably not).
DRT wrote:Interesting. Not quite concise, but interesting.
Interesting as in 'he might have something there' or interesting as in 'these are the drunken ramblings of someone who clearly doesn't understand port vintages'?
The former. I was merely commenting that the implied wishes of the original poster were not necessarily being taken into account.
In this case I was not summarizing, but rather providing evidence for my earlier concise summary.
I do like Andy's summary. Very concise and quite accurate.
Starting a thread is a bit like having children. All parents have a clear idea about what they expect, however they do their own thing.
As to Andy's summary, concision seems to have triumphed too completely over information.
1970; almost certainly not the greatest vintage of the 20th century.
Like Marlon Brando it could have been a contender.
LGTrotter wrote:1970; almost certainly not the greatest vintage of the 20th century.
Like Marlon Brando it could have been a contender.
Arguable at best, but also useless as a concise summary of the vintage.
Certainly it is useless as a concise summary, it is more a riposte to the preposterously untestable 'vintage of the century' label. How about 1900 '04, 08, 12, 27, 31, 45, 48 and 55? Not that I would know and neither, I would venture to suggest, will anyone else who doesn't have a time machine. The 1970 could more meaningfully be described as the best port vintage now. But even this I would contest.
Martin Peeters wrote:Hi to you all,
I have had the Dalva Vintage 1978 and that one was remarkebly well. Still a lot of fruit. Even from the bad years there can be some good ones too
Martin
Somebody else mentioned the 78 Fonseca Guimarens which I can vouch for as very nice until about 5 years ago when I finished mine. This is the other difficulty I have with this 'vintage of the century' thing, there are too many great wines from average vintages.
LGTrotter wrote:1970; almost certainly not the greatest vintage of the 20th century.
Like Marlon Brando it could have been a contender.
Arguable at best, but also useless as a concise summary of the vintage.
Certainly it is useless as a concise summary, it is more a riposte to the preposterously untestable 'vintage of the century' label. How about 1900 '04, 08, 12, 27, 31, 45, 48 and 55? Not that I would know and neither, I would venture to suggest, will anyone else who doesn't have a time machine. The 1970 could more meaningfully be described as the best port vintage now. But even this I would contest.
What about "Possibly the greatest vintage of the second half of the 20th century"?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:What about "Possibly the greatest vintage of the second half of the 20th century"?
You're spiraling into "1970: The greatest vintage of 1970"
As Jacob pointed out earlier in this thread in the end it does get rather reductio ad absurdum. But you may notice that I ventured as far as to say that now it is perhaps the best port vintage. Which is quite an accolade. But the 66s are no slouches.
But, four years ago, were the 1966s given the same plaudits that the 1970s are today? Come to think of it, yes they were. Oh dear! Does that mean we are only a year away from 1975 being declared the vintage of the century? No. 1970 was.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
djewesbury wrote:If, as Derek maintains, the 70s have only come round very recently
I think you will find that was Owen.
If you have deserted me what chance do I have?
But I am not sure I would put it that the 1970 has come round recently (I think they have a bit), I would say that the trade sentiment towards the vintage has always been cool. It was the 63 that was vintage of the century and all the others were seen as simple (the 1970), or rustic (the 66) beside it. Certainly the pricing of the 1970 indicated cheap vintage and I would say that it is still a bit under-priced. And I do remember that the 1970 ports seemed rather stolid unexciting wines up until the late nineties.
But, four years ago, were the 1966s given the same plaudits that the 1970s are today? Come to think of it, yes they were.
The implication is that the 1970s are only receiving plaudits 'today' (whereas the 66s were previously). I mean, I took it to mean that the 70s were only recognised as quite so great relatively recently.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
But, four years ago, were the 1966s given the same plaudits that the 1970s are today? Come to think of it, yes they were.
The implication is that the 1970s are only receiving plaudits 'today' (whereas the 66s were previously). I mean, I took it to mean that the 70s were only recognised as quite so great relatively recently.
Which is exactly what I meant. No wait, I'm not Derek am I?
But, four years ago, were the 1966s given the same plaudits that the 1970s are today? Come to think of it, yes they were.
The implication is that the 1970s are only receiving plaudits 'today' (whereas the 66s were previously). I mean, I took it to mean that the 70s were only recognised as quite so great relatively recently.
Which is exactly what I meant. No wait, I'm not Derek am I?
No. Derek is in Seckford's using his mind and trying to remember how to get home.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
But, four years ago, were the 1966s given the same plaudits that the 1970s are today? Come to think of it, yes they were.
The implication is that the 1970s are only receiving plaudits 'today' (whereas the 66s were previously). I mean, I took it to mean that the 70s were only recognised as quite so great relatively recently.
I've only been drinking Port for a little over 10 years, but for that entire time 1970 has been in the conversation for best vintage of the 20th century. There have been times when it wasn't a leading contender, but it has pretty much always been mentioned.
I do think it would be fair to qualify that as the 2nd half of the 20th century, though, since Ports from the first half are so rare that it is difficult (if not impossible) to do a thorough review of the entire vintage.
Re: "for now," I think that is implied. Any review, whether a concise summary or a tasting note, is as-of the date it is created. In 20 years our concise summaries might change just as a TN of T70 written in 2035 might differ from one written in 2015.
Which makes me want to write a T70 TN, along with the associated requirements. Hmm... I have a friend coming over to help me rebuild my computer... sure, that's as good of a reason as any.
My apologies for inadvertently ruining your whole life Glenn.
I wish I could be bothered to go and find and photograph the wine lists from 15 odd years ago. I have a clear memory of several making slightly twitting noises about the 1970 which then later became 'this underrated vintage' line.
For those in Glenn's corner I have the following words of encouragement; I never really considered vintage of the century as a discussion point back then and I may have misunderstood. Also it seems to me that Glenn has tasted more port in ten years than I ever have. But I would also reiterate Derek's comment about the 66 being the last vintage of the century and there being another one along shortly. But then he went and apostatised, the splitter.
The first formal tasting I attended was organised by AHB in late 2005. It was 1963, 1966 & 1970 from Graham, Fonseca and Sandeman. I recall general conversation being that 1963 was fabulous, as was 1966, and that 1970 was fabulous but much younger than the other two but fabulous in the making. That is not what I think when I taste a 1983.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
1955: Beyond peak, more expensive than they're worth.
1960: Beyond peak, more expensive than they're worth.
1963: Beyond peak, more expensive than they're worth.
1966: Beyond peak, more expensive than they're worth.
1970: Buy all
1977: Unreliable. Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell, Fonseca, and Taylor made good wines. I've had HUGE failure rates for Dow and Graham slightly less with Warre and Niepoort.
1980: Dow and Gould are worth a look
1983: Not worth buying
1985: Graham and Fonseca
1986: True sleeper of the 80s. Tv, Gm, Fg, etc. Buy what you can find!
1991: Not worth buying (mediocre quality)
1992: Not worth buying (high prices)
1994: Vesuvio
1997: In an awkward phase. Return later to evaluate, but likely not worth buying.
2000: An American vintage - Yummy, but still very primary/awkward. Sometimes very cheap in the states. Fonseca, Vesuvio, Croft, among winners.
2003: A variable, hot vintage, currently in an awkward stage. A few show promise (e.g., Croft, Vesuvio, Niepoort, etc), and sometimes very cheap in the states, but buyer beware.
2007: Noval
2011: Buy all
And this, frankly, is the biggest asset of Port - not only can you taste basically every 'declared' wine going back more than half a century, you can distill the best of this bunch to a pretty small handful of affordable, available, accessible, and delicious wines. If you wanted to construct a 100 bottle vintage port collection, you could do far worse than:
This 1970 thing is an itch I can't stop scratching. I have been looking through my wine books published in the eighties and nineties to see what the sentiment is about the 1970 vintage. I am finding it harder to find references than I thought.
Many writers just don't mention them, skipping from 63 and 66 straight to 77 when talking of great vintages. For example Harry Waugh in his wine diary lists 45, 55, 63 and 77 as the postwar vintages. Others do but simply as part of a list of declared years. Several writers do speak of it as an outstanding wine, Wyndham fletcher for example, but he then rather disconcertingly goes on to praise the 67 over the 66.
For those who do remember further back can you put me out of my misery and let me know if I am imagining that the 1970 has only reasonably recently arrived at the current level of critical acclaim?
Port vintages rated out of 10;
1963-10
1966-9
1970-8
1975-5
1977-9
From Robert Joseph's 'the wine lists' published in 1985:
1970- Not overpraised, this is very fine port, for drinking between 1985-1995.
1977- Really great. The one to drink on New Year's Eve 1999.
1963- Another great year.
I just had a look at the older editions of Hugh Johnson's Pocket Wine Book I have: between 1977 and 2002 there are no Vintage summaries. After that we have the usual "classic year" characterisation for 1970. 1970 is only mentioned as a declared year when Johnson talks about specific port houses (but it's not in bold and thus is only mentioned as "other vintage currently avaiable").
The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt know thy Port
An underrated year...Sound, healthy wines resulted, much sturdier than originally considered, and with plenty of life ahead of them. The more I taste and drink the 1970s the more impressed I am. Minor shippers drink up; major well into the present century.
Also when talking of the 85s he says; "almost, but not quite of the calibre of the 1945, 1963, and 1977". No mention of the 1970 in his greatest line up.
Mayson (2004) - "1970 ***** classic, thight-knit wines; the best with a long future ahead. Early tastings tended to play down the 1970 wines and they are only now being judged in their true light."
I don't have the 1999 edition but suspect that was the source of those words. So 16 years ago Mayson thought 1970 a classic. Good enough for me.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:Mayson (2004) - "1970 ***** classic, thight-knit wines; the best with a long future ahead. Early tastings tended to play down the 1970 wines and they are only now being judged in their true light."
I don't have the 1999 edition but suspect that was the source of those words. So 16 years ago Mayson thought 1970 a classic. Good enough for me.
There is nothing to suggest that Mayson would have based his vintage summaries on what he'd written 16 years before. I'm sure he updated them; even if he is a journalist.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Most of my Mum's books are not accessible at present; however I was able to lay my hands on Jancis, thankfully. In the '95 edition of her 'Wine Course', she says:
Jancis wrote:
1985 A flattering year: luscious and fragrant for mid-term drinking.
1983 A shade behind 1985. Good, sometimes exceptional. Maturing relatively fast.
[…] 1977 Destined to be legendary, these have monstrous weight and power and will probably last forever! Similar to 1970. 1975 Widely declared but an under-performer 1970 Superb, big, full and deep. Now ready, will last very many years.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
djewesbury wrote:There is nothing to suggest that Mayson would have based his vintage summaries on what he'd written 16 years before. I'm sure he updated them; even if he is a journalist.
The 2004 and 2014 descriptions are identical. There is nothing to suggest 1999 wouldn't be the same but I was hoping someone would have one and confirm one way or the other. Regardless, for 11 years, and therefore two years before I tasted one, Mayson has considered 1970 a classic.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
That 1927 was the greatest vintage of the 20th century and that 1970 is not clearly any better than 1945, 1955, 1963, 1966, 1977, 1985, 1994 or 1986 (surely a Dotyism!).
Yawn! Only 2 hours before Souperbowl coverage starts...
Not sure I'll be awake for it. A month of abstinence and then a bottle of Sandeman 2009 LBV is having its effect.
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
That 1927 was the greatest vintage of the 20th century and that 1970 is not clearly any better than 1945, 1955, 1963, 1966, 1977, 1985, 1994 or 1986 (surely a Dotyism!).
Yawn! Only 2 hours before Souperbowl coverage starts...
Not sure I'll be awake for it. A month of abstinence and then a bottle of Sandeman 2009 LBV is having its effect.
The Souperbowl sounds like a Homer Simpson-ish event.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
1983: Ready now and enjoyable if inexpensive (<$60), but in no instances "exceptional." Blue Horseshoe prefers Ramos Pinto. Graham is also charming, but not up to the level achieved in '85. In summation, '83 is entirely skip-able as a vintage (though admittedly better than 75, 87,....crickets....). YMMV
Chris Doty wrote:1983: Ready now and enjoyable if inexpensive (<$60), but in no instances "exceptional." Blue Horseshoe prefers Ramos Pinto. Graham is also charming, but not up to the level achieved in '85. In summation, '83 is entirely skip-able as a vintage (though admittedly better than 75, 87,....crickets....). YMMV
jdaw1/PhilW wrote:Summarise a vintage,concisely.
It may be a vintage on which a previous poster has commented, or a different vintage.
Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.
I disagree with Josh (SushiNorth) somewhere or other that 2010 was just awful. The only 2010 I have tried more than once is the Senhora da Ribeira which is wonderful. 2010: Just before the huge media storm of 2011, a vintage that was written off, but which may prove (very) good for SQVP.
Perhaps this is a problem: the top SQ terroirs are so good that they can easily produce at least 'good' wine unless it's a total washout year. So should we find a dividing line whereafter we exclude SQVPs, so as not to keep having to say "but may make excellent SQVPs"?
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
djewesbury wrote:Perhaps this is a problem: the top SQ terroirs are so good that they can easily produce at least 'good' wine unless it's a total washout year. So should we find a dividing line whereafter we exclude SQVPs, so as not to keep having to say "but may make excellent SQVPs"?
I agree with the premise, which is why when I see someone say "a good SQVP year" I assume it means something above and beyond the fact that those big Quintas can produce good SQVPs in just about any year. For example, 1995 and 2005 are both "good SQVP years" for Vesuvio. I think those are both superb SQVPs that go beyond just "oh yeah, Vesuvio made another SQVP that year."
So to answer Daniel's question, it is assumed that the big Quintas can make a quality SQVP in all but the worst years, so specifically mentioning the potential for SQVPs from a vintage means that there will be a larger selection to choose from than just Vesuvio, Malvedos, Vargellas, Guimaraens, et al, and that the SQVPs from the big Quintas will be higher quality than in an average vintage.
