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:
