Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 22:36 Fri 27 May 2016
What is the most recent, the youngest, general declaration of which you have never tasted a Port?
ThePortForum.com
A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Page 1 of 1
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 22:37 Fri 27 May 2016
I have never tasted a 1904.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 01:39 Sat 28 May 2016
Hmm... I believe mine would be a 1945, though I own one in my Graham vertical.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 10:19 Sun 29 May 2016
Are you certain about that?jdaw1 wrote:I have never tasted a 1904.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 10:58 Sun 29 May 2016
DRT wrote:Are you certain about that?jdaw1 wrote:I have never tasted a 1904.
The failure of grammar is regretted.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=42610#p42610]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:S1904, though apparently please could somebody with a better memory post the details sufficiently associated with Hardy Rodenstock to be a possible fake.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 14:31 Sun 29 May 2016
But AHB reported that the cork looked correct and was branded "Vintage 1904", so it is perfectly possible that you have tasted a 1904.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 22:21 Sun 29 May 2016
Just as Glenn, 1945. So if anyone comes over to visit, please bring a 1945.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 14:53 Mon 30 May 2016
1966 for me...then 1955.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 16:17 Mon 30 May 2016
I don't think I have tasted an 1887.
I have tasted at least one VP from every general declaration since that vintage.
I have tasted at least one VP from every general declaration since that vintage.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:02 Mon 30 May 2016
+1DRT wrote:I don't think I have tasted an 1887.
I have tasted at least one VP from every general declaration since that vintage.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:25 Mon 30 May 2016
1912 - though I have had a "believed 1912" unknown, in which case 1908.
Or 1947 if that year is deemed to have been declared sufficiently to count (I think small, rather than general, declaration that year).
Or 1947 if that year is deemed to have been declared sufficiently to count (I think small, rather than general, declaration that year).
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 21:54 Mon 30 May 2016
1947/1948 was a split declaration so that would certainly count.PhilW wrote:1912 - though I have had a "believed 1912" unknown, in which case 1908.
Or 1947 if that year is deemed to have been declared sufficiently to count (I think small, rather than general, declaration that year).
Perhaps something to gently remind us of as we approach the Christmas tasting...
By the way, this is a great thread and one well worth posting on FTLOP if you have the chance to do so.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 21:59 Mon 30 May 2016
My vintages are a little less archaic. Never had a 2009 or a 2007.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 22:36 Mon 30 May 2016
Done.AHB wrote:By the way, this is a great thread and one well worth posting on FTLOP if you have the chance to do so.
LGTrotter wrote:My vintages are a little less archaic. Never had a 2009 or a 2007.
Owen caused the question to be rephrased.On [url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopforum/viewtopic.php?p=130083#p130083]:ftlop2014:[/url] Julian D. A. Wiseman wrote:Excluding vintages from the most recent decade, what is the most recent, the youngest, general declaration of which you have never tasted a Port?
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 13:12 Tue 31 May 2016
...though I have had the 48, if that is all part of the same single split declaration. Perhaps we'll just have to have to make sure we have a '12 and an '08 for me (just to be sure), an '04 for Julian, I can bring the 1887 for Derek, with a '45 for Glenn, and ?? for Alex? I'm up for this tasting anytime btwAHB wrote:1947/1948 was a split declaration so that would certainly count.PhilW wrote:1912 - though I have had a "believed 1912" unknown, in which case 1908.
Or 1947 if that year is deemed to have been declared sufficiently to count (I think small, rather than general, declaration that year).
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 16:05 Tue 31 May 2016
I had forgotten that, but conveniently I've also had a 1947 so my guess is still 1945.AHB wrote:1947/1948 was a split declaration so that would certainly count.
I cannot remember a specific tasting during which I tasted a 1975, though, so it's possible that my youngest is actually much younger. I suspect that I've had a 1975 somewhere along the line, though, and just can't remember when.
After 1945... 1927, I think? I know I've tasted 31/34/35 but doubtful about 27 and 24.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:34 Tue 31 May 2016
This is starting to feel like a wish list for the TPF Xmas tasting...
My first question is what were the generally declared vintages prior to 2007. I've worked on the assumption that these were:
2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1992, 1991, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1980, 1978, 1977, 1975, 1972, 1970, 1967, 1966, 1963, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1950, 1948, 1947, 1945, 1942, 1935, 1934, 1931, 1927, 1924, 1922, 1920, 1917, 1912, 1908, 1904, 1900, 1897, 1896... and then I get stuck.
So from this list, the youngest generally declared vintage I have never tasted is 1897.
If I look back at consecutive years the youngest vintage I have never tasted is 1956 (although I had to cheat a bit with some, like 1973 where it was a crusted port bottled in 1973 or the unrecognised Santa Eufemia old white from 1973).
My first question is what were the generally declared vintages prior to 2007. I've worked on the assumption that these were:
2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1992, 1991, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1980, 1978, 1977, 1975, 1972, 1970, 1967, 1966, 1963, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1950, 1948, 1947, 1945, 1942, 1935, 1934, 1931, 1927, 1924, 1922, 1920, 1917, 1912, 1908, 1904, 1900, 1897, 1896... and then I get stuck.
So from this list, the youngest generally declared vintage I have never tasted is 1897.
If I look back at consecutive years the youngest vintage I have never tasted is 1956 (although I had to cheat a bit with some, like 1973 where it was a crusted port bottled in 1973 or the unrecognised Santa Eufemia old white from 1973).
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:37 Tue 31 May 2016
I think you have 1956 covered, at least as well as '73.AHB wrote:If I look back at consecutive years the youngest vintage I have never tasted is 1956 (although I had to cheat a bit with some, like 1973 where it was a crusted port bottled in 1973 or the unrecognised Santa Eufemia old white from 1973).
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:48 Tue 31 May 2016
Sadly, I wasn't able to make the Olympics tasting - I think I was in Rome at the time.PhilW wrote:I think you have 1956 covered, at least as well as '73.AHB wrote:If I look back at consecutive years the youngest vintage I have never tasted is 1956 (although I had to cheat a bit with some, like 1973 where it was a crusted port bottled in 1973 or the unrecognised Santa Eufemia old white from 1973).
1956 is a good Madeira vintage, but a very rare port vintage.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:59 Tue 31 May 2016
1978? 1972: general? 1958, 1931, 1897? Really?AHB wrote:My first question is what were the generally declared vintages prior to 2007. I've worked on the assumption that these were:
2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1992, 1991, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1980, 1978, 1977, 1975, 1972, 1970, 1967, 1966, 1963, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1950, 1948, 1947, 1945, 1942, 1935, 1934, 1931, 1927, 1924, 1922, 1920, 1917, 1912, 1908, 1904, 1900, 1897, 1896
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 20:29 Tue 31 May 2016
Well I don't know! Where is the book I could consult to see whether these were general declarations? We have tasting notes from 5 full declarations from 1978. How many are required to make a general declaration?jdaw1 wrote:1978? 1972: general? 1958, 1931, 1897? Really?AHB wrote:My first question is what were the generally declared vintages prior to 2007. I've worked on the assumption that these were:
2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1992, 1991, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1980, 1978, 1977, 1975, 1972, 1970, 1967, 1966, 1963, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1950, 1948, 1947, 1945, 1942, 1935, 1934, 1931, 1927, 1924, 1922, 1920, 1917, 1912, 1908, 1904, 1900, 1897, 1896
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 23:04 Tue 31 May 2016
Yes sir, yes sir. Working on it right now.AHB wrote:Well I don't know! Where is the book I could consult to see whether these were general declarations?
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 15:20 Wed 01 Jun 2016
While I realize that this doesn't actually answer the question, I would assume "more than half" would need to declare for a vintage to be considered a general declaration.AHB wrote:How many are required to make a general declaration?
Question: more than half of what? All producers? Major producers?
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 15:30 Wed 01 Jun 2016
1992? 1991? Both declared by major groups, but a tough call. I'd say both or neither... lean toward both. But if including 1991 causes other inclusions based on percent declared, then I could be talked into some other conclusion.jdaw1 wrote:1978? 1972: general? 1958, 1931, 1897? Really?AHB wrote:My first question is what were the generally declared vintages prior to 2007. I've worked on the assumption that these were:
2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1992, 1991, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1980, 1978, 1977, 1975, 1972, 1970, 1967, 1966, 1963, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1950, 1948, 1947, 1945, 1942, 1935, 1934, 1931, 1927, 1924, 1922, 1920, 1917, 1912, 1908, 1904, 1900, 1897, 1896
1982? Usually considered the significantly lesser half of a split declaration, so no.
1978? Some good Port, but no. Not enough participation.
1972? Consideration given for political instability?
1967? I lean toward partial, ergo no.
1958? I lean toward partial, ergo no.
1947? Isn't this the lesser half of a split declaration with 1948?
1942? Consideration given for WWII?
1931? Consideration given for economic circumstances?
1922?
1917?
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 21:27 Wed 01 Jun 2016
1945 for me.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:27 Thu 02 Jun 2016
Can't positively recall drinking an 1890, but one may have crept in somewhere..
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 21:22 Thu 02 Jun 2016
Either none or two — and you are on the placemats for the 1890 horizontal on 11 July 2008 at Portal restaurant.uncle tom wrote:Can't positively recall drinking an 1890, but one may have crept in somewhere..
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 23:04 Thu 02 Jun 2016
I don't think Tom attended that tasting. Firstly, I do not recall him being there and, more convincingly, the review of the tasting and the TNs do not include the T55? and Fr45 that are attributed to him on the placemats.jdaw1 wrote:Either none or two — and you are on the placemats for the 1890 horizontal on 11 July 2008 at Portal restaurant.uncle tom wrote:Can't positively recall drinking an 1890, but one may have crept in somewhere..
For whatever reason, Tom appears to have missed this great event.
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 17:25 Fri 03 Jun 2016
What were the generally declared vintages from the 19th century?jdaw1 wrote:What is the most recent, the youngest, general declaration of which you have never tasted a Port?
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Posted: 19:56 Fri 03 Jun 2016
1812, 1815, 1820, 1830, 1834, 1840, 1847, 1851, 1854, 1858, 1861, 1863, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1875, 1878, 1881, 1884, 1887, 1890, 1896 and 1900.AHB wrote:What were the generally declared vintages from the 19th century?