ThePortForum.com

With about 6 weeks until St. George’s Day, it’s about time that we had some wild speculation about what will be declared for the 2008 vintage.

Early reports on 2008 seemed to be quite favourable, especially as I get the impression that the shippers were less confident about 2007 when it was declared than it is now. For instance, in May, Decanter ran an article called ‟2008 to follow 2007 Port declaration?” which included a quotation from Charles Symington saying ‟In November and December we were thinking, should we declare the 2007s or the 2008s? By January we had decided to opt for the 2007s. Some may declare in 2008.”.

However, I wonder if what sounded like good conditions for producing highly concentrated wines in 2009, coupled with the general unwillingness to double-declare will mean that 2008 will not be widely declared. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if 2008 proves to be another strong year for Single Quinta and second label Ports but with few shippers taking the plunge for a full declaration. That said, it may be that the extreme lack of rain in 2009 proved too much for producing good quality grapes. If that were to be the case (and the producers must be keeping one eye on 2009) perhaps 2008 will get a stronger showing?

All other speculations are gratefully received!

Also see ranting about consecutive declarations.

From what I understood so far, 2008 will see some very good single quinta vintage ports, but will sadly not be a general declaration.

That said, it may be that the extreme lack of rain in 2009 proved too much for producing good quality grapes.

The Symingtons harvest reports mentioned that the drought stress on the vines (and consequent grape shrivelling) in 2009 was nothing compared to that seen in 2005. The 2009 grapes were also reported to be exceptionally disease free.

Although 2008 was not a bad year, I would be very surprised if it emerged as a better year than 2009.

Tom

uncle tom wrote:
Although 2008 was not a bad year, I would be very surprised if it emerged as a better year than 2009.

Tom

Just want to make sure I'm reading this right. Your saying 2009 may be better than 2008?

Andy Velebil wrote:Just want to make sure I'm reading this right. Your saying 2009 may be better than 2008?

Admittedly, I know nothing about winemaking, but I thought the 2009 harvest reports sounded more favourable than the 2008...

Everything I have read, observed and heard leads me to believe that the 2009 vintage has the potential to be a classic.

2008's cool summer and benign harvest conditions will probably yield some very good ports for drinking in the nearer term, but 2009 had the heat that is the hallmark of a lasting vintage, very good harvest conditions - barring the very last day, (for the Symingtons) and reports of totally disease free fruit arriving for vinification - a very positive indicator, IMO.

The few reports I have heard about the wines made also indicate that the producers are well pleased with the vintage -

- but we shall have to wait and see..!

Tom

I think this will all come down to the numbers game.

If "a decade" is deemed to begin with the year ending in "0" then the 2000's has already had its 3 delarations and is unlikely to produce a 4th. If a decade begins with a "1" at the end then it has only had 2, so a 3rd would be a possibility. I think most people consider years ending in a zero to be the start rather than the end of a decade so I can't really see 2009 being anything other than a SQVP year for the big guns.

Surely it’s easier than that.

The credit markets have become ugly for Greece. Germans retiring at 67 seemingly won’t pay for Greeks to retire at 63. So Greece defaults. Then Portugal is next in line. It all get ugly, so much so that there’s a revolution. All hail leader Chavez! And if there’s a revolution the shippers must declare 2009 irrespective of the weather. So 2009 will be a general declaration.

Whose turn next? You have to argue against a declaration.

If "a decade" is deemed to begin with the year ending in "0" then the 2000's has already had its 3 delarations and is unlikely to produce a 4th. If a decade begins with a "1" at the end then it has only had 2, so a 3rd would be a possibility. I think most people consider years ending in a zero to be the start rather than the end of a decade so I can't really see 2009 being anything other than a SQVP year for the big guns.

Agreed, but it is possible that this might be the right time for the big guns to move on..

A greater willingness of the blends to accept two year intervals seems a small price to pay, compared to the potential loss of market share that might result if the independant quintas called a heavyweight year - but one that the blends chose to overlook..

Tom

DRT wrote:I think most people consider years ending in a zero to be the start rather than the end of a decade

True, but also a relatively recent (and incorrect) trend. Prior to some time in the late 80's or early 90's most people would have said that years ending in a zero were the last years of the decade.

You can thank an entire generation of youth trained in computer programming coming of age while listening to Prince urging them to party like it's 1999 for that change, along with mass media's incorrect hyping of December 31st, 1999 as the end of the millenium.

The current recession is making luxury consumption rather unfashionable. Of course, we know that VP is a necessity rather than a luxury, but the court of the popular press has not yet accepted this. Perhaps this could be a reason not to declare 2009?

(Rubbish, I know. But trying to resume that pattern.)

uncle tom wrote:Everything I have read, observed and heard leads me to believe that the 2009 vintage has the potential to be a classic.

2008's cool summer and benign harvest conditions will probably yield some very good ports for drinking in the nearer term, but 2009 had the heat that is the hallmark of a lasting vintage, very good harvest conditions - barring the very last day, (for the Symingtons) and reports of totally disease free fruit arriving for vinification - a very positive indicator, IMO.

The few reports I have heard about the wines made also indicate that the producers are well pleased with the vintage -

- but we shall have to wait and see..!

Tom

I agree the most of the vintage went relatively well, and despite some minor light rains in June, was rather decent. Up until the massive heat wave at the end that scorched the lower altitude vines causing much raisning and poor berries. After three years of drought the vines had very little water to offset this massive heat and with the evenings staying hot, as normally they are cool, that only compounded the problems.

Generally speaking, all the producers I've heard from have said basically the same thing. The higher elevation vines did well as the cooler evenings help to offset the heat of the day and phenological ripeness was good. But the lower altitude vines were of generally poor quality with many raisined grapes and often poor phenolological ripeness. A very tough triage occurred on the sorting table which also contributed to already reduced yields. The general attitude was there will probably be some very good SQVP's but highly unlikely much declared VP will be produced.

Stop Press: Yanks don't get British humour. Who would have guessed it?

Please, can someone other than JDAW, Tom or I pull this debate back on track before we have to consign it to history.

Stop Press: Yanks don't get British humour. Who would have guessed it?

Not always, must be something in the water

allow me to pull it back on track...yes 2008 was a very good year and at one point rivaled 2007 for which may be declared. In the end, as we've now seen, 2007 was chosen by just about everyone (was there someone who didn't??). With that being the case, I'm sure for 2008 we'll see SQVP's from the major producers and VP from some of the smaller houses/companies that generally don't make SQVP's. I could be wrong, but I don't see it being a major declared vintage or even a true split declaration (which with the plethra of SQVP's that now exist will we ever really see a true split declaration again?...but that's for another thread sometime) The curious part will be at what pricing the 2008's will be released at.

jdaw1 wrote:So 2009 will be a general declaration.

Whose turn next? You have to argue against a declaration.

Please, please, please, can someone get the pattern and post something appropriate

Thread is about "2008 Speculations" then we have 2009 making an appearance and now the thread is about 2009. Go read my previous post about 2009 and why it won't be declared. Since the post is really about 2008, go read my post on why 2008 won't be declared. I think I've covered all years...oh and 2010 will be declared because the sun came out for one day in January

I give up.

DRT wrote:I give up.

Yes!!! I finally made DRT give up

Andy Velebil wrote:

DRT wrote:I give up.

Yes!!! I finally made DRT give up

It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that this doesn't happen often.

Andy Velebil wrote:allow me to pull it back on track...yes 2008 was a very good year and at one point rivaled 2007 for which may be declared. In the end, as we've now seen, 2007 was chosen by just about everyone (was there someone who didn't??).

Quinta do Noval Nacional is the only one that comes to mind.

Andy Velebil wrote:With that being the case, I'm sure for 2008 we'll see SQVP's from the major producers and VP from some of the smaller houses/companies that generally don't make SQVP's.

This raises quite an interesting point; it must be a bit of a dilemma for the smaller producers as to whether to declare in years like 2008. Although they could go for the Vesuvio model of declaring all but the worst years, most seem to tend towards a more traditional model of only declaring the major years. It must therefore be a bit tricky to decide in good-but-not-outstanding years as there is no flexibility to produce a second-level wine when the major players are doing SQVPs.

Andy Velebil wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't see it being a major declared vintage or even a true split declaration (which with the plethra of SQVP's that now exist will we ever really see a true split declaration again?...but that's for another thread sometime) The curious part will be at what pricing the 2008's will be released at.

I imagine with the general economic recovery, they will be priced at 2007 levels, or higher...

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:So 2009 will be a general declaration.

Whose turn next? You have to argue against a declaration.

Please, please, please, can someone get the pattern and post something appropriate

No, no, 2009 can't possibly be declared. It's too soon after 2007 and would make 4 declarations this decade.

Besides, if they wanted 4 declarations this decade, they could have done it already by declaring 2005.

There, does that help?

I hope both 2008 and 2009 are good vintages that are not declared.

Because for me it is all about the quality of the juice in the bottle relative to the price. I love off years where the port is good and ageworthy but just didnt fit into the crazy declaration schedule dreamed up in the Factory House. Combine a good but non-vintage year with a worldwide recession, and we might get some nice deals on SQVPs.

My personal opinion is that the shippers should let the vintage and the vintage alone drive the declaration every year. If you have a string of four declared vintages, so be it. Just because 2007 was declared shouldnt disqualify 2008 and 2009.

It is quite simple. Neither 2008 nor 2009 will be declared because the weather conditions since the harvest last year guarantee that 2010 will be an excellent vintage that will be declared instead. 2008 and 2009 will be relegated to a minor footnote in the annals of port production similar to the inconsequential vintages of 1964, 1965 and 1968.

AHB wrote:It is quite simple. Neither 2008 nor 2009 will be declared because the weather conditions since the harvest last year guarantee that 2010 will be an excellent vintage that will be declared instead. 2008 and 2009 will be relegated to a minor footnote in the annals of port production similar to the inconsequential vintages of 1964, 1965 and 1968.

On a similar subject, I understand that because Vesuvio declared two wines in 2007, they have exhausted their supply of ceramic bin labels. The 2008 will therefore have to be turned into colheita in order to give them time to replenish their stocks. American Port drinkers in c.2040 will, no doubt, be delighted.

well, it's that time of year -- speculating done, let's see what the announcements are.
(usually, though, our rumor mill is in full force by now with early indicators -- its silence does not bode well)

I have to agree with Alex 2009 will definitely not be a vintage declaration, there are many reasons, clearly the weather so far for 2010 makes it an obvious declaration, the more important reason is that my daughter was born in 2009 and therefore it could not possibly be a vintage declaration, Arthur was born in 2006 so I am a proud buyer of 2009 Single Quinta port!

So, today is St George's day, without any sign of a declaration.

One disadvantage of the current practice of holding back stocks of SQVP and releasing them when they are 5 or 10 years old is that we have no idea what most shippers have produced, even if though they are probably bottling the 2008 SQVP as week speak or in a few weeks' time.

Taylor Fladgate have declared Vargellas, Tera Feita, Panascal, Guimaraens. The press announcements are posted on http://www.taylor.pt and http://www.fonseca.pt

Others that I have heard will declare are:

Dow Bomfim
Graham Malvedos
Vesuvio
Dow Sra Ribeira
Niepoort Pisca
Crasto
Cockburn Canais

More will certainly follow

We will definitely grab some of those, LadyR and I need something to celebrate our wedding year! Very glad to see there will be Niepoort Pisca, that is one that I will try to get, next to Vesuvio and probably Vargellas, Guimaraens and some others.

I'm not too fussed about the fact it's a SQ year. LadyR and I can always depend on the vintage in which we met and got together: 2000.

Fonseca.pt wrote:As well as the Panascal, Fonseca will also bottle a small amount of Guimaraens 2008 Vintage Port which will be available on limited release as a collector’s item.

This is odd (potential apostrophe abuse notwithstanding); releasing a second-label as a collectors’ item. I wonder if they are targeting Port geeks who want a complete vertical of Fonseca (or a bottle for an anniversary year) or will try to market it as if it were a premium Port?

JacobH wrote:

Fonseca.pt wrote:As well as the Panascal, Fonseca will also bottle a small amount of Guimaraens 2008 Vintage Port which will be available on limited release as a collector’s item.

This is odd (potential apostrophe abuse notwithstanding); releasing a second-label as a collectors’ item. I wonder if they are targeting Port geeks who want a complete vertical of Fonseca (or a bottle for an anniversary year) or will try to market it as if it were a premium Port?

More likely that there just wasn't enough good juice to make a commercially viable volume in the usual price bracket so they have made a tiny amount and need to punt it at a higher price to make it worth the effort. It will be interesting to see the price.

As long as I can get my 2 bottles i'll be happy =)

DRT wrote:Taylor Fladgate have declared Vargellas, Tera Feita, Panascal, Guimaraens. The press announcements are posted on http://www.taylor.pt and http://www.fonseca.pt

Others that I have heard will declare are:

Dow Bomfim
Graham Malvedos
Vesuvio
Dow Sra Ribeira
Niepoort Pisca
Crasto
Cockburn Canais

More will certainly follow

Croft Roeda 2008 has also been declared.