ThePortForum.com

This post was originally made by jdaw1, but the poster was subsequently changed to PhilW to allow him to edit.
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.

1815 - most are over the hill [AHB]
1816 - no-one declared, and for good reason [AHB]
1823 - why buy this when you can buy 1827 for the same price? [AHB]
1920 - some still drinking very well [DRT]
1927 - stellar vintage, the best are still alive [DRT]
1931 - One can never have enough. [DRT]
1935 - a great vintage for some, now very rare [DRT]
1945 Fabulous wines, even today [AHB]
1948 - you can't have enough Taylor [DRT]
1950 - light and past its best [DRT]
1952: Some excellent colheitas [PhilW]
1955 - many very good or excellent, none stellar [Glenn E]
1955; one of the greatest post war vintages, one of the few old vintages that still has some gas in the tank. [LGTrotter]
1958 - some interesting, elegant wines but fading [DRT]
1960 - underrated; relatively inexpensive very good port [Glenn E]
1960; remains underrated, remarkably consistent for a lesser vintage, good port which has found a new lease of life. [LGTrotter]
1963 - excellent, but overrated [Glenn E]
1963 Fine wines; great are still great, lesser now fading or faded [AHB]
1963: Anyone who is unhappy that their stocks are overrated or fading too quickly can give them to me. [DRT]
1965 - mostly light wines, although Malvedos excellent, all with life-giving properties. [DRT]
1966 - the younger sister blossoms with age [Glenn E]
1966. Good port and great port, much of which is still drinking well. [jdaw1]
1967. Very good, and under-rated. [jdaw1]
1968 - great colheitas, iffy vintage ports [AHB]
1970 - the greatest vintage of the 20th Century [Glenn E]
1970. Even bad producers made good port. [jdaw1]
1972 - Delicate, fragile, and fading [uncle tom]
1973: Don't drink the purple water. [Andy Velebil]
1975 - poor overall, but too harshly judged; some pleasant port [Glenn E]
1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port [Glenn E]
1975. The best are pleasant drinking, the others terrible. [jdaw1]
1975: mostly unpleasant port. Judged rightly by most commentators as poor. [LGTrotter]
1977 - potentially excellent port with disturbing bottle variation; buyer beware [Glenn E]
1977: Some great, some good, some weak, but too many corked or leaking [DRT]
1977; idiosyncratic; not as great as originally supposed, some nice surprises but too many nasty ones. [LGTrotter]
1978. Avoid. [jdaw1]
1980 - good vintage, good port, good prices [Glenn E]
1980 - The good, the bad, and the ugly [uncle tom]
1980 A Symington winner [AHB]
1980: General declaration [JacobH]
1980: Not ready. Ever. {PhilW]
1981: N/A [JacobH]
1982 Some pleasant surprises [AHB]
1982: Mostly SQVP [JacobH]
1983 - a sleeper; time may crown this the vintage of the 1980s [Glenn E]
1983 - Mostly rather nice, but don't wait too long [uncle tom]
1983 - willing to swap for 1963s [DRT]
1983 Never had a top-rank reputation; always over-rated. [jdaw1]
1983: A solid effort with a pleasant surprise or two. [griff]
1983: Average, with a few pleasant ports. [PhilW]
1983: General declaration [JacobH]
1983: Is this the right room for an argument? [PhilW]
1983; Hard wines which are usually ungenerous and may not have the longevity often associated with this style of port. [LGTrotter]
1984: Mostly SQVP [JacobH]
1985 - some great port, some very good port, most merely average [Glenn E]
1985. A vintage of extremes the good is great, the bad is awful. [jdaw1]
1985: choose wisely [Andy Velebil]
1985: General declaration [JacobH]
1987 - Hard not to enjoy, even harder to find. [CaliforniaBrad]
1987 - should have been declared [Glenn E]
1987 - Surprisingly young [Axel P]
1987. Should have been more widely declared. [jdaw1]
1988 - It being my birth year seems to be the sole redeeming factor. [CaliforniaBrad]
1988; very enjoyable SQVP now alas, a long way down the slippery slope. [LGTrotter]
1991 - SFE was right [Glenn E]
1991 A solid SQVP year [jdaw1]
1991; A vintage for those who enjoy a hint of vegetables in their port. [LGTrotter]
1992 - TFP was right [Glenn E]
1992 Should have been more widely declared. [jdaw1]
1992; A vintage for those who enjoy paying over the odds for their port. [LGTrotter]
1993 Never had a bad one. [JacobH]
1994 - if you couldn't make good port, you were in the wrong business; some superb port, some still in a funk [Glenn E]
1994 - Very mixed bag, not as uniform as advertised. [CaliforniaBrad]
1994. Not as great as promised. [jdaw1]
1994; couldn't possibly have been as great as promised. Good wines though. [LGTrotter]
1995 - Plenty of excellent, mid weight and mid-structure SQVPs at very reasonable prices. Perhaps even more succinctly: Great QPR year. [CaliforniaBrad]
1995 - Solid, with one or two very good ones [Axel P]
1996 - a good, solid year for single quintas that will be hitting their drinking window now. [DRT]
1997, 2000, 2003 - great potential, but not now [Glenn E]
1998 - a good single quinta vintage, more concentrated and robust than the 1996s. [DRT]
1998 the Fonseca Panascal seems OK. [LGTrotter]
2001: a handy SQVP year [griff]
2004: another handy SQVP year [griff]
2005: should have been declared? [griff]
2007 - likely elegant in the long term [Glenn E]
2011 - easy to say now, but the greatest vintage of the 21st Century [Glenn E]
2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank. [jdaw1]
2011; Too early to tell. [LGTrotter]
2012 - too soon after 2011; will have some stellar SQVPs [Glenn E]
2014 - so much potential ruined by rain at harvest [Glenn E]

1975. The best are pleasant drinking, the others terrible.

1980 - The good, the bad, and the ugly

1983 - Mostly rather nice, but don't wait too long

1972 - Delicate, fragile, and fading

Tom

jdaw1 wrote:Summarise a vintage, concisely.

It may be a vintage on which a previous poster has commented, or a different vintage. I’ll start.

1978. Avoid.

the fonseca 78 guimareans i have easily beats the 80 vp.

g-man wrote:the fonseca 78 guimareans i have easily beats the 80 vp.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone highlighted the inherent problems with such an attempt at summarising a vintage in this way

JacobH wrote:

g-man wrote:the fonseca 78 guimareans i have easily beats the 80 vp.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone highlighted the inherent problems with such an attempt at summarising a vintage in this way

I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1433&p=40508#p40508]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:This has inspired Summarise a vintage, concisely.

1931 - One can never have enough.

JacobH wrote:

g-man wrote:the fonseca 78 guimareans i have easily beats the 80 vp.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone highlighted the inherent problems with such an attempt at summarising a vintage in this way

Concise summaries have the merit of summarising concisely, but the disadvantage of not covering all the exceptions.

jdaw1 wrote:Concise summaries have the merit of summarising concisely, but the disadvantage of not covering all the exceptions.

I always thought the advantage of Vintage Port is that following summarised, concisely, each year, with the disadvantage of not covering the exceptions:

1980: General declaration
1981: N/A
1982: Mostly SQVP
1983: General declaration
1984: Mostly SQVP
1985: General declaration

etc.

g-man wrote:I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

I would be more than happy to have a case of Churchill 1982 or Delaforce 1982 to drink over the next decade or so

JacobH wrote:

g-man wrote:I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

I would be more than happy to have a case of Churchill 1982 or Delaforce 1982 to drink over the next decade or so

I shall have to defer to your judgment!

g-man wrote:I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

I would be more than happy to have a case of Churchill 1982 or Delaforce 1982 to drink over the next decade or so

I have a case of 82 Noval and although I think is fairly average a friend of mine loves the stuff and is desperate for a case

clawhit wrote:

g-man wrote:I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

JacobH wrote:I would be more than happy to have a case of Churchill 1982 or Delaforce 1982 to drink over the next decade or so

I have a case of 82 Noval and although I think is fairly average a friend of mine loves the stuff and is desperate for a case

Surely this is where Adam Smith’s invisible hand comes into play?

JacobH wrote:

clawhit wrote:

g-man wrote:I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

JacobH wrote:I would be more than happy to have a case of Churchill 1982 or Delaforce 1982 to drink over the next decade or so

I have a case of 82 Noval and although I think is fairly average a friend of mine loves the stuff and is desperate for a case

Surely this is where Adam Smith’s invisible hand comes into play?

As they were only £16/bottle I'll keep them as drinkers - the odd bottle here and there used on him during blind tastings keeps him on his toes!

I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

I think a little horizontal is called for here - you might be pleasantly surprised..

Tom

1995 - Solid, with one or two very good ones
1987 - Surprisingly young


Axel

uncle tom wrote:

I can honestly say that the 82 is one vintage that has no merit

I think a little horizontal is called for here - you might be pleasantly surprised..

Tom

So perhaps we should offer an alternative summary:
1982 Some pleasant surprises

My suggestion for another vintage - perhaps a bit contentious:
1980 A Symington winner

And some other suggestions:
1908 Vintage of the century
1927 Vintage of the century
1945 Vintage of the century
1948 Vintage of the century
1963 Vintage of the century
1977 Vintage of the century
1985 Vintage of the century
1994 Vintage of the century
Just to make it clear that I am not being overly cynical, this is aimed at the popular press and not (necessarily) at the producers who tend to let their wines speak for themselves.

But a couple of serious suggestions:
1945 Fabulous wines, even today
1963 Fine wines; great are still great, lesser now fading or faded

AHB wrote:Just to make it clear that I am not being overly cynical, this is aimed at the popular press and not (necessarily) at the producers who tend to let their wines speak for themselves.

I approve of this system. I think we should therefore add:
1993 Never had a bad one.

1987. Should have been more widely declared.
1967. Very good, and under-rated.

Having re-read this thread, I should apologise for not engaging in it in the serious spirit in which it was created. Should we have a parallel in Meaningless Drivel where we can say things like "1966 Worst declaration ending in a 6"?

2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank.

jdaw1 wrote:2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank.

Also concisely summarizes 1994.

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank.

Also concisely summarizes 1994.

Disagree: 1994 obviously junior to both 1970 and 2011.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank.

Also concisely summarizes 1994.

Disagree: 1994 obviously junior to both 1970 and 2011.

Arguable, but not really a disagreement. [1970,2011] > [1994] does not in itself negate 1994 being good enough for even bad producers to have made good port, and for the best 1994s (e.g. Nacional) to potentially be of the very top rank.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank.

Also concisely summarizes 1994.

Disagree: 1994 obviously junior to both 1970 and 2011.

I suggest a new rule for this thread: Those who disagree with a poster's description of a vintage should post an alternative description, not a criticism or express disagreement.

1994. Not as great as promised.

jdaw1 wrote:1994. Not as great as promised.

Hmmm on the first glance I would say something important is missing. What about: "first modern produced vintage port seeming not to hold the promise."

Sadly there are enough young port drinkers who who did not calibrate their palates at old port before and including 1970 to argue with you about the 94s being overrated. I think they are wrong but if you like primary fruit nicely packaged up more than a proper vintage port also developping generous secondary aromas it is understandable.

means WS1 who hopes more and more young port wine drinkers neglecting the the old stock.....

jdaw1 wrote:1994. Not as great as promised.

Hmm, I think they're in a phase and not showing particularly well at the moment. Time will tell. Though it is not like 1970, where even normally not so good producers did well. The usual suspects did very well, the rest average.

So much to disagree with, I am not sure I shall be able to keep Derek's interdict.

AHB wrote:1963 Fine wines; great are still great, lesser now fading or faded

Mostly fading now, even the best have begun the slide. Over rated and over priced.

JacobH wrote:Surely this is where Adam Smith’s invisible hand comes into play?

Adam Smith gets it wrong sometimes, thank goodness.

jdaw1 wrote:2011. Even bad producers made good port; the best might be of the very top rank.

2011; Too early to tell.

jdaw1 wrote:1994. Not as great as promised.

1994; couldn't possibly have been as great as promised. Good wines though.

1955; one of the greatest post war vintages, one of the few old vintages that still has some gas in the tank.
1960; remains underrated, remarkably consistent for a lesser vintage, good port which has found a new lease of life.

That'll do for now.

Should we point out here that Adam Smith only used the phrase 'invisible hand' once, and not in connection with markets?

djewesbury wrote:Should we point out here that Adam Smith only used the phrase 'invisible hand' once, and not in connection with markets?

Oh we should, we should!

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Should we point out here that Adam Smith only used the phrase 'invisible hand' once, and not in connection with markets?

Oh we should, we should!

Go on then, you do it.

OK; Apparently, Adam Smith only used the 'invisible hand' quip once. And it wasn't about markets.

I think that's covered it.

LGTrotter wrote:OK; Apparently, Adam Smith only used the 'invisible hand' quip once. And it wasn't about markets.

I think that's covered it.

Wow! Did anybody else know that?

In fact it was three times. But still not in the context that economic liberals claim it to have been used.

1977: Some great, some good, some weak, but too many corked or leaking.

DRT wrote:1977: Some great, some good, some weak, but too many corked or leaking.

I would say "far too many". And "a few great, some good, many weak".

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:1977: Some great, some good, some weak, but too many corked or leaking.

I would say "far too many". And "a few great, some good, many weak".

1977; idiosyncratic; not as great as originally supposed, some nice surprises but too many nasty ones.

1983; Hard wines which are usually ungenerous and may not have the longevity often associated with this style of port.

1955 - many very good or excellent, none stellar
1960 - underrated; relatively inexpensive very good port
1963 - excellent, but overrated
1966 - the younger sister blossoms with age
1970 - the greatest vintage of the 20th Century
1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port
1977 - potentially excellent port with disturbing bottle variation; buyer beware
1980 - good vintage, good port, good prices
1983 - a sleeper; time may crown this the vintage of the 1980s
1985 - some great port, some very good port, most merely average
1987 - should have been declared
1991 - SFE was right
1992 - TFP was right
1994 - if you couldn't make good port, you were in the wrong business; some superb port, some still in a funk
1997, 2000, 2003 - great potential, but not now
2007 - likely elegant in the long term
2011 - easy to say now, but the greatest vintage of the 21st Century
2012 - too soon after 2011; will have some stellar SQVPs
2014 - so much potential ruined by rain at harvest

Glenn E. wrote:1955 - many very good or excellent, none stellar
1960 - underrated; relatively inexpensive very good port
1963 - excellent, but overrated
1966 - the younger sister blossoms with age
1970 - the greatest vintage of the 20th Century
1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port
1977 - potentially excellent port with disturbing bottle variation; buyer beware
1980 - good vintage, good port, good prices
1983 - a sleeper; time may crown this the vintage of the 1980s
1985 - some great port, some very good port, most merely average
1987 - should have been declared
1991 - SFE was right
1992 - TFP was right
1994 - if you couldn't make good port, you were in the wrong business; some superb port, some still in a funk
1997, 2000, 2003 - great potential, but not now
2007 - likely elegant in the long term
2011 - easy to say now, but the greatest vintage of the 21st Century
2012 - too soon after 2011; will have some stellar SQVPs
2014 - so much potential ruined by rain at harvest

An excellent summary, only a little of which is wrong.

Glenn E. wrote:1983 - a sleeper; time may crown this the vintage of the 1980s

1983 Never had a top-rank reputation; always over-rated.

Glenn E. wrote:1991 - SFE was right
1992 - TFP was right

1991 A solid SQVP year
1992 Should have been more widely declared.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1991 - SFE was right
1992 - TFP was right

1991 A solid SQVP year
1992 Should have been more widely declared.

+1 (and "right" should perhaps be "correct")

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1991 - SFE was right
1992 - TFP was right

1991 A solid SQVP year
1992 Should have been more widely declared.

+1 (and "right" should perhaps be "correct")

1991; A vintage for those who enjoy a hint of vegetables in their port.
1992; A vintage for those who enjoy paying over the odds for their port.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1991 - SFE was right
1992 - TFP was right

1991 A solid SQVP year
1992 Should have been more widely declared.

+1 (and "right" should perhaps be "correct")

Yes, "correct" would be better.

Glenn E. wrote:1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port

1975: mostly unpleasant port. Judged rightly by most commentators as poor.

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port

1975: mostly unpleasant port. Judged rightly by most commentators as poor.

1975 - poor overall, but too harshly judged; some pleasant port

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port

1975: mostly unpleasant port. Judged rightly by most commentators as poor.

1975 - poor overall, but too harshly judged; some pleasant port

I would not doubt your word Glenn, but I wonder if you could give some examples? It has to be said I have had very few.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1983 - a sleeper; time may crown this the vintage of the 1980s

1983 Never had a top-rank reputation; always over-rated.

Always overrated?

I am struggling to re-phrase. I wish to say that while it has never been considered top flight, it has some very good ports that are showing signs of getting even better. Also that overall it may* ultimately be considered the best vintage of the 1980s, though that isn't really saying much for the "lost decade" of port.

*I'll have a better frame of reference in 4 weeks after my 1985 horizontal.

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:1975 - too harshly judged; some pleasant port

1975: mostly unpleasant port. Judged rightly by most commentators as poor.

1975 - poor overall, but too harshly judged; some pleasant port

I would not doubt your word Glenn, but I wonder if you could give some examples? It has to be said I have had very few.

1975 Sandeman
1975 Fonseca
1975 Ferreira
another 1975 Fonseca
1975 Cockburn

There are many more available, some indicating surprise at how pleasant the various 1975s were compared to expectations based on common knowledge.

Note: "pleasant" is a term I would associate with a port rating around 83-85. Drinkable, not offensive, but certainly not "excellent" or even "very good."

Thank you Glenn.

Glenn E. wrote:There are many more available, some indicating surprise at how pleasant the various 1975s were compared to expectations based on common knowledge.

Note: "pleasant" is a term I would associate with a port rating around 83-85. Drinkable, not offensive, but certainly not "excellent" or even "very good."

This is another excellent summary. Over time my view on the ’75s has softened. Perhaps my early-drinking taste of Graham 1975 left me overly sceptical. But, with dotage hoving into view, I’ll take “Drinkable, not offensive, but certainly not "excellent" or even "very good."”. Actually, the Croft and Noval are significantly better than this — still not great, but substantially better than mediocre.

Glenn E. wrote:it has some very good ports that are showing signs of getting even better.

Our dispute is not the minutiae of the wording; our dispute is about the liquids. Other opinions would be welcomed. (Reminder: 1983 Horizontal at The Bung Hole on Wednesday 27^th November 2013.)

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=67071#p67071]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:The 1983 vintage has fallen apart. Too many were undrinkable; the best were pleasant drinkable port of no great merit. How sad.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=67094#p67094]Here[/url] AHB wrote:I have a different view of 1983 from JDAW, although we did have some unrepresentative bottles.

My general summary of the 1983 port vintage is that is produced some wines which are pleasant drinking today and will continue to be for another 10-20 years. It is a vintage in which the Symington wines performed better than most of the other big names, but there are also some very enjoyable less-often-seen names (Feuerheerd, for example). I believe this might last longer than the 1985s as there is more structure and less fat fruit, but given a choice today I would probably choose to drink 1985.

It was also a delight to drink only my second Cockburn 1983 that did not suffer from any TCA taint.