Summarise a vintage, concisely
Posted: 10:18 Tue 08 Feb 2011
This post was originally made by jdaw1, but the poster was subsequently changed to PhilW to allow him to edit.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]
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]