ThePortForum.com

The Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323384604578326514218516642.html]Remaking the Grade[/url], wrote:The wine-rating equivalent of a B grade (85-89 points) can mean a wine might be hard to sell or might not show up on certain store shelves, especially when the competition scores 90 points or more. For example, when I asked Chad Watkins, assistant manager of Gary's Wines in Wayne, N.J., to recommend "a few good 88-point wines," he couldn't help me since "90 is the lowest number on our rating filter."

Whole article worth reading.

I should start posting more 100 pters so people can start reading my TNs!

I´m sure that there many wines with 96-100 points, that the most normal wine drinkes do not like very much.

I think the problem is the attitude, that many wine buyers don´t ask themself "what wine I like really" the ask only "what wine has a good rate".

Its funny, if I´m right, when Parker starts in the beginning of the 80s he wants to have enlightened consumers, but he achieved the contrary - "robot-like" consumers.

It is a singularly ridiculous and uninformative scoring system, especially for wines that need time to mature.

Tom,

the system is all right; how the people abuse the system is the problem. Also I am afraid to say your idea of cellaring is currently not in fashion. In the old days cellars were inherited and people were drinking the wines/ports of their parents/grant parents.
Only recently with new wine making and scoring everything was brought fwd. Too some extend this is good (generally better wines), but to the other it becomes ridiculous.

regards

WS1 who is also a fan of the out of fashion cellaring

jdaw1 wrote:

The Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323384604578326514218516642.html]Remaking the Grade[/url], wrote:The wine-rating equivalent of a B grade (85-89 points) can mean a wine might be hard to sell or might not show up on certain store shelves, especially when the competition scores 90 points or more. For example, when I asked Chad Watkins, assistant manager of Gary's Wines in Wayne, N.J., to recommend "a few good 88-point wines," he couldn't help me since "90 is the lowest number on our rating filter."

Whole article worth reading.

That is the stupidest thing I've heard a wine shop do. There is no reason a wine shop shouldn't carry wines under 90 points. The percentage of over 90 points is quite small in the realm of all wine made. Most of those in that upper score range tend to be fairly expensive for the average person. By that I mean only a small percentage of wine drinkers regularly spend more than $20-30 (USD) on a bottle of wine (the price range most wine start at in this rating category). IMO a wine shop is severely limiting their potential revenue by restricting their inventory to only 90+ point wines.

And before anyone gets all huffy over the 100 point system, it is no better or no worse than any other scoring system in use today.

And before anyone gets all huffy over the 100 point system, it is no better or no worse than any other scoring system in use today.

Except mine.

Relative scoring, not absolute scoring. Give 5% of the wines you drink a score of ten, 5% a score of zero, and 10% each the numbers one to nine.

Score twice - for immature wines rate for current drinking and anticipated performance when mature. For mature wines rate for current drinking and anticipated drinking ten years hence.

Examples:

I rate a Taylor 2009 as 6-10 > above average already and with every prospect of becoming a classic.

Sandeman 1963 I rate as 4-3 > already past its best and on the way down.

uncle tom wrote:

And before anyone gets all huffy over the 100 point system, it is no better or no worse than any other scoring system in use today.

Except mine.

Only because it's yours

I really do like Tom's scoring system. It is the only one I have ever tried to use and the only one I find meaningful.

Ferreira 1815 and Taylor 2009 each rated from 1 (or is it 80?) to 100 or 1 (or is it 15?) to 20 or *, **, ***, **** or ***** does not really tell me anything about the comparison between the two wines or whether or not the critic was judging past, current or future drinking pleasure. Le Methode du Archer defines current and future and, if applied correctly, dismisses the past. That is a good way to score wine and give the buyer useful information.

The only issue I would have with Tom's system is that it is dependent on consistently drinking ports of all qualities, and would be biased by variation due to the relative nature. For example (simplified):
- year 1 : Tom drinks 5 rubies, 25 LBVs and 75 VPs of various ages
- year 2 : Tom drinks only his 8 cases of NN31 and 4 bottles of F55
Assuming in year 2 Tom prefers the NN31 to the F70, the F70 now must score zero, since by his rule 5% of port tasted scores zero. In previous year, the best LBV would likely have scored 7-10pts.

The standard system of 0-100 (which personally I'm not keen on) means that the majority of scores are in the 80-100 range, and there is nothing to stop people providing a current and separate future potential score. The most important thing when providing any form of numerical rating is to provide clear indication of what the rating represents; sadly that is often not done.

PhilW wrote:The only issue I would have with Tom's system is that it is dependent on consistently drinking ports of all qualities, and would be biased by variation due to the relative nature.

This is my problem with it as well.

The way I see it, the 100-point scale has not suffered from "score creep" as many like to claim. The way I use the 100-point scale it is absolute, which means that as winemakers get better and better at their craft they will naturally produce better and better wine which is deserving of better and better scores.

Secondarily, I don't drink wines < 80 points. I don't want to drink wines < 80 points. There's very little advantage in price to be obtained by descending below 80 points, so why bother? It's not that I only use 20 points of the 100 point scale, it's that I only drink wines that deserve to be rated in the last 20 points of the 100 point scale. The occasional rating in the 70s notwithstanding.

The main problem with the 100-point scale is that people use it in different ways. When you see a rating, was that a rating of the wine as it is drinking now, or a rating of the taster's perceived overall quality of the wine? That part of Tom's system I like, but I'd prefer to simply give two 100-point scale ratings.

And if proven accurate over time, I'd prefer to switch my ratings to stocks so that I could then afford more Port.

the 100-point scale has not suffered from "score creep" as many like to claim.

Oh yes it has!

Look up the original definition of the 100pt system and apply it correctly; 80pts should represent a good score. Look up scores from twenty five years ago, such as those by Suckling - even by his pretentious standards, they are much lower than seen today.

Winemakers love to tout the line that they are making better wines than ever before. True to a point, but only a marginal difference. The best improvements have been at the bottom end of the price range.

Phil makes the point that if I radically changed my drinking habits, that could have a strange impact on the scores I make. True, but the point is that I don't radically change my consumption, and have strict 'house rules' for what I drink at home. I have even analysed the determinant factors I deploy for selecting a bottle (46 in total..) and now use the computer to select my next bottle.

Moreover, whilst I may be a bit over-zealous in that department, I think most serious wine-drinkers are pretty consistant too.

Double scoring with the 100pt system would be infinitely more informative, but people don't do it - the proponents of the 100pt scale are singularly blind to the critical issue of maturation.

As a means of rating heavily filtered table wines intended for immediate consumption, the 100pt system has some merit, but it's deployment on classed growth claret or vintage port is hugely uninformative and idiotic.

Regarding Tom's system, I should probably have added that while it works well for him (providing he does not radically change his consumption as previously discussed), it would only work for comparing two people both using the same system if their consumption profile was also similar, otherwise two people would have to score the same wine differently despite feeling similarly about it. Question for Tom - has the average age of consumed bottle over the last five years stayed roughly static, or has it increased? I would have guessed the latter (and hence introduced bias if the assumption of older=better approximately holds), but I might be wrong.

Of course in the end, all the issues with all of the systems mentioned above come down to the difficulty of defining the meaning of the score, and keeping that meaning consistent both over time and between people, an extremely challenging task even for one person, never mind a group; and that is before raising issues of whether different categories of port (e.g. LBV vs SQVP [whatever that means - see other thread] vs VP etc] should be scored as a single group, or separately. The best any of us can do is find what works for ourselves and then be very clear what we mean when quoting to others; or when scoring as a group, being very clear what the values on the scale mean.

For what it is worth I think that all scoring systems relating to wine are, at best, relatively useless. Beauty is in the palate of the taster. No two people get the same from any wine and most of what is written is influenced by group think and/or label bias. This is not an objective subject.

What I like about Tom's system is that it has two assessments - the now and the future. The 100pt system has one dimension, which is limited in its helpfulness to me. I concede that Tom's system would be compromised if adopted universally because drinking habits differ enormously. In extreme circumstances Black Nun could earn 10-10 and Taylor 1900 1-1. But for most of us here we could smooth the edges and come up with scores that are meaningful.

I think the 100 point system is aimed at everyone and cannot cope with what that entails. Tom's system is aimed at people who have a particular drinking pattern and, so long as the comparisons are contained within like groups, is very helpful to those who could use it.

uncle tom wrote:Winemakers love to tout the line that they are making better wines than ever before. True to a point, but only a marginal difference. The best improvements have been at the bottom end of the price range.

Only a marginal difference? Your bias is showing. Besides, if as you say the best improvements have been made at the bottom end of the price range then that supports my theory because the bottom end of the price range is where most of the 80-point wines used to reside. This is further compounded by self-selection of the wines consumed - why bother purchasing and tasting an 80-point wine when a 90-point wine is similarly priced? And if you only drink occasionally, like me, then why bother with 90-point wines at all? I'd rather pay the slight upgrade to drink wines rated 92 or 93... or 95 for a special occasion. One of the big name reviewers - I think it was Parker but it's only a vague memory - has said essentially the same thing. He no longer bothers with merely "good" wines because "excellent" ones are now so affordable. That's not score creep, that's improved selection.

Your system is relative, which makes it nearly useless to anyone who does not know the drinking habits of the scorer in great detail. A 5-5 from you and a 5-5 from Derek are virtually guaranteed to mean different things. And that's if your system is being used correctly. When not used properly, who knows what either score means. It also doesn't work if the scorer's consumption pattern changes from one year to the next... something that mine does constantly. It is difficult enough to manage perceptual differences caused by palate variation from tasting to tasting.

If the 100-point scale is used correctly, a 90-point rating from you and a 90-point rating from Derek should mean the same thing, and because of that should be useful information for others. Which is really the only point of collecting ratings on a web site like this one - to have a database of useful information for others to use.

PhilW wrote:Of course in the end, all the issues with all of the systems mentioned above come down to the difficulty of defining the meaning of the score, and keeping that meaning consistent both over time and between people, an extremely challenging task even for one person, never mind a group; and that is before raising issues of whether different categories of port (e.g. LBV vs SQVP [whatever that means - see other thread] vs VP etc] should be scored as a single group, or separately. The best any of us can do is find what works for ourselves and then be very clear what we mean when quoting to others; or when scoring as a group, being very clear what the values on the scale mean.

Agreed.

I still find it easiest to start with a word - fair, good, excellent, outstanding, etc - and then convert that to an appropriate number on the 100-point scale. I feel that results in more consistent scoring for me, because the numbers still don't mean all that much when taken by themselves. But when the Port hits my mouth, it's easy to think "that's a really good Port. No, it's better than that... it's excellent."

And "good" still starts at 80. I just don't drink merely "good" Ports anymore, except by accident.

DRT wrote:What I like about Tom's system is that it has two assessments - the now and the future.

I agree that two assessments would be more useful than one, but I think that simply rating a Port twice using the 100-point scale (or 20-point scale) would be more useful to more people because they are absolute scales, not relative.

Glenn is spot on (and so is Phil on the part Glenn quoted and bolded) regarding scoring.

As for the quality...Tom, what are you basing your opinion on?

I ask as I have friends in the wine trade here and I can tell you from talking to them, producers in Portugal, and reading views from other winemakers in other countries, the overall quality of all wine has gone up. Advancements in technology, viticulture, winemaking, etc. has had a measurable effect on the overall quality of wines in all price points.

There are also far more wineries in the world now then there were 30-40 years ago. And even most long established wineries are producing more variety of products now then they did 20-30+ years ago. So you have a much larger pool of wines to pick from. In the past you had a small number of top producers, a few more in the middle, and those in the bottom. There generally was a large quality gap between these tiers. That old easily defined line is now becoming very blurred....just look at the lawsuits regarding who should be allowed Grand Cru status in France as just one example.

I also like Tom's way of doing things, albeit it's a long time since i've seen him venture a score in public!!

That said, a mark out of 100 is rarely provided in a vacuum - there's nearly always an indication of whether the port is one for the future, drinking nicely now etc. etc.

Rating systems work for the rater. Sometimes it can be as simple as "buy", "don't buy". It is when one tries to follow a rater's ratings where one can be led astray.

As for score inflation, why would wine rating any different to most other attempts to place an ordinal system on a subjective measurement? Humans often start off with lower ratings that improve with time. It is seen commonly in education, both at a system level e.g. secondary (proportion of A's given), tertiary (proportion of firsts given) as well as at a personal level (teachers rating of students). Wine could well be getting better, however top wines have been made for many a year. The number of top scores for most all critics increases over time, thus suggesting score inflation.

A 5-5 from you and a 5-5 from Derek are virtually guaranteed to mean different things

Indeed, and all the more informative for being so. Both the wine makers and the consumers have a big problem with the titan wine commentators, and their arrogant pronouncements.

Those who know port really well often find themselves disagreeing with the 'big name' scores whilst broadly agreeing amongst themselves, and I suspect other wine regions suffer the same problem.

Too many of the prima donnas of wine commentary are jacks of all trades, and masters of little or nothing.

The larger the pool of opinion (which can then be statistically analysed) the more informed the consumer becomes.

As for the quality...Tom, what are you basing your opinion on?

The last twenty years or so has seen the scientifically led industrialisation of the production of ordinary table wine - plonk has become much more drinkable, and the quality gulf between cheap and expensive wines has significantly narrowed.

But the top end of the market is still heavily dependant on the skill and experiance of those involved in production - new technology affords some assistance, but I don't buy the line that it's a massive game-changer.

(and yes Rob, I will try to back into the habit of posting my scores again..!)

uncle tom wrote:
The last twenty years or so has seen the scientifically led industrialisation of the production of ordinary table wine - plonk has become much more drinkable, and the quality gulf between cheap and expensive wines has significantly narrowed.

But the top end of the market is still heavily dependant on the skill and experiance of those involved in production - new technology affords some assistance, but I don't buy the line that it's a massive game-changer.

(and yes Rob, I will try to back into the habit of posting my scores again..!)

I agree with uncle tom here. the wines at the top end of the spectrum have always been fantastic, it's certainly a bit more consistent now even on bad vintages, but they were always high scoring wines regardless. There is certainly no score creep on these wines or very marginally at best.

On the lower end yes we do have things like yellow tails at 5$/btl that acutally taste decent and would merit at least an 80 pts.

uncle tom wrote:

A 5-5 from you and a 5-5 from Derek are virtually guaranteed to mean different things

Indeed, and all the more informative for being so.

I don't follow. How can a system in which two identical scores deliberately mean different (and, for the most part, unknown) things be more informative than one in which identical scores from different people are supposed to mean the same thing?

Assuming the systems are being used properly and as intended...

If I walk into a store and see a wine rated 5-5 by you and and 5-5 by Derek, I know... well, nothing about that wine because I have no idea what else you've been drinking this rating period. (Which is what, a year? A month? Does a 5-5 mean something different at the start of a rating period than it does at the end?) It might be a good rating. It might be a bad rating. It could even be both good and bad since the two 5s are rating different things on different relative scales.

If I walk into a store and see a wine rated 90 by you and 90 by Derek, I know that you both think it is a very good wine. One of you might be weighing its future development more than the other, but in aggregate you both think it is a very good wine.

The latter is vastly more useful information, even if I don't know anything about your respective palates. But knowledge of the critic's palate is missing from both systems, so that doesn't affect the comparison.

griff wrote:Rating systems work for the rater. Sometimes it can be as simple as "buy", "don't buy". It is when one tries to follow a rater's ratings where one can be led astray.

Precisely. To me, though, that's why a relative system doesn't work as well - it is much easier to be led astray by someone else's relative ratings.

uncle tom wrote:

As for the quality...Tom, what are you basing your opinion on?

The last twenty years or so has seen the scientifically led industrialisation of the production of ordinary table wine - plonk has become much more drinkable, and the quality gulf between cheap and expensive wines has significantly narrowed.

But the top end of the market is still heavily dependant on the skill and experiance of those involved in production - new technology affords some assistance, but I don't buy the line that it's a massive game-changer.

That has to be one of the most incorrect statements I've ever read you post. Lets look just at what Paul Symington posted right here in this forum

Paul Symington wrote: In the old days my father and uncles would have been making very sweet Ports with very little colour because they would have had to run off the lagares when the fermentation temperatures got too high.

We can all agree that most large Port companies have significantly benefited from this "industrialisation" as you put it. Why do you think we now have such good Ports even in non-declared years. Also just look at the quality change of basic tawny's and ruby's over the past 10 years. And we've not even started talking about table wine development in the Douro.

Tom, I challenge you to broaden your horizons outside of the Douro and spend some time speaking with wine makers from other countries, Universities which specialize in viticulture, etc. You will quickly learn that in the past 20-30 years technology has lead to a huge change in viticulture practices at all levels. That change in viticulture technology (strains of root stock, post harvest treatment, satellite technology, cover crops...to name just a few) is a huge driving force.

Of course, one still needs a good winemaker, but it's equally as hard to make a consistently high scoring wine and one that must be consistent over multiple bottling runs a year, over the course of years.

Andy Velebil wrote:

uncle tom wrote: But the top end of the market is still heavily dependant on the skill and experiance of those involved in production - new technology affords some assistance, but I don't buy the line that it's a massive game-changer.

Why do you think we now have such good Ports even in non-declared years. Also just look at the quality change of basic tawny's and ruby's over the past 10 years. And we've not even started talking about table wine development in the Douro.

I don't see tom's comment as the way you perceived it Andy, but I'll let Tom speak for himself.

I took it to mean simply that a high quality wine back then is still a high quality wine now so to the premise that there is a score creep, I would say that for the top end wines there doesn't seem to be.

Discussion of basic tawny's and ruby's goes in line with what we're all saying that even the plonk of yesteryear is now drinkable and can be quite good.

g-man wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:

uncle tom wrote: But the top end of the market is still heavily dependant on the skill and experiance of those involved in production - new technology affords some assistance, but I don't buy the line that it's a massive game-changer.

Why do you think we now have such good Ports even in non-declared years. Also just look at the quality change of basic tawny's and ruby's over the past 10 years. And we've not even started talking about table wine development in the Douro.

I don't see tom's comment as the way you perceived it Andy, but I'll let Tom speak for himself.

I took it to mean simply that a high quality wine back then is still a high quality wine now so to the premise that there is a score creep, I would say that for the top end wines there doesn't seem to be.

Discussion of basic tawny's and ruby's goes in line with what we're all saying that even the plonk of yesteryear is now drinkable and can be quite good.

Tom is saying that advancements in wine making at the top end hasn't been that big of a game changer as it has in the bottom end. I disagree.

Andy Velebil wrote:

g-man wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:

uncle tom wrote: But the top end of the market is still heavily dependant on the skill and experiance of those involved in production - new technology affords some assistance, but I don't buy the line that it's a massive game-changer.

Why do you think we now have such good Ports even in non-declared years. Also just look at the quality change of basic tawny's and ruby's over the past 10 years. And we've not even started talking about table wine development in the Douro.

I don't see tom's comment as the way you perceived it Andy, but I'll let Tom speak for himself.

I took it to mean simply that a high quality wine back then is still a high quality wine now so to the premise that there is a score creep, I would say that for the top end wines there doesn't seem to be.

Discussion of basic tawny's and ruby's goes in line with what we're all saying that even the plonk of yesteryear is now drinkable and can be quite good.

Tom is saying that advancements in wine making at the top end hasn't been that big of a game changer as it has in the bottom end. I disagree.

game changer as in better yields?

certainly not a game changer in score no?

g-man wrote:
game changer as in better yields?

certainly not a game changer in score no?

Really everything.

No doubt yields can be better, higher scores, more consistently high scores, and the such. The latter being especially true. One only needs to look at France and the USA in this regard. In the past you generally didn't get year after year of high scoring wines from the same producer (or region). You saw much more variances from year to year with the occasional high score in exceptional years. Now look at the consistently high scores coming out year after year.

g-man wrote:game changer as in better yields?

certainly not a game changer in score no?

More the former than the latter, I'd say, but certainly some of both.

Granted, a 100-point wine is still a 100-point wine. It's an absolute scale, so perfect is perfect. But given the improvements throughout the industry, there should be more wines in the 95-99 range than before. And simiarly more in the 90-95 range and 85-90 range. 30 years ago those wines might have been 90-95 points, 85-90 points, or 80-85 points respectively. (Just for example.)

It's no different than the vast quantities of plonk that can now score 80-85 because they're actually good. Wines are just better, so it makes perfect sense that you see more wines being awarded higher scores.

Glenn E. wrote:

g-man wrote:game changer as in better yields?

certainly not a game changer in score no?

More the former than the latter, I'd say, but certainly some of both.

Granted, a 100-point wine is still a 100-point wine. It's an absolute scale, so perfect is perfect. But given the improvements throughout the industry, there should be more wines in the 95-99 range than before. And simiarly more in the 90-95 range and 85-90 range. 30 years ago those wines might have been 90-95 points, 85-90 points, or 80-85 points respectively. (Just for example.)

It's no different than the vast quantities of plonk that can now score 80-85 because they're actually good. Wines are just better, so it makes perfect sense that you see more wines being awarded higher scores.

see that's where i look at what uncle tom says and agree more so.

unfortunately I wasn't around during those periods to taste them on release.

but parker for example made is mark by saying the 82s were lessay stellar wines. ie, a few 95-100 pters across the board. He makes the same opinion about the 1989, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2010

these are all classic ratings by him and there certainly hasn't been a "Score creep" matter of fact the 82s are now revered as the defacto wines and how they should be.

I dont see how in 30 years a vintage declared so long ago is still heralded as the defacto if there is a score creep at the higher end? As with your premise that there is simply more 95-99 pt wines. I'd be curious as that but i certainly dont have the data set to prove that out. I'd be willing to say it's roughly about the same ratio per wine as when parker started rating stuff back in the 80s.

g-man wrote:I dont see how in 30 years a vintage declared so long ago is still heralded as the defacto if there is a score creep at the higher end? As with your premise that there is simply more 95-99 pt wines. I'd be curious as that but i certainly dont have the data set to prove that out. I'd be willing to say it's roughly about the same ratio per wine as when parker started rating stuff back in the 80s.

Well as you know, I don't drink dry wine so I really can't comment on Bordeaux and the like. But it does seem to me that there are more excellent and better Ports starting in the 90s and onward than there were before that time.

With Port, though, we're going to run into the problem that I always have with rating young Ports: how can anyone honestly predict how good a Vintage Port is going to be in 30 years when it is still a youngster? I think they're simply too powerful when young for accurate predictions, in no small part because they take so long to age properly. So since the greatest strides in (Port) winemaking have occured in the last 30 years, if not the last 20 years, we simply can't have a sufficient and accurate data set to properly examine the theory.

Just to make sure we're all talking about the same thing... to me, "score creep" means that scores are going up without valid reason. If wines are getting better and the scores are going up due to the improved quality, that's not score creep. But if wines aren't actually getting any better yet the scores are going up anyway, then that is score creep.

Glenn E. wrote:But it does seem to me that there are more excellent and better Ports starting in the 90s and onward than there were before that time.

I often wonder about this statement. In the context of port, i think it's also important to consider:

- how many cases of Taylor 70 were bottled?

- how many cases of Fonseca 85 were bottled?

- and, by comparison, how many cases of Fonseca / Taylor 03 & 07?

Andy,

Paul Symington was making the case for cooling equipment, which though widespread now, is not universally accepted as being worth the expense.

I think the number of vintages that were compromised in the manner Paul describes was relatively small.

Tom is saying that advancements in wine making at the top end hasn't been that big of a game changer as it has in the bottom end. I disagree.

I've been drinking wine for a lot longer than you have, and, I suspect, from a much more diverse range of origins than you have. The vin du table of today is vastly better than that of 30 years ago, whilst the premier cru is better, but nothing like to the same extent.

Glenn,

But it does seem to me that there are more excellent and better Ports starting in the 90s and onward than there were before that time.

You have to recognise that between 1971 and 1993 the port industry went through a very difficult patch. The alcohol scandal followed by the revolution, followed by the emergence of alcohol resistant spoilage bugs in the eighties, not to mention some lousy vintages; caused all sorts of problems. Attempts at cost cutting during that era are also evident now, with too many VP corks failing.

It's not easy to compare '55 to '70 with '94 to present; but are the recent wines going to emerge triumphant? - I don't think it's a dead cert...

Tom
In respect to your above comments. I've had the oportunity to read many "off-vintage" harvest reports and get their interpretation from owners. It's amazing how many of these have "code words" in them, such as "Lagar too little work", that were used to get around saying the fermentation wasn't going or looking well. One doesn't see much of that anymore. And maybe with the exception of a very small producer, every medium size or larger producer I've ever been to in the Douro now has temp controlled lagars.

Yes, you have been drinking wine longer. However, I worked my first harvest on winery at the age of 16. So while you have more drinking years under your belt*, I've more hands on experience. I can tell you first hand how changes in clonal selections, viticulture techniques, etc. have made making good wine much easier and a little less weather dependent.

The vin du table of today is vastly better than that of 30 years ago, whilst the premier cru is better, but nothing like to the same extent.

So all those poor "off-vintages" back then are still just as poor today in the premier cru's? Because the overall reviews indicate otherwise. No one can dispute the overall quality of wine in not so great years has gone way up. Excepting in rare horrible years, gone are the days where "off-vintages" of Premier Cru's really where "off-vintages."


*One day I shall catch up

Tom might have meant that the best, in the sense of the best houses in the best years, have improved only a little, whereas the lesser, in the sense of lesser shipper or lesser year or both, have improved more.

At least, that was what I understood him to have meant, even if not quite what he said.

uncle tom wrote:It's not easy to compare '55 to '70 with '94 to present;

Sure it is.

1955, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1970
vs
1991/1992, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2011. Add in 2009 if you want.

More general declarations is a very clear indication.

To further emphasize the point, Mayson rates the following non-generally declared years as high as or higher than 1960: 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008. Note that there are no years from the 50s/60s in that list. Quality-wise, there's no comparison between the 50s/60s and 90s/00s.

jdaw1 wrote:Tom might have meant that the best, in the sense of the best houses in the best years, have improved only a little, whereas the lesser, in the sense of lesser shipper or lesser year or both, have improved more.

At least, that was what I understood him to have meant, even if not quite what he said.

That is also what I understood him to have meant, but I disagree with the point that I understood him to be making. Even just a handful of additional 95-99 point Ports is hugely significant in my eyes because there are so few to start with. It may only be a handful of Ports, but that could be a 20-25% increase at that level of quality.

The best houses in the best years approach perfection. But that confluence requires the participation of Mother Nature, and no amount of improved winemaking can change that fact. Perfection has not changed. But at least in the Port industry we now have a situation where lesser houses in the best years, or the best houses in lesser years, are producing product that used to require the best of both. Those are the 95-99 point wines that used to be quite rare, but which have now started showing up pretty regularly. We can now almost rely on there being a 95-99 point Port in every reasonably good year, whereas those used to be the tent poles that distinguished the truely outstanding years from the merely excellent.

Tom and I agree (possibly for different reasons) that it still remains to be seen whether or not the 1990s and 2000s will stand the test of time, but at this point in time the general concensus is that there are more Ports worthy of "excellent" or better ratings from those decades than there have been in the past.

uncle tom wrote:It's not easy to compare '55 to '70 with '94 to present; but are the recent wines going to emerge triumphant? - I don't think it's a dead cert...

• Excellent: 1955; 1960 recently but not a decade ago; 1963 a few years ago but not now; 1966 and 1970 from mid-’80s until the abolition of income tax. And a few ’67s.
• OK or too light: 1958, some lesser houses in the good years.
• Just too light: 1950.

That’s a tough standard to beat for that period. And they were making lots of some of those years it wasn’t all grape selection.

Yes, there are good candidates in the recent years: ’94, ’97, ’00, ’03, ’09. Maybe ’07 too light for greatness.

It isn’t clear to me which period is better.

Glenn E. wrote:

uncle tom wrote:It's not easy to compare '55 to '70 with '94 to present;

Sure it is.

1955, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1970
vs
1991/1992, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2011. Add in 2009 if you want.

More general declarations is a very clear indication.

To further emphasize the point, Mayson rates the following non-generally declared years as high as or higher than 1960: 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008. Note that there are no years from the 50s/60s in that list. Quality-wise, there's no comparison between the 50s/60s and 90s/00s.

mayson wasn't alive to rate the 50s/60s and even drinking the early 70s on release for you to really make that statement though.

we are all making conjectures that the wines made nowadays will truly live up to the more classic years we have grown to love.

g-man wrote: we are all making conjectures that the wines made nowadays will truly live up to the more classic years we have grown to love.

And isn't that exactly why we love this drink? I might just know what the '94s taste like when they are 50 years old and make a meaningful comparison between the way they show at that age and the way the '63s showed at the same age. I am unlikely to be able to make a similar comment about the '11s!

AHB wrote:

g-man wrote: we are all making conjectures that the wines made nowadays will truly live up to the more classic years we have grown to love.

And isn't that exactly why we love this drink? I might just know what the '94s taste like when they are 50 years old and make a meaningful comparison between the way they show at that age and the way the '63s showed at the same age. I am unlikely to be able to make a similar comment about the '11s!

and that is why we try and diligently take notes and read notes of fellow posters who we've shared drink with

I’ve just come across NinetyPlusCellars.com, the existence of which ties in nicely to the original topic. (90+ buy wines, with a non-disclosure agreement, and sell it under their own 90+ label to US customers.)