ThePortForum.com

According to das-wein-cabinet.de, vintage years 1948 and 1972 are worthy of the same score, both being worse than 1951. Who knew that?

Blimey; they really do mean port. Can't we set Andre or Axel on them, for the purposes of scorn pouring I mean?

I think this is not the opinion of das Wein-Cabinet. It is a quote of two vintage assessments. The left column is the assessment of the Instituto do Vinho do Porto, the right column is the assessment of Michael Broadbent. Besides, the two assessments have different scales (0-5 and 0-7, 0 being bad and 5/7 is excellent).
So the scorn is either on the IVDP or Broadbent or both.

Well spotted Andre. I have just torn up my stiff letter. Still it seems a bit off.

So the IVP had 1972 ≈ 1948? Well, that fits if the merchant has accurately transcribed the data.

I may have to sellotape my stiff letter back together and re-address it to the IVP.

How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

I am reliably informed that there were around 17 VPs produced from the 1948 vintage, 8 of which were by big shippers. This was not an insignificant year.

Of the TNs on this site there are four different shippers from 1948 rated in the range 95-97 by AHB. The 1972 TNs are almost universally disliked or mid to low 80s at best.

DRT wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

I am reliably informed that there were around 17 VPs produced from the 1948 vintage

Accounting for what percentage of port produced? 1-2%? Do we know that it is VP that the 7-point IVDP rating refers to? I'd be surprised if so, since 1981 gets a "3" point rating yet there is only 1 VP i've heard of from that year (hence the lack of any score from Broadbent).

Plus there are apparently no ratings for (amongst others) 45, 55 or 94 at all..

Can you point us to the scales that assess vintage quality on non-vintage wines?

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

I think my argument is different - there doesn't need to be an "equivalent" if they are looking beyond VP - beyond the "niche" category which accounts for a small percentage of port produced to the bigger picture. Whether that's true in reality - i have no idea. But better to establish what their criteria were before jumping to conclusions

As far as I am aware the IVDP(IVP) could only have this sort of data on wines intended to be sold as vintage dated. All non-vintage wines are blended before being submitted for assessment.

If I was cynical I might think you were trying to generate a debate where there isn't really one to be had

RAYC wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

I think my argument is different - there doesn't need to be an "equivalent" if they are looking beyond VP - beyond the "niche" category which accounts for a small percentage of port produced to the bigger picture. Whether that's true in reality - i have no idea. But better to establish what their criteria were before jumping to conclusions

I feel reasonably confident to jump to the conclusion that 1972 was tosh.

LGTrotter wrote:I feel reasonably confident to jump to the conclusion that 1972 was tosh.

I think that is fair given that the entire vintage was tainted by the inclusion of industrial spirit. 1972 has never been a vintage to look out for other than for academic interest. 1948 is well-known to have some spectacular wines. I think the scales quoted are just plain wrong.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I feel reasonably confident to jump to the conclusion that 1972 was tosh.

I think that is fair given that the entire vintage was tainted by the inclusion of industrial spirit. 1972 has never been a vintage to look out for other than for academic interest. 1948 is well-known to have some spectacular wines. I think the scales quoted are just plain wrong.

Exactly. And the kindest interpretation I can put on RAYC's extraordinary statements are that he is intoxicated. He should go and sleep it off.

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

I think my argument is different - there doesn't need to be an "equivalent" if they are looking beyond VP - beyond the "niche" category which accounts for a small percentage of port produced to the bigger picture. Whether that's true in reality - i have no idea. But better to establish what their criteria were before jumping to conclusions

I feel reasonably confident to jump to the conclusion that 1972 was tosh.

On the VP side, Dow and Fonseca Guimaraens are good.

And there are some extremely nice colheitas around. I've enjoyed Dow and Warre a lot, and the San Leonardo 30yr (my favourite 30) is largely based on the 72 vintage as well.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I feel reasonably confident to jump to the conclusion that 1972 was tosh.

I think that is fair given that the entire vintage was tainted by the inclusion of industrial spirit. 1972 has never been a vintage to look out for other than for academic interest. 1948 is well-known to have some spectacular wines. I think the scales quoted are just plain wrong.

Well, they are certainly at odds with the vintage summaries on the IVDP site....

RAYC wrote:On the VP side, Dow and Fonseca Guimaraens are good.

And there are some extremely nice colheitas around. I've enjoyed Dow and Warre a lot, and the San Leonardo 30yr (my favourite 30) is largely based on the 72 vintage as well.

I'll trade you my Dow 1972 for your bottle of Fonseca / Graham / Taylor 1948?

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

Not relevant.

1985 has better Ports than 1983, but I'm starting to come around to the belief that 1983 is overall a better year. It has nothing to match the '85 Fonseca or '85 Graham, but other than those two and perhaps the '85 Dow it has better overall quality.

I'm not saying that '72 is the equal of '48, just that it needn't be able to reproduce the '48 Taylor and '48 Fonseca in order to qualify.

Glenn E. wrote:1985 has better Ports than 1983, but I'm starting to come around to the belief that 1983 is overall a better year. It has nothing to match the '85 Fonseca or '85 Graham, but other than those two and perhaps the '85 Dow it has better overall quality.

On my limited experience I would have to disagree. Each time I've tried a representative range of 83s they have been below par. But there are sufficient 85s that have impressed, beyond F and G, that I am happier paying money for them.
I think it's almost impossible to make meaningful comparisons, but would you really suggest 72 is broadly as good as 48?

I hope we all know we have spilt ink over a misprint.

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

Not relevant.

1985 has better Ports than 1983, but I'm starting to come around to the belief that 1983 is overall a better year. It has nothing to match the '85 Fonseca or '85 Graham, but other than those two and perhaps the '85 Dow it has better overall quality.

I'm not saying that '72 is the equal of '48, just that it needn't be able to reproduce the '48 Taylor and '48 Fonseca in order to qualify.

Not relavent? In comparing 2 vintages we are to exclude from our deliberations two stars of the vintage? Perhaps this is for statistical purposes, knock off the outliers.

And as for the view that 83 is better than 85, I shall point you to the recent 83 at 30 tasting. I beg of you not to suggest that at some point in the future the 83's will overtake the 85's. They won't, anyway I think we have to judge what we have, not what may or may not be. Especially when considering wines that are around 30 years old.

+1

The thing about knocking off the outliers is that those are the ones that most of us will want to drink from those vintages. So they are outliers in terms of their neighbours in the bins from that vintage. They are not in terms of the stuff that gets consumed.

LGTrotter wrote:I hope we all know we have spilt ink over a misprint.

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote:How much 48 VP was made? Taylor and Fonseca may be very good, but perhaps the IVDP were casting their net somewhat wider....

And the equivalent port to those you have mentioned made in 1972 would be?

Not relevant.

1985 has better Ports than 1983, but I'm starting to come around to the belief that 1983 is overall a better year. It has nothing to match the '85 Fonseca or '85 Graham, but other than those two and perhaps the '85 Dow it has better overall quality.

I'm not saying that '72 is the equal of '48, just that it needn't be able to reproduce the '48 Taylor and '48 Fonseca in order to qualify.

Not relavent? In comparing 2 vintages we are to exclude from our deliberations two stars of the vintage? Perhaps this is for statistical purposes, knock off the outliers.

No. You don't exclude them from the deliberations, but you also don't require that they be matched Port-for-Port in the other vintage. Doing so is equivalent to asking, which vintage has the single best Port?

Which of these fictitious vintages is better, based on 10-point ratings:

Vintage A: 10, 9, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1
Vintage B: 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 4, 3, 2

While most of us would most often drink the 10 and 9 from Vintage A, I think most of us would also agree that Vintage B is a better overall year.

LGTrotter wrote:And as for the view that 83 is better than 85, I shall point you to the recent 83 at 30 tasting. I beg of you not to suggest that at some point in the future the 83's will overtake the 85's. They won't, anyway I think we have to judge what we have, not what may or may not be.

We did a similar tasting early this year, and our results were apparently very different than yours. But I don't have broad experience with 1985, so I reserve the right to change my mind (potentially repeatedly) between now and the 1985 horizontal in 2015. And then again after.

As things stand right now, and based only on my own experiences, 1983 seems to have a broader high(er)-quality base. 1985 has a couple of stellar Ports, a couple of good ones, and then mostly pretty average stuff. 1983 doesn't have anything quite as stellar as 1985, but has a couple of very good Ports that are just shy of 1985's top tier, several good ones (more than 1985 has), and then the usual average stuff.

I'm also getting the feeling that, just as an example, G83 may rise above G85 with time. It isn't there now, but it feels like it has the potential.

The one bottle we had none of at our 83 was unfortunately the Graham.

Glenn; there is much sense in what you say, I too retain the right to change my mind and be just plain wrong about things.

I am interested to hear your view on the 85's. From my experience I would point to Fonseca, Graham, Dow, Warre, Taylor and Smith Woodhouse as being better in 85 than 83, but I understand that this is subjective.

I cannot bring myself to accept the view that 72 is equal to the 48.

djewesbury wrote:The one bottle we had none of at our 83 was unfortunately the Graham.

I have had quite a lot of the 83 Graham which could charitably be considered as unyielding but which I thought was a lumpen misery of a wine. I have run out and have no intention of getting more, however I do still have a stash of that swashbuckling beauty that is the 85 and must get more. Putting my money where my mouth is.

Glenn E. wrote:Which of these fictitious vintages is better, based on 10-point ratings:

Vintage A: 10, 9, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1
Vintage B: 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 4, 3, 2

As a hypothetical, the question is fair. But the best of the ’72 VPs are worse than the most of the tail of the ’48s, so the hypothetical doesn’t seem relevant.

LGTrotter wrote:I am interested to hear your view on the 85's. From my experience I would point to Fonseca, Graham, Dow, Warre, Taylor and Smith Woodhouse as being better in 85 than 83, but I understand that this is subjective.

Hmm... I would grant that for Fonseca (clearly), Graham (currently, but possibly not in the future, at least for me), and maybe Dow.

I'm not fond of either Taylor, but prefer the '83. Likewise for Warre. Smith Woodhouse might be a toss-up, but I suspect that in the future I will prefer the '83. Unless I am mis-remembering, Gould Campbell falls clearly in favor of '83, as does Ramos Pinto (which took WOTN at our '83 horizontal, surprising everyone but those who tasted it at Ervamoira on the 2010 Port Harvest Tour). Niepoort? I think I lean toward '83 again, but that may be biased by '85's volatility.

LGTrotter wrote:I cannot bring myself to accept the view that 72 is equal to the 48.

I'm not saying that it is. You asked where '72's equivalents for the '48 Taylor and '48 Fonseca are... I'm just pointing out that they need not exist for '72 to be considered equal or superior.

Do you think that you prefer what to me seem to be rather more austere wines? I venture this with no sense of criticism, I am a little underwhelmed by both Taylor's but the 85 seems a bit more sassy. I am not as sanguine as you are as to the future of the 83's, I think they will simply decline and dry out from where they are. The death of the 85's has been much heralded but I have yet to see much evidence of it.

I should declare an interest, the 85's are a vintage that I bought because I liked them, without the opinion of others. So if I seem more warm in my praise than they warrant perhaps it is more in hope than expectation.

RAYC wrote:I think my argument is different - there doesn't need to be an "equivalent" if they are looking beyond VP - beyond the "niche" category which accounts for a small percentage of port produced to the bigger picture. Whether that's true in reality - i have no idea. But better to establish what their criteria were before jumping to conclusions

Hmm. This could be fair. Are ’72 colheitas as good as ’48 Vintage Ports? Does anybody know?

Now I come to think of it what on earth do you mean by this doubt about the Graham? The 85 has and will continue to laugh disdainfully at the 83.
And to get down to Ramos Pinto and Gould Campbell before you find a winner...

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:I think my argument is different - there doesn't need to be an "equivalent" if they are looking beyond VP - beyond the "niche" category which accounts for a small percentage of port produced to the bigger picture. Whether that's true in reality - i have no idea. But better to establish what their criteria were before jumping to conclusions

Hmm. This could be fair. Are ’72 colheitas as good as ’48 Vintage Ports? Does anybody know?

I don't, but I also don't know of any scale or any wine critic who rates vintages based on a mixture of styles. The vast majority of commentators rate Douro vintages based on VP. I have never seen an equivalent scale of Colheita or LBV and certainly not one that tries to rate all three together in some sort of blended proportional representational rubbish.

I've had the Noval 1972 Colheita which is pretty darn good. But there aren't many '72s around to use as comparison. This guy had to be drunk or stoned when he wrote they are about equal.

LGTrotter wrote:And to get down to Ramos Pinto and Gould Campbell before you find a winner...

I didn't, unless you rank Taylor, Warre, Niepoort, and Smith Woodhouse all below Ramos Pinto and Gould Campbell.

And if you've never had the RP83, well... that's your loss. I recommend emergency procedures to resolve the issue ASAP.

As far as austerity goes, normally I would have guessed the opposite. My palate tends to be similar to Alex's, though not always. Generally speaking I like Vintage Port one of two ways: very young, very boisterous and fruity Port, or very old, mature, and perfectly balanced Port. This whole '80s thing is a new-found pleasure for me, as it is neither of those things.

Note: I currently like G85 better than G83 by about 2 points on average. But I get the feeling that G85 is done improving (oh darn, it stopped at ~93-95 points) while G83 might just be starting to hit its stride. I don't feel confident at projecting into the future, but I feel like G83 might have the potential to peak higher than G85. It's certainly not there right now, though.

You're right it was me who rated the Graham, Fonseca, Taylor, Warre and Smith Woodhouse 85 above the 83. Just me, well if you exclude most of the professional pundits. And everybody at the recent 83 tasting. And the majority of tasting notes on this forum. Apart from that I realise I stand alone.

Glenn E. wrote:Note: I currently like G85 better than G83 by about 2 points on average. But I get the feeling that G85 is done improving (oh darn, it stopped at ~93-95 points) while G83 might just be starting to hit its stride. I don't feel confident at projecting into the future, but I feel like G83 might have the potential to peak higher than G85. It's certainly not there right now, though.

And heaven bless your optimism. I shall file this under 'we shall see'.

Any further thoughts on the equality of the 48 and 72?

Glenn E. wrote:And if you've never had the RP83, well... that's your loss. I recommend emergency procedures to resolve the issue ASAP.

I have no RP83. Calling all stations: this is an emergency. Mayday. Mayday. Mayday. We need RP83 at The Bung Hole, ASAP.

Please.

LGTrotter wrote:Any further thoughts on the equality of the 48 and 72?

I'll let you know after I open my '48 Graham.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:And if you've never had the RP83, well... that's your loss. I recommend emergency procedures to resolve the issue ASAP.

I have no RP83. Calling all stations: this is an emergency. Mayday. Mayday. Mayday. We need RP83 at The Bung Hole, ASAP.

Please.

Ideally with each of the single varietal constituent Ports on hand at the same time. There were 5 bottled, though I cannot confidently name them without referring to my notes. Touriga Nacional and Tinta Roriz I'm sure about. I think the others were Touriga Franca, Tinta Francisca, and Tinto Cão, but I wouldn't swear against Tinta Amarela and Tinta Barroca being in the mix.

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Any further thoughts on the equality of the 48 and 72?

I'll let you know after I open my '48 Graham.

(sulky jealous face)

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:And to get down to Ramos Pinto and Gould Campbell before you find a winner...

I didn't, unless you rank Taylor, Warre, Niepoort, and Smith Woodhouse all below Ramos Pinto and Gould Campbell.

And if you've never had the RP83, well... that's your loss. I recommend emergency procedures to resolve the issue ASAP.

As far as austerity goes, normally I would have guessed the opposite. My palate tends to be similar to Alex's, though not always. Generally speaking I like Vintage Port one of two ways: very young, very boisterous and fruity Port, or very old, mature, and perfectly balanced Port. This whole '80s thing is a new-found pleasure for me, as it is neither of those things.

Note: I currently like G85 better than G83 by about 2 points on average. But I get the feeling that G85 is done improving (oh darn, it stopped at ~93-95 points) while G83 might just be starting to hit its stride. I don't feel confident at projecting into the future, but I feel like G83 might have the potential to peak higher than G85. It's certainly not there right now, though.

I would struggle to choose between F85 and G83 as my pick for future "wine of the decade". To my taste, G85 is possibly better than either for drinking pleasure right now, though I don't think there's a huge amount in it.

In terms of comparative 83 - 85 merits, I don't think there's a huge amount in it. The recent rise of T85, together with Fonseca and Graham, possibly swing 85 for me. But below that there are a whole slew of 83s that would come above the 85 counterparts.

Regarding 1948 and 1972, has anyone checked if the values quoted are the right ones? Perhaps it is of value checking if these are actually the correct ratings from IVDP and what they are based on? At the IVDP web site I cannot find any ratings at all. Has anyone else found them?

I realise that the original topic is now but a distant speck on the horizon but my outsider shot for 'port of the decade' (at fifty or sixty years) would be Warre 1980.Probably best to back it each way.

JB vintage wrote:Regarding 1948 and 1972, has anyone checked if the values quoted are the right ones? Perhaps it is of value checking if these are actually the correct ratings from IVDP and what they are based on? At the IVDP web site I cannot find any ratings at all. Has anyone else found them?

Yes I too wondered about this;

LGTrotter wrote:I hope we all know we have spilt ink over a misprint.

But no I haven't checked the facts. Why spoil a perfectly good debate was my attitude.

Yea, it is quite fun and quite vivid. We better assume they are correct to keep the debate going.

JB vintage wrote:Yea, it is quite fun and quite vivid. We better assume they are correct to keep the debate going.

Go on then; nail your colours to the mast. Which vintage do you think is better the 83 or the 85?

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:And if you've never had the RP83, well... that's your loss. I recommend emergency procedures to resolve the issue ASAP.

I have no RP83. Calling all stations: this is an emergency. Mayday. Mayday. Mayday. We need RP83 at The Bung Hole, ASAP.

Please.

Ideally with each of the single varietal constituent Ports on hand at the same time. There were 5 bottled, though I cannot confidently name them without referring to my notes. Touriga Nacional and Tinta Roriz I'm sure about. I think the others were Touriga Franca, Tinta Francisca, and Tinto Cão, but I wouldn't swear against Tinta Amarela and Tinta Barroca being in the mix.

This is an emergency. Mayday. Mayday. Mayday. We need RP83, and all single-varietal bottlings, at The Bung Hole, ASAP.

LGTrotter wrote:I realise that the original topic is now but a distant speck on the horizon but my outsider shot for 'port of the decade' (at fifty or sixty years) would be Warre 1980.Probably best to back it each way.

Hmm... currently my top 3 would be ...

1985 Fonseca
1987 Taylor Vargellas
1985 Graham

1st and 2nd have swapped back and forth from time to time, but this is typically where I have them. 1980 Dow would currently be 4th, having recently swapped places with 1985 Graham. My last couple of experiences with D80 just haven't been as amazing. I'm not sure what I'd put in 5th if asked to name a top 5, but 1983 Graham would be under consideration along with 1983 Ramos Pinto and 1985 Dow.

Then there are '86 and '87 Malvedos... *sigh*