The Taylor 1985 Debate

[AW77]

However let me show my colours and say that I have never cared for Taylor. It is generally over priced, for no readily apparent reason, the style is better done elsewhere and it takes itself far too seriously. Like people who take themselves too seriously it is difficult to be around and sucks all the fun out of a room.

That's what I think of Taylor!

I didn't have that many Taylor ports, but I totally agree with what Owen writes. I think that Taylor is just overpriced for what they offer.

[DRT]

However let me show my colours and say that I have never cared for Taylor. It is generally over priced, for no readily apparent reason, the style is better done elsewhere and it takes itself far too seriously. Like people who take themselves too seriously it is difficult to be around and sucks all the fun out of a room.

That's what I think of Taylor!

I didn't have that many Taylor ports, but I totally agree with what Owen writes. I think that Taylor is just overpriced for what they offer.

I am quite partial to the odd glass of T27, T48, T55, T63, T66 or T70, T77, T85 and T92. Feel free to pass them to this end of the table if you don't want yours

[DRT]

Have we strayed away from discussing the F85 tasting note yet?

[AW77]

However let me show my colours and say that I have never cared for Taylor. It is generally over priced, for no readily apparent reason, the style is better done elsewhere and it takes itself far too seriously. Like people who take themselves too seriously it is difficult to be around and sucks all the fun out of a room.

That's what I think of Taylor!

I didn't have that many Taylor ports, but I totally agree with what Owen writes. I think that Taylor is just overpriced for what they offer.

I am quite partial to the odd glass of T27, T48, T55, T63, T66 or T70, T77, T85 and T92. Feel free to pass them to this end of the table if you don't want yours

I think that Owen and I didn't say that Taylor was bad, we just think that Taylor charges too much in comparison to other port houses.

[Glenn E.]

Excellent. We are all agreed that T85 is splendid value for money.

Not sure I'd go that far. Taylor, Graham, and Fonseca are all available for the same $80 in the US right now. (Graham for $75, actually.) I would have multiple cases of both Graham and Fonseca at that price before I'd get my first bottle of Taylor.

Is it an excellent Port? Yes, it qualifies as such by my ratings, barely.

Is it improved? Sure, I'll believe that, though I haven't had it recently enough to say for sure.

But it is overpriced vs its contemporaries based on QPR, likely due to name alone. In the abstract it's a good value for a 29-yr old wine, but there are plenty of better values available both at its price level and at its quality level.

Another misinterpretation of my post. I didn't say it was better value than its peers. But it is better value than lots of its siblings.

Splendid value for the money? I'm not sure that's true. I can get better Port for $80, and I can get less expensive Port at the T85's level of quality. "Splendid" seems high praise to me, which is something that the T85's QPR doesn't rate in my eyes.

Better value than its siblings? Hmm... that one is tough to argue. I do side with Owen and Andre that Taylor is generally overpriced, so to me it really does feel like a moot point, but is T85 more overpriced at $80 than T94 is at $150 or T92 is at $200? Probably not. Point reluctantly conceded to the man with the 12"er.

[LGTrotter]

but is T85 more overpriced at $80 than T94 is at $150 or T92 is at $200?

That's kind of the point, who in their right mind is spending this sort of money on a 94? It is not four times better than the Warre. I appreciate the market has spoken and purely arithmetic extrapolations do not tell the whole story but this is a racket.
To then suggest that just because it is overpriced rather than extravagantly overpriced we should rush out and buy it is not a rationale which works for me.

Don't desert me now Glenn.

[Glenn E.]

but is T85 more overpriced at $80 than T94 is at $150 or T92 is at $200?

That's kind of the point, who in their right mind is spending this sort of money on a 94? It is not four times better than the Warre. I appreciate the market has spoken and purely arithmetic extrapolations do not tell the whole story but this is a racket.
To then suggest that just because it is overpriced rather than extravagantly overpriced we should rush out and buy it is not a rationale which works for me.

Don't desert me now Glenn.

I'm not, I concede only that it is less overpriced than some of its siblings.

It's good Port. Not as good as F85 or G85, but good nonetheless. I won't turn down a glass if offered.

But while I concede that it may have better QPR than some of its siblings, it isn't a good value. I won't be buying any more (I have 2 bottles for tastings) with my own money, and I would recommend that others not either. Julian is welcome to all of it that remains at current prices.

[DRT]

Have we strayed away from discussing the F85 tasting note yet?

I decided the answer was yes.

[idj123]

Agree with most of what has been said about Taylor-I persist with trying to secure it at auction but am rarely successful since I'm not willing to buy at the price it inevitably goes for as the vfm always lies elsewhere. Does stop me trying to secure however and hoping that once in while people's' backs are turned! Taylor is no different from goods in many other spheres in that its cachet drives the price.

[LGTrotter]

Agree with most of what has been said about Taylor-I persist with trying to secure it at auction but am rarely successful since I'm not willing to buy at the price it inevitably goes for as the vfm always lies elsewhere. Does stop me trying to secure however and hoping that once in while people's' backs are turned! Taylor is no different from goods in many other spheres in that its cachet drives the price.

Whilst an exposition of the market is not quite what I had in mind it is interesting to consider why particular ports are so massively over priced. It seems to me (and this is based on guess) that recent vintages are more prone to this problem than old 'uns. Sure, there is the Nacional 63 and 31, but for the most part it is the 94 where most of the fun starts. Is it 100 Parker points that has kept these modern and largely untried wines expensive? If so it is foolish, firstly on account of Parker not being any sort of a judge of port and secondly because these wines have a long way to go yet. Groupthink has already been mentioned on this thread and Taylor is the prima inter pares of paying too much for too little. Looking back over the vintages 70 seems comparable with others of the year but by no means outstanding, the 77 I didn't like the one time I tried it, the 80 is awful as is the 83, the 85 is "a newt", the 92 and 94 I shall never try on account of the price and previous experience. The 66 I have tried but charity forbids me from sneering at the sick.

I think Taylor is a shortcut for people who have the money to buy the best but don't want the effort of actually finding out about port. The price is maintained by the same mechanism which makes fake art appear in notable collections throughout the world; "I paid $20 squillion for this so it has to be great".

So there you have it; Taylor makes good port (not that good IMHO) which fools pay too much for to keep up with the Jones'.

[LGTrotter]

But then, there is always Noval Nacional for those who really want to spent too much on port. I hear a lot of their stuff from the eighties would appeal to the Taylor collector.

[PopulusTremula]

Having not tried the T85 during its time in the doldrums, my impression is that of an excellent port which i intend to keep buying. Is it better than W85 - yes but also more expensive. Better than G85 and F85 - perhaps not but these are commonly priced higher than T85 so from where i'm standing it seems fairly priced. They show up occasionally below 500 GBP IB, whereas it's decidedly more difficult to find the Graham or Fonseca at those prices. Mind you, any thirty year old T/G/D/F/W at roughly the same price as their 2011 siblings seem like bargains to me.

[PopulusTremula]

Also, and i forgot to include this in the previous post; can one really be considered a collector of port if one's collection does not include Taylor?

I agree that Taylor ports are generally priced toward the higher end of the spectrum but (i) as above i think T85 forms an exception to this rule and, (ii) the market appears content with paying a premium for Taylor ports. I don't think this can be blamed on a limited number of extremely wealthy buyers who display no regard for the price. Port just doesn't feature heavily enough as a collector's item for there to be any significant impact.

Just my two cents.

[DRT]

Mind you, any thirty year old T/G/D/F/W at roughly the same price as their 2011 siblings seem like bargains to me.

This is an excellent point.

As tempting as it is to consider mature Vintage Port over-priced the reality is that in general it is one of the best value wines on the planet. Try buying 30-50 year old wine from a top-tier producer from a classic vintage from any other old world demarcated region for £40-£100 a bottle. It is not easy to find the same value in other regions. In that context, "over-priced" is a somewhat relative term.

[LGTrotter]

I agree that Taylor ports are generally priced toward the higher end of the spectrum but (i) as above i think T85 forms an exception to this rule and, (ii) the market appears content with paying a premium for Taylor ports. I don't think this can be blamed on a limited number of extremely wealthy buyers who display no regard for the price. Port just doesn't feature heavily enough as a collector's item for there to be any significant impact.

The thrust of your points I do concede. I wonder if the last point is quite so true. I think the overall price increases seen in the wine market did pull up all the others in its wake, port included. And it is clear that there is a price differential for Taylor which I do not see anyone defend on the basis of quality. This suggests the market is skewed, as I have said I think this is because Taylor is seen as a 'super-premium product' in the dreadful argot of marketing.

Derek's point I readily agree with, port is relatively a bargain, although I'm sure that if you stopped a man in the street and explained that £1400 for twelve bottles of Fonseca 1970 was a bargain they would disagree. Probably all of us on this forum do kid ourselves a little about the value of port.

I think you can be a port collector without Taylor, or at least a port drinker.

[DRT]

Probably all of us on this forum do kid ourselves a little about the value of port.

Isn't that true of almost any group of people who are particularly enamoured by a narrow, minority-interest subject?

Believe it or not, there are people on this planet who think that £320 for a second-hand Tele Vue Ethos 13mm eyepiece is a bargain.

[djewesbury]

Two points only. I don't drink a lot of Taylor, outside of the Bung Hole, because I don't buy it, because other things come along and I spend my money on them. The one Taylor that really wowed me was the 55 that we drank in Vinum in June alongside the Graham and Dow 55. This was a real cut above the other two, it had power and weight and body and character and charm and it had more of all of them than the other two, which were still extremely good.

But I also have noticed something in the auctions over the last few months that was repeated last night at Cuttlestone's, which I mention since Owen brought up the wine bubble. As happened recently at Bonham's and at a couple of other auctions, there was almost no bidding on the claret lots last night - some very respectable wines going back to the 20s which raised only a third of their low estimate. Bidding was almost exclusively by commission or via internet stalkers. When the Port lots came up, however, bidding really woke up, and lots I'd been watching / bidding on went for much more than I was prepared to pay, sometimes £150 more. I would like to see the next breakdown of Port auction prices when it's published in Decanter. I suspect something is happening, fuelled by supercuvees and 'incredibly valuable barrels from the 19th century' and so on.

Is this good news, or bad news, or neither, or both?

EDIT: Owen didn't really 'bring up the wine bubble'. He managed to keep it down. Just.

[AW77]

I think you can be a port collector without Taylor, or at least a port drinker.

To take this thread even further away from the original subject:
Can you really call someone who buys wine a collector? After all, wine is a perishable product that will be consumed in the end. Admittedly, the life cycle of wine can be quite long if you compare it to other beverages like beer for example and in this long time bottles may change hands quite often, but in the end, there is always an empty bottle. So I would use the term "collector" only for non-perishable products such as paintings, books and suchlike. I don't see myself as a collector, but as someone who likes wine and thus plans ahead which wines he might like to drink with a certain age in the future. So oenophile is more a label I would use in this case, not collector.

[LGTrotter]

I think you can be a port collector without Taylor, or at least a port drinker.

To take this thread even further away from the original subject:
Can you really call someone who buys wine a collector? After all, wine is a perishable product that will be consumed in the end. Admittedly, the life cycle of wine can be quite long if you compare it to other beverages like beer for example and in this long time bottles may change hands quite often, but in the end, there is always an empty bottle. So I would use the term "collector" only for non-perishable products such as paintings, books and suchlike. I don't see myself as a collector, but as someone who likes wine and thus plans ahead which wines he might like to drink with a certain age in the future. So oenophile is more a label I would use in this case, not collector.

That is one of the things I love about wine; it is ephemeral. Whatever the price when somebody pulls the cork and pours a glass it is worthless, the only judgement then is down to those drinking. And Iam going to put this to the test tonight with a bottle of Graham 85.

[LGTrotter]

In response to Daniel I would counsel you to hold fast. The Cuttlestones auction appealed to the likes of us because it mirrored so exactly the kind of cellars we would like, and may yet have come the finish. I don't think port is in a bubble, I think other areas are, but so what? Most folks here buy to drink, which makes bubbles irrelevant. There will be other auctions along and here in the UK at least we still have a lot of mature port around.

[LGTrotter]

Two points only. I don't drink a lot of Taylor, outside of the Bung Hole, because I don't buy it, because other things come along and I spend my money on them. The one Taylor that really wowed me was the 55 that we drank in Vinum in June alongside the Graham and Dow 55. This was a real cut above the other two, it had power and weight and body and character and charm and it had more of all of them than the other two, which were still extremely good.

Is this the source of the 'Great Taylor Premium'? Taylor older back vintages (not that I've ever had them) do have very good write ups. Do they last 100 years better than other shippers? In which case I shall still refrain from buying them as I doubt I shall be around when the 85 is 100, or even 75. It is probably kept back longer than other shippers so there may just be more of it about to garner good notes than some of the others.

[DRT]

the 'Great Taylor Premium'?

These things tend not to be permanent. Two hundred years ago "Roriz" seemed to earn a premium, possibly because it was one of the earliest brands used in the market. Offley also enjoyed a period where it was thought to be supreme followed by Sandeman and Cockburn for almost a decade. It was not until post-WWII that Taylor assumed the mantle of "most expensive shipper", something that they appear to have jealously guarded right up until they sold their 2012 SQVP for half the price of the competition.

Is the tide about to turn?

[DRT]

For what it is worth, I also rarely buy Taylor VP for the same reasons stated by Daniel. My cellar contains a mere 36 bottles of assorted Vargellas vintages (mostly purchased in supermarket slash-n-stash deals), and single six-packs of 1997 and 2003.

[djewesbury]

the 'Great Taylor Premium'?

These things tend not to be permanent. Two hundred years ago "Roriz" seemed to earn a premium, possibly because it was one of the earliest brands used in the market. Offley also enjoyed a period where it was thought to be supreme followed by Sandeman and Cockburn for almost a decade. It was not until post-WWII that Taylor assumed the mantle of "most expensive shipper", something that they appear to have jealously guarded right up until they sold their 2012 SQVP for half the price of the competition.

Is the tide about to turn?

Your idea of impermanence reminds me of one great economist's observation that in the long run, we're all dead.

[DRT]

Your idea of impermanence reminds me of one great economist's observation that in the long run, we're all dead.

Not me, I've got loads of 1965 SQVP to keep me alive forever