Is anything from the '90s worth opening today?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Here Mike asks the very valid question whether any vintage port from the 1990s is worth opening at the moment. The 1997 offline generally indicated that 1997 was not a year worth approaching today.

However, I have enjoyed a number of ports from the 1990s this year and would recommend that if you feel the urgent need to open something from your vintage port collection that reads 199X that you try one of the following:
Symington wines from 1991
Taylor 1992
Most things from 1994
The Taylor and the 1994s would reward more patience but I really enjoyed the Churchill 1994 I had the other day. Most of the 1991 Symington wines I've had are enjoyable now but I don't anticipate them getting any better over the next decade or two.

And of course, there are all those LBVs and Crusteds that keep being offered for sale in Sainsbury's...

[DRT]

Morgan 1991

haven't tried Graham 1991 for a while but suspect it would be worth a pop as it didn't seem like it would be for the long term last time I tried it.

[Glenn E.]

I think some of the 1994s are "worth opening," but I also think that in most cases it's still way too soon. You'll be able to enjoy the bottle, but you'll enjoy it much more if you want at least another 10 years before opening it.

But then, I've never really been a fan of "merely" 20 year old Vintage Port. My threshold is usually closer to 30 years old, or at least 25+. I don't believe that I've ever found the 21-year rule of thumb to be accurate.

[LGTrotter]

I think I had a Churchill 91 from a half bottle which was very pleasant. I would have thought that halves would be more approachable if anyone has thought to buy them. I don't, tending to feel that halves are like 'fun sized' confectionery, not much fun when you're looking for the other half. The opposite is also true, magnums, jeroboams (I do not include Tappit hen as the name alone makes them a delight), being like the gigantification of chocolate bars, a bit unwieldy for everyday use.

[Alex Bridgeman]

...magnums, jeroboams (I do not include Tappit hen as the name alone makes them a delight), being like the gigantification of chocolate bars, a bit unwieldy for everyday use.

Owen - are you ready for this - I agree with you.

I find there is something slightly deflating about a big bottle that looks like a big bottle. In the days of yore magnums were much more attractive than they are today. They were wider and shorter, looking more like a pota bottle than our beloved 75cl standard Bordeaux square shouldered bottle. They had wider necks and needed hand-made corks to fit them. Those were proper magnums, made to be appreciated by proper port drinkers (like we are; the port drinkers of yore are still with us).

Sadly, modernisation has castrated the appearance of the large format bottle. They are now clinically shaped, with necks designed by accountants so that they can be plugged by a standard, machine made cork that will fit any size glass receptacle. The Dow Magnumonicon Tasting empties that I rescued from The Bung Hole shortly before its demolition shows this evolution well. The 1963 magnum was moulded, but moulded badly so it was asymmetric and was more appealing for that quirk. By the time the 1994 was bottled (should that be magnumed?) the magnum was beautifully made and was sealed with a standard size cork. Where is the romance in that? Bring back badly made bottles!

But I hear there is hope. Some brave souls who produce (or work for producers of) Port are looking at the option to bring back small runs of unusual bottles. 2.1 litres would probably not be a permitted size, but 2.25 litres would be. Might we see some new, pota proportioned, Tappit Hens at a date in the near future? I hope so. This would be a great way to generate interest within the collector and consumer communities for a year that was a small, almost declared vintage like 2008 was.

[djewesbury]

...magnums, jeroboams (I do not include Tappit hen as the name alone makes them a delight), being like the gigantification of chocolate bars, a bit unwieldy for everyday use.

Owen - are you ready for this - I agree with you.

I find there is something slightly deflating about a big bottle that looks like a big bottle. In the days of yore magnums were much more attractive than they are today. They were wider and shorter, looking more like a pota bottle than our beloved 75cl standard Bordeaux square shouldered bottle. They had wider necks and needed hand-made corks to fit them. Those were proper magnums, made to be appreciated by proper port drinkers (like we are; the port drinkers of yore are still with us).

Yes, yes, yes! As I put away some mags and double mags on Monday I noticed exactly this. The Offley 63 mags were a totally different shape to the Sandeman 70 mags, and to the Warre 77 mag that was already down there. But the Sandeman Vau 00 double mag was different in, er, a different way, the one that Alex has identified.

[LGTrotter]

...magnums, jeroboams (I do not include Tappit hen as the name alone makes them a delight), being like the gigantification of chocolate bars, a bit unwieldy for everyday use.

Owen - are you ready for this - I agree with you.

I think we agree far more than may be evident from some of our exchanges. Your point about the loss of romance regarding wonky bottles is most persuasive. I have always yearned for tappit hens on account of the name but having seen some of those chubby fellows all waxed up and on your shelves my yearning has deepened. I thank God nobody here uses that pitiful mash up of a word tregnum in association with them. But I have wandered from the topic.

Leave the nineties wines alone, except in desperation, or if you like them that way.

[LGTrotter]

However, I have enjoyed a number of ports from the 1990s this year

And how many of them would be better for another ten years loitering in the shed? Pretty much all of them I would suggest. I do not like the 91s much but I think even these will develop into something better. Tom has somewhere suggested that they are under rated, I think a comparison was being made with the 92s, which has given me patience with the few I have.

PS; I see from searching that some have favoured the use of the term tregnum rather than tappit hen ...

[Glenn E.]

PS; I see from searching that some have favoured the use of the term tregnum rather than tappit hen ...

Perhaps because they are not the same size? At least not classically.

[djewesbury]

PS; I see from searching that some have favoured the use of the term tregnum rather than tappit hen ...

Perhaps because they are not the same size? At least not classically.

Oh really? Are you perhaps saying that a Tappit Hen is three times a 70cl, and a tregnum three times a 75cl?

[Alex Bridgeman]

But that is precisely my understanding. A Tappit Hen is 2.1 litres, a tregnum is 2.25 litres.

And back to the original topic. Most vintage ports from the '90s will improve with more time in the dark. However, the original question was whether anything was worth opening today not whether it will be better in the future. There are a number of ports from the '90s which I enjoy drinking today and believe that are worth opening and consuming.

If you don't open a bottle of Vesuvio '94 every year, how will you know how it is evolving?

And for clarity I should declare that I am defining "worth" as meaning "enjoy while consuming".

[uncle tom]

Right now I'm not really enthused about anything from the 90's, if I had to choose a bottle it would probably be the excellent 1990 Niepoort LBV, of which I sadly now have very few remaining. (Note to self: - must ask Dirk if he has any left..)

There are some sound '91s but others that are a bit ugly or dirty on the palate - something that was also very evident at the '97 tasting - I hope these wines grow up for the better, as many of the '75s are now doing. The '94s are beginning to grow out of their spotty teen phase, but I doubt any will be the worse for another ten years in the cellar.

'92 is not a bad year, but the wines have always sold above their weight..

[Andy Velebil]

Many of the 1995's are drinking nicely right now while waiting for some of the top producers of the classically declared years to come round.

[John M]

I had a 1991 Croft and 1994 Grahams this past week. The Grahams was fine but really needs more time to be at "peak".

The Croft was more evolved and in a good spot--closer to its apex--although again, a few more years would do it more justice.

Both were heartily enjoyed. On Friday, the Croft was better....in 10-20 years that should reverse.

[Glenn E.]

PS; I see from searching that some have favoured the use of the term tregnum rather than tappit hen ...

Perhaps because they are not the same size? At least not classically.

Oh really? Are you perhaps saying that a Tappit Hen is three times a 70cl, and a tregnum three times a 75cl?

The size of a Tappit Hen has changed over time. I believe it was originally 3 quarts, but were those Imperial quarts or not? 2.83 liters is the number I've seen, so "not" appears to be the correct answer.

Most recently (circa 1970) a Tappit Hen was as AHB says - 3 times a "standard" 70 cl bottle. When the "standard" bottle size was increased to 75 cl for the 1973 vintage, the Tappit Hen was adjusted accordingly.

[LGTrotter]

A tappit hen is a three bottle bottle. As is a tregnum. Nuff zed.

[Glenn E.]

A tappit hen is a three bottle bottle. As is a tregnum. Nuff zed.

A tappit hen is a bottle named after the knob on top that made it look a bit like a hen. Its size has varied over the years from 3 quarts (2.83 liters) to 3 x 70 cl bottles (2.1 liters). Its current size corresponds to three 75 cl bottles.

A tregnum is a three bottle bottle.

What distinguishes the two is the shape of the bottle. A tappit hen has a distinct shape from which it derives its name, though I'm not sure that anyone uses an actual tappit hen shape anymore. A tregnum is a generic "large bottle" shape that happens to hold 2.25 liters. Some people now call squat 2.25 liter bottles tappit hens, though that is not technically correct.

[idj123]

None of the 97s we tried to wade through at the tasting were ready with the exception of the second tier SV97 (which I look forward to having again). I think the same was true of those tasted at the 94 tasting, which apart from the Crusted G98 (which is excellent) primarily leaves the 91/92 and all maybe a little clearer if we can pin down a date for this tastingl

[djewesbury]

The W94 ready I thought.

[LGTrotter]

The W94 ready I thought.

Really? I thought it was one of the big hitters of 94 and was to be left until the last moment and then a bit more. But one man's dudelsack is another man's symbol of impending nationhood.

A tappit hen is a three bottle bottle. As is a tregnum. Nuff zed.

A tappit hen is a bottle named after the knob on top that made it look a bit like a hen. Its size has varied over the years from 3 quarts (2.83 liters) to 3 x 70 cl bottles (2.1 liters). Its current size corresponds to three 75 cl bottles.

A tregnum is a three bottle bottle.

What distinguishes the two is the shape of the bottle. A tappit hen has a distinct shape from which it derives its name, though I'm not sure that anyone uses an actual tappit hen shape anymore. A tregnum is a generic "large bottle" shape that happens to hold 2.25 liters. Some people now call squat 2.25 liter bottles tappit hens, though that is not technically correct.

Now Glenn, I don't want this to continue. The case has been stated clearly and succinctly. I do not want to have to call upon the massed ranks of George Saintsbury, the Symingtons, the history of Scottish drinking vessels to resolve this. But if I must fetch the cane from the cupboard then so be it...

(I should of course add that the attention to detail in Glenn's post is terrific and worthy of a good argument)

[LGTrotter]

I wonder Glenn if you are confabulating the Scottish drinking vessel which had a knop on the hinged lid and of distinctive shape which held three quarts. It was the knop reminiscent of the crest of a hen which gave it the name. Then there is the bottle which is considered by George Saintsbury to be the perfect size and contained three bottles. Now Saintsbury was referring to claret primarily but the same size relates to port in the literature I have seen. It is true that the volume of a standard bottle fluctuates depending on where and when you measure it but the rule of thumb is that a tappit hen is three bottles.

It is interesting that this all seems to emanate from Scotland and that three quarts was considered a reasonable drink for someone. Perhaps it was more like a yard of ale, every pub had one but no one ever used it.

[djewesbury]

Now a yard is three feet. So perhaps this is something to do with three-footed hens, which I believe were common in Scotland at a certain time, until the English cut the funding for hens and everyone was left legless.
I think that's what I read in Mr Gove's British History.

[LGTrotter]

And I think that Professor Dewesbury has spoken for the whole meeting there.

[RonnieRoots]

Back to the original question.

For me it depends on what you're looking for in a port. As much as I like fully aged port, I sometimes look to drink something that still shows fresh fruit and has a tannic kick. Many of the SQ's from the 90s offer that right now. To mind come:
- Fonseca Guimaraens 91
- Grahams Malvedos 92
- Warre's Cavadinha 95

Although the top 94s seem to be in a closed phase now and need at least another decade to shine, there are some lesser gods that are really enjoyable now, eg Martinez and Croft.

[DRT]

+1 to the martinez 94 suggestion, I seem to recall working my way through two cases of it rather quickly a handful of years ago.

[DaveRL]

I'd add Tesco 94 to the list. I opened another one, and perhaps got lucky again, but it drank well. These will keep my sticky paws off those with more potential that I should leave in the dark. I must get around to cutting and sticking those marvellous decanter labels.

[djewesbury]

Tesco 94 was not at all bad last night at our offline!

[flash_uk]

Tesco 94 was not at all bad last night at our offline!

But not as good as it can be. The T94 I have had recently beat last night, which I found a little stewey.

[djewesbury]

Yes, probably true. I only came to it right at the end so felt I was being a little harsh on it after some other good things; it was better than the G85...

[LGTrotter]

The Tesco 94 is something I open quite regularly. So I must think it is worth opening. However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket. I have had these faintly stewed ones before and I think that it doesn't like being moved about too much (what port does?), despite the various theories which abound round this port. It is certainly worth opening, but I think it will be all the more worth opening in about five years, maybe ten.

Yes, probably true. I only came to it right at the end so felt I was being a little harsh on it after some other good things; it was better than the G85...

Always overrated that Graham 85, can't think why anybody has the stuff, sell immediately before the fruit turns rotten. At slightly less than the Tesco 94 retails at...

[DaveRL]

However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket.

The answer is simply to buy enough. Christmas is coming. I'll be getting more when on (hopefully) special offer.

I mulled over the Wine Society 06 Crusted (Fonseca) but I think Tesco 94 beats it on value, and both current drinking and future potential.

[LGTrotter]

However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket.

The answer is simply to buy enough. Christmas is coming. I'll be getting more when on (hopefully) special offer.

I mulled over the Wine Society 06 Crusted (Fonseca) but I think Tesco 94 beats it on value, and both current drinking and future potential.

Buying enough, even when it's £15 a bottle on offer is tricky. I have two streams in my 'cellar', one for proper vintage that needs keeping, or I don't have too much of and a second stream of drinkers, I bought two cases (24 bottles) for drinking and that is exactly what I have done. In a year. I bought another two cases to put by which I have already started nibbling at the corners of. And then there is the Graham's Crusted 98 to be considered, which may well overtake the Tesco wine in quality.

I cannot disagree with your sentiments on the Fonseca crusted. Or anything else, mores the pity.

[RAYC]

I really like Vesuvio 98 for current drinking - probably my favourite VP from the 90s for drinking right now.

Of course, there are some Warre / SW LBVs in good drinking windows if you are not thinking solely of VPs.

I have also had good luck with 99s - all of Sandeman Vau, Passadouro and Niepoort Secundum from that year have given me pleasure and value for money.

On the more esoteric side, De la Rosa 1991 is drinking very well. Martinez 94 as others have mentioned. Cavadinha 91/92 are both solid (from memory)

[Miguel Simoes]

Agrer reg Martinez 94. Opened one this past weekend and finished it today. V nice, surprisingly so. In a great place for drinking up!

[CaliforniaBrad]

Many of the 1995's are drinking nicely right now while waiting for some of the top producers of the classically declared years to come round.

I've had a couple Noval Silvals over the last year, as well as a Fonseca Guimarens and all were drinking very nicely without any crazy decants. '95s are also pretty reasonably priced over here (all of mine have come from flash deal sites).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveRL]

However the more I open it the more I think that there may come a day when I regret being quite so cavalier about opening a bottle of 1994 port from anywhere, albeit one from so pedestrian a supermarket.

The answer is simply to buy enough. Christmas is coming. I'll be getting more when on (hopefully) special offer.

Buying enough, even when it's £15 a bottle on offer is tricky. I have two streams in my 'cellar', one for proper vintage that needs keeping, or I don't have too much of and a second stream of drinkers, I bought two cases (24 bottles) for drinking and that is exactly what I have done. In a year.

I was careless and inaccurate. One can never have enough.

[djewesbury]

I just got 4 Mz94 from Seckford's on the strength of these unwavering recommendations. However I fail to see the value in Tesco 94 if it's really as variable as all that.

[LGTrotter]

I fail to see the value in Tesco 94 if it's really as variable as all that.

Each to their own but I have always been delighted with the Tesco 94, there has been some variation but I find it so much easier to cope with when I have paid £12 to £15 a bottle rather than when I have spent, say, £65 per bottle that Berrys were offering the Quarles Harris 94 a few years back. I can't think of a vintage port which offers a better QPR, not that it is a terrific port, it's just that I can't find a 1994 of any kind for the price. Anybody heard of a 94 for a tenner? If so I should be very glad to hear of it.

[DaveRL]

Tesco 94 must be a candidate for label bias. Would it perform better blind or in a decanter labelled Skeffington?

If there is variation, is it any more than other ports suffer, such as the Graham 80: perhaps a quick case study is in order?

If there is a question mark over a bottle, opening another £15 bottle is easy. A reputation is formed. It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

[flash_uk]

Tesco 94 must be a candidate for label bias. Would it perform better blind or in a decanter labelled Skeffington?

If there is variation, is it any more than other ports suffer, such as the Graham 80: perhaps a quick case study is in order?

If there is a question mark over a bottle, opening another £15 bottle is easy. A reputation is formed. It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

I'd agree with all of this. I have found most of the T94 I have drunk to be very consistent and good. Only had one bottle which was sub par.

[idj123]

I thought the Tesco 94 ok the other night (although better at the start than at the end). However, I'm not sure where it is likely to go to (if anywhere) over the next few years and my preference would still be for the Graham's Crusted 98 presently, albeit this seems to be being slowly replaced on the supermarket shelves by the 2004 version.

[RAYC]

It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

I don't think this chimes with my experiences. Dow 77, various 85s and Niepoort 97 (amongst others) all spring to mind as having less than stellar reputations despite falling into that category.

If anything I tend to think people more forgiving of Tesco 94, which can be very stewed at times (whether this is because there were variable lotes when the VP was first bottled, or two distinct VPs sold under the same Tesco 94 label, or storage issues at Tesco's end....)

[LGTrotter]

It is much harder psychologically to declare a £60 bottle duff. Excuses are made. Reputation intact.

I don't think this chimes with my experiences. Dow 77, various 85s and Niepoort 97 (amongst others) all spring to mind as having less than stellar reputations despite falling into that category.

I sort of agree with both of you ( which also means I sort of disagree with both of you). I have seen people (admittedly not so knowledgeable as we have here) trying to explain that pricey tosh is supposed to taste like compost soup fairly regularly. And being gracious I nod and smile. On the other hand I see less evidence here of this bias, my bias being that I am more likely to forgive my Tesco 94 than my Quarles Harris 94 on grounds of price.

I think that the point about bottle variation seen, for example in the 'case study', show that while generalisations can be made, like pointillist painting it is more coherent from a distance than very close up. I would also concur with the view of Flash that Tesco 94 is not so cranky as has been suggested.

[DaveRL]

Excellent. Thank you. I found myself down from the fence in no man's land (apologies for mixing) and was wondering how to climb back onto it.

I think Tesco 94 is good value and usually more than OK but never great. Sometimes it is worth aiming for great. Those times when everything comes together are worth the disappointments when it doesn't, although when the bottle was expensive it can be quite the disappointment.

I still think that excuses are commonly made on label bias, but perhaps not here!

[LGTrotter]

And here is further reading material on the subject of label bias; http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.p ... Label+bias

There will be a short quiz next lesson.

[AW77]

To get back to the original question:
I think that the following ports from the '90s are worth opening today:
- 1997 Croft Roeda
- 1998 Warre Cavadinha
- 1999 Noval Silval

All SQVP as might be expected.

[JacobH]

Isn’t Quinta do Noval Silval a second-label rather than an SQVP? Whilst I think they did a SQVP in the past from Quinta do Silval, as with everything from Noval the key question is whether it says “Quinta d*” on the bottle or not.

Some of the lighter 1991s are probably pretty good these days. It’s a while since I’ve tried them but I would have thought the Barros, Quinta de la Rosa and Churchill would all be quite good to drink.

[AW77]

Isn’t Quinta do Noval Silval a second-label rather than an SQVP? Whilst I think they did a SQVP in the past from Quinta do Silval, as with everything from Noval the key question is whether it says “Quinta d*” on the bottle or not.

Hm, in a way, all VPs of Quinta do Noval are SQVPs as there is simply only one quinta. But I get your point, Silval is more like Fonseca Guimaraens than Taylor Vargellas. I had a look at the label of the '99 Silval. It says "Silval Vintage Port Bottled and shipped by Quinta do Noval".

[JacobH]

Hm, in a way, all VPs of Quinta do Noval are SQVPs as there is simply only one quinta. But I get your point, Silval is more like Fonseca Guimaraens than Taylor Vargellas. I had a look at the label of the '99 Silval. It says "Silval Vintage Port Bottled and shipped by Quinta do Noval".

Sorry, I wasn’t being clear. Whilst all of their Vintage Port claims to be from a single quinta, most of their other products are blended from more than one property. The difference is shown on the label: wines from the Quinta say “Quinta do Noval”, whilst wines which include a blend say just “Noval”. Looking at their current range, it appears that only the Vintage Ports, unfiltered LBV and colheitas are from the quinta, itself. That surprised me a bit: I would have thought their older tawnies would have been single quinta, too, and possibly one of their rubies (like Graham’s Six Grapes), but perhaps there is only so much wine one vineyard can produce.

Silval seems to fall into the latter category. The website says, about the grapes for it: “They are taken essentially from the Quinta do Noval vineyard, but also from A-rated vineyards at the heart of the Douro Valley.”. I suppose that puts Noval into an unusual position: their first label is SQVP and their second label is like a normal VP!

Anyway, the curious thing is why it is called “Silval” since there is a Quinta do Silval a little further North. I don’t really know how the two properties interlink (it seems too much to be a co-incidence), although Quinta do Silval is now producing wines under the Magalhães name.

[Glenn E.]

The explanation is beyond my capabilities while typing on a phone. The Silval question has a very complicated answer.