David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15713
 | | 12/11/2004 5:41 AM |
| I really do not drink that much Port so I really don't know what the answer to my question is (I guess that is why I am asking It  ).
Old Vintage Ports can be some of the lovliest wines in the world. This pretty much can go without saying. But they definitely had to be aged before they were anywhere near worth drinking.
Is this statement true?
It seems to me that newer Vintage Ports (say 2000) are drinking pretty fantastic right now.
Did the 1977 or 1963 Ports taste as good new as the 2000 do now?
Will the 2000 highly-rated vintage be better in 2030 than it is right now?
Thoughts? | | | |
|
NorCalVinoLover
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2200
| | 12/11/2004 5:48 AM |
| I've recently had a 2000 SW port and a 1976 SW port. I must say, I did prefer the younger port.
But, I did have a 30-40 year old Taylor not to long ago that blew everything away!
 | | | |
|
skwid
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5452
| | 12/11/2004 6:31 AM |
| My impression is that the 2000 ports are drinking okay right now, much better than other years at the same age. I'm not sure how well the 2000s will age though. My guess is not as well. I've had ports all the way back to 1927 and some of the olded ports are just incredible. I've had a 1977 Dow that we pretty tasty. The 1977 Fonseca and Taylor are not yet ready to drink (for instance). For aged ports I'd start with the 1966s and work my way back. I've had the 1955 Taylor multiple times and it was very good every time. The 1927 Fonseca was incredible. The 1963 Quinto Du Noval was pretty tasty too.
Btw, on tawny ports (the 10, 20, 30, 40 year old ports) purchase the 20 year old. It is way better than the 10 year old and only a bit more expensive. The 40 year old ports are significantly more expensive and only a tiny bit better. The QPR sweet spot is the 20 year old. Tawny port can also be opened and just recorked for a few days without a problem. So you don't have to drink the entire bottle in one evening. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:11169
| | 12/11/2004 12:45 PM |
| | I had the 1945 Croft 7 times, most recently about 5 years ago and it was outstanding, the best Port I've ever had. | | | |
|
David Walker
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2284
| | 12/11/2004 1:29 PM |
| Quote:
I'm not sure how well the 2000s will age though. My guess is not as well.
Hmmm...what makes you say that, skwid? | | | |
|
skwid
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5452
| | 12/11/2004 4:47 PM |
| | The 2000's seem to be softer and have less Tannin than other vintages I've had. Thus they are drinking better right now than earlier vintage ports. | | | |
|
David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15713
| | 12/11/2004 7:53 PM |
| | So my question is should we be drinking the 2000s now and saving the 63 and 77 stuff? | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Grape Stomper
Posts:152
| | 12/11/2004 10:16 PM |
| I'm not sure all the vintage ports that were put on the market after the Portuguese revolution of 1974 are of traditional vintage quality.
In the aftermath, there was no certainty that the new government would not de-privatise the port companies, so probably most of them tried to put vintages onto the market in a desperate attempt to make some money in case they had to sell their companies to the state. The situation might not have stabilised itself in several years? Port expoerts what do you think? | | | |
|
skwid
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5452
| | 12/12/2004 1:54 AM |
| Markus, by now I don't think there is a fear of state takeover of the port wineries. I've also not heard that state takeover was ever something being considered. However I have not read deeply on this subject so I could be wrong. I would however consider the 1977 vintage one which needs to be aged and would not have been ready for immediate consumption (the 1977 Taylor and Fonseca still need time, the Dow is ready to drink now). Thus if the port wineries were looking for immediate gratification the 1977 vintage would not have been it.
Davidn, the best 1977's are not ready to drink but some are ready for consumption (Fonseca, Taylor not ready, Dow is ready). The 1963's should be ready to go with the best lasting for several years longer. | | | |
|
futronic
Toronto, Canada
Wine Bottler
Posts:3214
| | 12/12/2004 1:54 AM |
| | Has anyone had the 1983 Dow or Smith-Woodhouse lately? I've got a bottle of each, and don't want to open them too soon. | | | |
|
David Sullivan
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2276
| | 12/12/2004 2:40 AM |
| | I opened a bottle of the Sandman 1997 Vintage Porto and it seemed to be drinking OK (375ml) | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:11169
| | 12/12/2004 3:56 AM |
| | Had the '83 Dow and Graham's. Both are ready to drink but should hold for years. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Grape Stomper
Posts:152
| | 12/12/2004 10:00 AM |
| No, Skwid, I didn't mean there would be any uncertainty today, just speculating that vintages from a few years afterwards might not be up to scratch. Of course, a good vintage is a good vintage regardless of the propensity to put it on the market.
I take your word for the 1977 - haven't tasted any of them myself. I was going to a port tasting last month, but got ill and couldn't attend.
Curious timing, by the way, the Portuguese government just resigned. | | | |
|
David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15713
| | 12/12/2004 6:10 PM |
| I've had the '77 Fonseca twice in the past 24 months. Niether time was I impressed with it. As a matter of fact I was very unimpressed! Thin and watery IMO. I couldn't have been two bad bottles. I have several in my cellar.
I had a taste of a '63 Graham's a week ago. It was delicious. I was amazed that there was over an inch of sediment at the bottom of the bottle. I pulled the cork and it broke about a quarter inch from the bottom. I did a really slow decant. Even then I told everyone to let their glass set for a few minutes and then not to swirl. There was still some sediment in every glass. The body was very light and it was maderized a bit but that just added some very nice complexity to the fruit of this 40-year old wonderful wine. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2042
| | 12/14/2004 1:57 AM |
| | I've had the 77 Dow several times in the past year, and it was fabulous on each occasion. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:12891
| | 12/14/2004 2:45 AM |
| board-o,
fess up, everyone here knows you are almost all the way through your 2000 vp stash  | | | |
|
JimmyV
Central Connecticut
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5024
| | 12/14/2004 6:54 PM |
| Quote:
So my question is should we be drinking the 2000s now and saving the 63 and 77 stuff?
Wish I had that dilemma.
Board-O: In following up on one of davidn's question, compared to the 2000 vintage Ports, how was the 1945 Croft immediately upon release!!  | |
Beta testing a new signature. | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:12891
| | 12/16/2004 4:23 AM |
| Quote:
Quote:
So my question is should we be drinking the 2000s now and saving the 63 and 77 stuff?
Wish I had that dilemma.
Board-O: In following up on one of davidn's question, compared to the 2000 vintage Ports, how was the 1945 Croft immediately upon release!!
LOL | | | |
|
David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15713
| | 12/16/2004 6:38 AM |
| Quote:
Quote:
So my question is should we be drinking the 2000s now and saving the 63 and 77 stuff?
Wish I had that dilemma.
Board-O: In following up on one of davidn's question, compared to the 2000 vintage Ports, how was the 1945 Croft immediately upon release!!
This is funny.
The release date for the 1945 was probably 1949 or 1950. I was drinking wine then. All I remember though was Crabari though. | | | |
|
| | 01/02/2005 10:05 PM |
| Quote:
This is funny.
The release date for the 1945 was probably 1949 or 1950. I was drinking wine then. All I remember though was Crabari though.
Whoa, David. Your parents started you out early! | | | |
|