We’ve had a few cooler days in CT, so my thoughts are starting to head towards Port. I don’t want a repeat of last fall/winter where I only opened 1 (yes, 1) bottle of vintage Port, so I am getting ready early.
I figure the 1970 Graham’s and 1977 Warre’s and Fonseca are good to go whenever. The '83 Fonseca would seem to be another prime target. I’ve read some recent notes elsewhere on '85 Ports coming into their own, so am eyeing the '85 Dow and '85 Fonseca in the cellar as well.
Younger than that seem to call for more rest. I thought I saw somewhere that Andy V. mentioned the '91s were good to go, but I only have a couple, so may wait more there. 1994 is now at age 20. Time to look in? The 1997s have always seemed very approachable, but that still screams too soon to me.
David, I had an 85 Graham’s last winter that was showing well already. I have another couple of bottles and might get to one this winter. Your 70 from them should be wonderful…wish I had some left. The 77 Warres is fully ready but the Fonseca while enjoyable is still on the upswing from my last tasting two years ago. I am holding off on the 94s right now. Looking forward to reading your TNs. Cheers, Bob
The 1970 Graham’s is lovely and enjoyable now or over another 20-30 years. Yummy in the tummy this is.
1977 Warre’s is also lovely and among my favorites from the vintage. And it is also pretty consistent unlike many others, for a variety of reasons. Drinks well now with a nice long decant (think 6-8 hours), tasty stuff.
1977 Fonseca is either awesome or average at best. Lots of night vs. day bottle variation in this. I hope yours shows well, 50/50 chance.
1983 Fonseca. How do I put this politely? Better than the 1980 Fonseca but not even close, like a different world, compared to the awesome 1985 Fonseca. Drink up soon and be prepared for an average at best VP.
1985 Fonseca, speaking of, leave this alone as in the past couple years or so it has closed up tighter than a…well you get the idea. Though it does seem to be starting to come out of recently, but still probably best to let it sit a little longer for best results.
1991’s were not the best from the Symington’s and the Fladgate Partnership (Fonseca/Taylors) won with their 1992 declaration. The 1991’s can still age but I don’t see any reason to hold large amounts taking up space in the cellar at this point. 1992’s let sleep for much longer.
1994’s stay away from. Far away. They are closed up and not showing well at all right now. Let them sleep for a few more years until they come out of this late teen phase they’ve been in for a couple years now.
1997’s are hit and miss. Most are average and drink well now or just above average with a few excellent standouts. But like the 1994’s, I’ve found the top ones to be in a bit of an awkward phase recently so I’d avoid opening those.
Good luck with the 83 Cockburn. It runs about a 90% corked rate. Long story, but the then owners/winemakers knew there was an issue. (disclaimer: The new owners, the Symington Family, had nothing to do with Cockburn’s back then)
I don’t drink a lot of port, but based on my recent (past 4-5 years) experience, I’ll echo Andy’s take on the 1985 Fonseca (stunning!!! but leave it alone), 1985 Graham’s (yowza!), and based only on the Dow’s leave the 1994s alone. And my most recent '77 Fonseca was “meh,” a good but not great VP.
The regular Noval from 63 and 70 are average. The 63 you either get one type of bottle that shows fully mature or just past peak but balanced. Or you get the bottle that shows lots of alcohol which protrudes. Many of us have theorized they did two bottling runs of this, hence why the consistent stark contrast between bottles. The 1970 is fading, but if you get a good bottle is still pleasant. Don’t expect a Fonseca or Graham’s type showing but it’s still ok. 1970 was the beginning of the downfall of Noval in terms of quality, to which it didn’t recover from until AXA bought it in 1993.
I’m a big fan of Warre’s. In general they do not get a lot of love (heck Port doesn’t get a lot of love except at FTLOP), but I am rarely if ever disappointed. They also remain a really good value.
I should explain further, well at least a short version as a detailed version is quite the long discussion. In short, starting with political unrest in Portugal in the early 1970’s which led to lots (about 3 times as much) of 1975 VP being produced than any year prior, basically ‘watering down’ what was a really good year. Then there was lots of issues with the cork industry and poor corks which has now caused the issues we’re seeing in many 1977’s through early 1980’s. There is a ton of significant bottle variation and TCA issues in 1977 through 1983 VP’s. Why I rarely buy anything from this period anymore (with some exceptions).
This period is also what I call the lost decade of Port. On top of the issues mentioned, there was lots of replanting going on in the Douro. Switching over from the old mixed field blends to block planting. Electricity was still relatively new in some parts of the Douro (Vesuvio and Vargellas didn’t get it until the late 70’s). There were new techniques in winemaking being used, which mostly didn’t work out in the long run. The older winemakers were reaching the end of their reign and the younger ones were starting to step up. Large corporations, like Beam Global, buying up quintas and trying to run them as they did other operations they already owned, which didn’t work as the Douro is a very unique place to try and make wine.
In short, this period saw lots going on that all came together to create the perfect storm which led to so many issues we’re seeing now. That said, the Symington’s (Dow’s, Graham’s, Warre’s, Smith Woodhouse, Gould Campbell, Quarles Harris) seemed to weather it the best in terms of still producing really good VP’s. But even they’ve had other issues such as the super high rate of TCA with 1977 Dow’s and 1980 Graham’s.
That is why I tell people to be careful when buying certain VP’s from these periods. Some others prefer to bury their heads in the sand and pretend these issues aren’t as bad. However, now days most Port producers have become more open about the issues, as many of them simply were not their fault or from a different generation. And people are more apt to realize now that winemaking is really farming and you can’t hit a homerun every year, as much as they’d like too.
Hit and miss. The Symington’s did really well. Others, not so well. The 1980 Fonseca is one of the worst in memory.
Yes, the Symingtons did well. The 1980 Dow is one of the greats of the decade. I’ve also had recent Warre and Smith Woodhouse which showed very nicely.
This period is also what I call the lost decade of Port.
Andy, didn’t the Port Institute also have really bad stocks of aguardente back then as well?
In the past year I have consumed a 1994 Warre’s and a 1994 Martinez - both showed very nicely in my opinion. The first bottle to go this year will be a 1992 Fonseca.
Yesterday, I had the following discussion with my daughter about how we were going to have a six year old at my house for Christmas. She said, “So we’ll need to have cookies for Santa, but not milk, maybe port.” “…because we know what Santa likes!”
One had to buy it from them, or later from their approved suppliers, back then. So one really had no control of what they got. Thankfully that is no longer the case. Like I mentioned, there was a lot of things that came together to cause the all the issues we’re now seeing. I’ve just mentioned the short version, as you and I know there was a lot of issues, more than listed here, which all came to a head around that time period. By the late 80’s the train was getting back on the track again.
I am reminded again of a tasting of Fladgate partnership wines I went to a few years ago. Their representative stated that one of the key reasons for the increased approachability of young vintage Ports was the improved quality of the neutral spritis.
![[banhim.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/3/36db0c71827bd47207d91332cd1875c38f3d5ecd.gif "banhim")