1991 Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas Vintage Port

[KenBirman]

• 1991 Taylor (Fladgate) Quinta de Vargellas Vintage Porto - Portugal, Douro, Porto (12/1/2005)
  Saturated dark ruby to the rim, but not quite as opaque as these wines are on release. Sweet, dusty nose of cranberries, red currents, hints of spices. In the mouth, rich, sweet, cranberry liqueur with a very long finish. A very attractive Taylor but in a slightly light style, it seems to me; I suspect this will mature relatively early. Give it 93+ points. For me, quite drinkable now (Roy will want to wait until it reaches age 100, around 2091...). (93 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

[Stuart Chatfield]

I've not got my notes here, but I was disappointed with this when I tried the first one from my case this year. I was expecting great things to help support my theory that they should have done 91, not 92, but I was wrong . (In mitigation, I don't think I like either vintage)

I found mine short, harsh and overly acidic without much obvious tannin. May have been a bad bottle though.

On the whole although I love Taylors, I prefer other single quintas (eg. Bomfim), going to show how the whole can be better than the sum of the parts when blended... :idea: ...must try some Terra Feita to be sure.

[KenBirman]

This is interesting, because Roy's notes describe a totally different wine, too -- not quite yours but way remote from what I'm sipping on as I respond.

This is really a very attractive port -- a bit high-toned, in a cranberry/red current style, but sweet, long and seductive. My wife loves it too -- I'm very happy to have 8 more bottles in the cellar.

I wonder if somehow multiple shipments were done from the estate, and one got seriously baked or otherwise damaged while waiting at the port? Roy's description of a wine browning at the edges, and now yours, both sound like what might be expected from a port that was kept very warm for a good long time, like a month.

Anyhow, my bottle seems to be young, vibrant. and really lovely.

[NickA]

I've drunk half my case of these - I've found I've progressively become less impressed as time has gone on from being quite something on release. I've always prefered the more obvious charms of Fonseca '91 though, has to be said...but no surprise for me there.

Initially this was a block buster, and held up well to the '92s (it received 95 points from Parker) - but now it's easy to see it's a 'not quite' year. For me it has gone into a disjointed phase, but then so shas the '92 to me too...may rating is now low '90s, and a ? thrown in for good measure :)

[KenBirman]

Well, not every port needs to be a blockbuster. But I certainly agree that the 91 Vargellas probably never deserved 95 points and that it falls into a low 90-point range. Very young, it seems to me that it came across as a creme de cassis (or mulberries) and I can see why Parker might have been very excited about encountering a port in such an exotic style. Now, with the tannins fading a bit, the wine is clearly on the light and acidic side for a port. But I like it this way, just the same.

[Rico Thompson]

Thanks for the note Ken - my experience with the only bottle of this I've opened thus nfar was similar to yours.......think I'll wait until 2030 for the next