Ever had a port you didn't like?

[Lars F]

Browsing through a local wine merchants selection of ports I was considering whether a port was worth buying (Pocas 2002 VP).
My reservation was that 2002 was not widely declared and I was considering if it was a good buy.

Then it struck me that it basically (!) :? didn't matter since I've never had a port I didn't like. I've had ports which were better than others, but not one I didn't like.

For ordinary red or white wines I've had plenty of bottles which didn't fit my taste. I've had older wines from burgundy which tasted like manure, and bone dry rieslings which are way too sour for my taste, both of which were considered just fine by others.

Which leads me to ask. Have you ever had a port that you didn't like? Not that you'd rather prefer another style or producer, but one you really didn't like.

This of cource excludes bottles which were bad or off in some way due to cork or age.

-Lars

[Roy Hersh]

Yes, a few bottles of 1983 Cockburn in fact. Later today, I may say that about a particular bottle of 1977 Gould Campbell.

[Lamont Huxley]

An interesting question. When I first read it, I thought that it seemed like an easy one to answer: of course I’ve had a port here and there that I didn’t like. After considering it more closely though, I realize that I am hard pressed to come up with a bottle that I truly didn’t like; and here I am defining the phrase “didn’t like” to mean that I was turned off enough to not want to drink any more of it.

That said, there have been some ports that I’ve had that were quite disappointing. The most disappointing, at least recently, was a bottle of Burmester 1970 that I drank a couple of months ago. It was very tired out tasting and seemed like it was well into its decline (perhaps more enjoyable when it was young?). I had a similar experience a number of years back with a bottle of Fonseca 83 – very spirity and disjointed (don’t know if other bottles of this might show better but I’ve read some opinions that concur with mine). In both cases the port wasn’t “bad” in terms of being damaged or tainted, but paled significantly in light of my expectations. And though they were much less enjoyable than so many others, I did still finish them off rather than pour them down the sink – so there must have been at least something I enjoyed about them. So rather than categorize these ports as “bad”, I’d prefer just to say that they fall all the way to the bottom of my personal spectrum of port drinking experience, which is obviously a very subjective scale.

I would also note that a few of the “ports” from Australia and California that I’ve tasted that I have actually found downright unlikable – much more so than just a lackluster bottle of true porto.

[Frederick Blais]

Yes, a few bottles of 1983 Cockburn in fact. Later today, I may say that about a particular bottle of 1977 Gould Campbell.

77 GC is delicious Don't Jinx it!

On my side the Cabral 30 and 40 yo Tawny just didn't have anything to offer appart from alcohol. A couple of Niepoort 98 LBV that I did not enjoy too much, 80 Kopke VP that was dead and alcoholic and a Port made by a bar owner in Pinhao poured from a plastic jug that was totally undrinkable.

[Jay Powers]

A 1966 Moriera colheita. But being lazy, I did not toss it out, and after two weeks in decanter it turned out to be pretty good. So guess my answer must be no, for red port.

I have never really enjoyed the whites though, except for a single example of port and tonic in 2006 on a verandah overlooking the Douro river with a sprig of mint. In Pacifica, I would be hard pressed to find a time when a white port might be good to my palate.

Jay

[Roy Hersh]

77 GC is delicious Don't Jinx it!

Frederick,

I didn't jinx it. At 11:00 a.m. I decanted the Gould Cambell. Immediately I sensed an extremely low level of TCA and had a sip. It was far less evident on the palate, but I never doubt my nose. You've seen the size of it.

Anyway, I did not want to admit it to myself and become aggravated with a dinner party still to be shopped for, cooked and served. However, I knew best not to take a chance and in fact, decided to put a 1989 Ch. Rieussec in the refrigerator. At 3:30 when I next approached the decanter, I brought the decanter upstairs and poured it into a pot along with the rest of the accouterments that I utilize to produce a delicious Port reduction, this one to adorn Dorene's famous wild mushroom bread pudding. Yes, when you cook with a cork tainted wine, the TCA is "cooked out" of the wine and it can shine in the only way left. It pained me to use a 1977 Gould Campbell as the foil for a reduction. I had purchased a $9 Delaforce Tawny Port for that purpose. I used that instead, to sautee onions and mushrooms to put over the NY Strip Steaks for the entree and some to use to deglaze a pan that I seared the steaks in, before putting them on the grill.

So, to make this long and sad story come to conclusion, I did not jinx it.

[Andy Velebil]

Yes!

On the day before the 2006 Harvest Trip offically started a few of us stopped by the Vasconcellos Lodge to see what it was like to be a "citizen" off the street taking the public tour and tasting. Besides correcting our tour guide on some wrong info he was dishing out, we had a few samples at the end. All I can say is their Special Reserve was the most awful Port i think I've ever had. Totally indrinkable...not sure how the IVDP approved that one as a Port!

[Derek T.]

If I voted for M&S Pink Port I would be admitting that it qualifies as Port, so I won't

Cruz Tawny - consumed in southern France in the spring of 2006. Horrid stuff that should be shipped exclusively to, errm?, France :devil:

Derek

[Ronald Wortel]

Just like Andy, I once made the mistake of Visiting the Vasconcellos lodge. Horrible stuff.
At the moment I have a bottle of Cockburn Special Reserve in the fridge. A pain to the palate.

[Moses Botbol]

I only remember the fantastic and horrible ports at this point. A few memeorable ones I did not like include:

1934 Rebello Valente Vintage Port – Offensive nose that was tough to get by

1962 Noval Crusted Port – Too vegetal tasting and tough to swallow; lot’s of acid!

Calem (I think 1967) – Just awful and torture to finish.

1983 Cockburn - TCA in 3 of the 4 I have tried. One's without TCA are sublime. Not worth the gamble.

[JacobH]

I’ve been disappointed by a few Ports, but the only ones that I have actively disliked have been some of the cheap rubies which really do a disservice to the Port. Apart from the Armilar Ruby (thanks to Derek for the picture), I think I’d struggle to get through a bottle of the Burmester Ruby, and that house ruby which I had at the weekend. It seems a shame that there are such things out there, when other shippers can produce quite good ones for the same price.

-Jacob

[Derek T.]

Jacob,

I must have been so traumatised by the Armilar experience that it had been wiped from my memory until I read your post :help:

It was a truely awful wine that does not deserve the name Port.

Derek

[Derek T.]

I only remember the fantastic and horrible ports at this point. A few memeorable ones I did not like include:

1934 Rebello Valente Vintage Port – Offensive nose that was tough to get by

1962 Noval Crusted Port – Too vegetal tasting and tough to swallow; lot’s of acid!

Calem (I think 1967) – Just awful and torture to finish.

1983 Cockburn - TCA in 3 of the 4 I have tried. One's without TCA are sublime. Not worth the gamble.

Moses,

I am surprised at your comments on the 1962 Noval Crusted. A few of us here tasted a bottle of it at Noval in October 06 and as far as I can recall it was extremely nice. I'm sure others have commented with a similar experience since that tasting. It was not stunning in the company of a few Nacionals but was a very respectable wine for its age and style. Perhaps you had a poor bottle, or we were all influenced by the surroundings

Derek

[JacobH]

I must have been so traumatised by the Armilar experience that it had been wiped from my memory until I read your post :help:

I did wonder what the Selo de Garantia was actually guaranteeing for the Armilar...perhaps that the wine is non-toxic?

I still feel slightly guilty about that bottle, as mine came to me as a well-meaning, if misinformed, gift. At the time, I therefore felt compelled at least to drink it all, even though that eventually proved impossible!

-Jacob

[Alex K.]

Oh God yes.

Cruz 1989 Vintage Port was utterly disgraceful first time. It was better when Al B. dragged one along but it confused me on that occasion.

Cruz Ruby was pretty rotten too.

However, Cockburn's Special Reserve deserves my greatest ire for having the temerity to be the most popular Port in Britain, absolutely abysmal and not even that cheap - Rotten!

[Roy Hersh]

Jacob,

Have a look at the article archive for my recent article on the Selo da Garantia. It is not a guarantee of quality in the bottle, whatsoever. It only really guarantees, that the contents of the bottle comes from the demarcated Douro region. Therefore the Selo solely is a geographical guarantee not a qualitative one.


Moses,

Like Derek I can assure you that you had a bad bottle of the 1962 Noval Crusted Port. I have had it twice on separate occasions (doh) and both times it was very enjoyable indeed.



Alex K.,

What confused you about Alex B.'s bottle of the '89 Cruz?

[Derek T.]

Alex K.,

What confused you about Alex B.'s bottle of the '89 Cruz?

It was served blind and he thought it was a Fonseca 1963 :devil:

[JacobH]

Have a look at the article archive for my recent article on the Selo da Garantia. It is not a guarantee of quality in the bottle, whatsoever. It only really guarantees, that the contents of the bottle comes from the demarcated Douro region. Therefore the Selo solely is a geographical guarantee not a qualitative one.

Indeed; that's an entirely fair point to pull me up on. I think I was mostly trying not to let the facts get in the way of making a flippant point!

One thing I have been wondering about, though, is that, as far as I am aware, the IVDP does have the power to reject bottles of Port if it thinks that they are not up to scratch. Therefore, if a bottle is available for sale, that would suggest that either it has not been taste-tested by the IVDP or it has been taste-tested and not rejected. I think I'm right in saying that the IVDP does systematically samples collect Port from the producers which would suggest that most bottles in circulation have been tested and not rejected; a sort of de-facto statement of quality.

The only reason this is of any consequence is that if there ever were a candidate for rejection by the IVDP it surely would be Armilar. Or, alternatively, if the Armilar was good enough to be passed by them, I hate to think what would be rejected! :help:

-Jacob

[Derek T.]

jacob,

I am entirely with you on this one. I have listened to port producers describe the process that they go through to have their various port styles "accepted" by the IVDP before they can release them for sale. It all sounds good in theory but the end products tell a different story. What I would love to see are the statistics that are presumably produced by the IVDP recording the quality of each sample against a relevant benchmark for that particular style of port.

Having tasted Armilar and Cruz basic port offerings I would suggest that the benchmark is extremely low.

Another interesting statistic would be the number of Vintage Port samples offered for assesment that were rejected by the IVDP and the shipper told that they were not allowed to release it as VP. I suspect that that statistic would equal zero.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

A good portion of all ports submitted to the IVDP get rejected at least once or more. Producers can resubmit later after reblending, etc. but it's always boggled my mind that a top notch VP will get rejected once or twice before being approved, yet how some basic stuff that is just plain awful gets approved is beyond me. All I can say is the IVDP is a government entity...that should explain all right there :devil: