AVOIDANCE

[Roy Hersh]

Help us to help others by naming names.

What was your least favorite Port that you tasted this year? Or ... ever?

[Paul Fountain]

The worst I've had this year would have been the 2001 Fonseca LBV.
One of the major liquor chains had it, and I had also noticed that there was a lot of it being dumped at the wine auctions so I thought I'd check it out to see if any auction purchases were warranted.
At close to AU $50 a bottle, it was overpriced, hot, unbalanced and lacked any real fruit. I do wonder whether the retailer is partly or mostly to blame due to poor storage and exposure to heat, but as I suspect it is the retailer that is dumping it at auction I can safely say I'll be avoiding this one. I can buy an 03 Noval LBV for a couple of dollars more so i know what I'll get next time!

[Eric Menchen]

I have had better and worse bottles this year, but I can't think of any that I would avoid. Ever? I'm going to avoid 1985 Offley VP until someone convinces me otherwise.

[Glenn E.]

I'll echo Eric's experience. I've had some magnificent Ports this year, as well as some that rated merely "good", but none that I'd truely need to avoid in the future.

FWIW my lowest rating for the year was 80, which I gave out twice. Once at the FTLOP 5th Anniversary to a 1904 Sandeman Vintage Port and once on the day before the start of the 2010 Port Harvest Tour to a Taylor Chip Dry White Port. In my ratings, 80-84 constitutes "good" so while I've had better, these were prefectly acceptable Ports.

And to be fair, others liked the Sandeman more than I did, but I don't recall anyone rating it higher than 87. And the Chip Dry just isn't my style. I'm sure someone else would probably like it much more than I did.

Worst ever? I'll have to go with an 1873 Schofield Vintage Port that I had the "pleasure" to try in NYC last year. When the bottle was initially opened it might have rated 75-79 ("average" in my ratings), but it deteriorated rapidly and within 3 hours was nearly undrinkable. I say "nearly" because I did manage to force it down... I just couldn't not finish the oldest Port I'd ever tried! (It still holds that record.)

[John M.]

Someone gave me a bottle of Rodney Strong: A True Gentleman's Port. I couldn't drink it (although the friends I was with enjoyed it). 50 Points

For something from the Duoro I'd have to say the Offley White Port: My notes: Shallow--poor aftertaste & apple cidery--too much bite/clipped finish. 79 points.

[Rune EG]

Denmark is the country here up in the north of Europe which has the highest consumption of port wine, and therefore they also have a wide selcetion of ports available. As Norwegians often have to do the transit at Kastrup airport, Copenhagen, it happens that I buy some ports there, if I find it of interest. The two worst are:

1982 Feuerheerd Vintage Port
If you have not tasted a port wine which is out-of-balance, then try this one.
On top of that; one-dimensional
I do not think there was a bottle-error, simply a very bad product.
Believe the Feuerheerd belonged to the Barros family
I also had a 1982 Sandeman VP which was not far from bottom of my list
Score in the 60s (at best)

1987 Tuke Holdsworth Hunt
Quite close to the above. Terrible and such a waste of money.
As "thin body" as you can get. Five times more spirit than fruit
I do not think there was a bottle-error, simply a very bad product.
It was a shame, as I have had so many good experiences with 1987-vintage, and have rated 1987 as the best off-year.
I do not know much about about Tuke Holdsworth, but I believe to have heard that when this bottle was produced, then Tuke Holdsworth label was owned by Ferreira. Score also in the 60s

[Roy Hersh]

I must admit this is fun to read about the bad ones, plus it will give others a good indication of what to avoid when buying bottles of Port.

[dom carter]

Quinta do Noval (i know, !!) 1975 (weak year declared to save the industry), real light port with no depth.

[Andy Velebil]

Quinta do Noval (i know, !!) 1975 (weak year declared to save the industry), real light port with no depth.

Yeah they had a bit of a tough patch during the 70's and 80's.

[Daniel R.]

Armilar Ruby - the worst I ever tried

[Lamont Huxley]

My least favorite VP that comes to mind was a Burmester 1970 I had about 2 years ago. Either it wasn't a very good wine in the first place or it's way over the hill at this point - or both.

Other than that, I'd have to say every "port" I've ever tried from California or Australia.

[Andy Velebil]

For the price it commands, the 1983 Quinta do Noval Nacional VP

at any price, 1972 Offley Boa Vista VP

[Al B.]

My least favorite VP that comes to mind was a Burmester 1970 I had about 2 years ago. Either it wasn't a very good wine in the first place or it's way over the hill at this point - or both.

I've had the Burmester 1970 a couple of times and not been impressed, but I thought both bottles were corked. That's a pity because I generally find they are solid and reliable producers.

at any price, 1972 Offley Boa Vista VP

I find the Offley '72 light and weak, but not something to avoid at all costs. I bought one last year for about USD 8 which I thought was fair value...


My AVOIDANCE tips are:
- anything non-vintage bought from a French supermarket, especially if it's pink or white port
- Dow 1977, 1978, 1979 since I just get so many corked bottles
- Borges 1980 as it has too much VA and not enough flavour (but a good bottle of their '63 can be quite drinkable)
- Cockburn 1994 has never shown well when I've had the chance to taste it
- Hutcheson 1970 is probably the worst port I haev ever encountered without there being a clear fault with the bottle
- Kopke 1983 has lots of TCA issues
- Real Vinicola 1983 was just awful
- old Taylor LBVs from the 1960s, these just don't hold well with 40+ years of bottle age

[John M.]

Since December 2010 some notable bad ports have been:

2006 Kopke LBV & 2004 Churchill's Crusted. I rated both 85. Drinkable, but better options IMHO.

There were a few other rubies that were lower (including Kopke again)

[Rob C.]

Sad to say that, along with Dow 77, i'm now very wary of Niepoort 91, 92, 94 and 97 VPs (and - by reputation only - 85), though i don't doubt their underlying quality.

Given a) the price it commands and b) how delicious the good bottles can be, i find that Taylor 77 often leads to disappointment - more than any other port i've noticed a lot of cork problems / seepage / bottle variation in bottles that i have tried at tastings (or purchased myself). I'd now be very wary of spending that kind of money on something so unreliable (even within the same case, the variation within four bottles served at a BBR at the end of last year was really quite pronounced).

In terms of more obvious candidates, Robertson Rebello Valente 83 is one i'm not in a hurry to try again, though on a sample size of 1 it's difficult to say whether it was a bad bottle or the wine is fundamentally unsound!

I'll put a word of support in for Noval 75 - i had a rather nice bottle (with several others here) earlier this year and it is probably my favourite example of 1975 to date (admittedly this is somewhat faint praise, and again on the basis of 1 bottle only).

[Moses Botbol]

1985 Hoopers VP - really bad, or at least the first bottle was. Scared to try again.

Calem - never had anything good from them

[Rob C.]

1985 Hoopers VP - really bad, or at least the first bottle was. Scared to try again.

Don't try RCV 85 either then - according to the swedish guys who post here sometimes, it is the same wine!

(though they have had it 7 times and were more forgiving than you)

[Roy Hersh]

Hi Rob,

I must be very lucky, as I've only experienced a couple of bad 1977 Dow's (TCA) and even fewer Taylor's from the same vintage. I do know that Dow has it's issues as even the Symington's master blender admitted to this (Oct. 2012), but again, I have been fortunate to have had lots of good ones. I love the 1977 Taylor when it shows well and from my own cellar, I've only had one bad bottle (TCA) and maybe two others ever, in more bottles than I can count on fingers and toes.

[Rob C.]

Hi Rob,

I must be very lucky, as I've only experienced a couple of bad 1977 Dow's (TCA) and even fewer Taylor's from the same vintage. I do know that Dow has it's issues as even the Symington's master blender admitted to this (Oct. 2012), but again, I have been fortunate to have had lots of good ones. I love the 1977 Taylor when it shows well and from my own cellar, I've only had one bad bottle (TCA) and maybe two others ever, in more bottles than I can count on fingers and toes.

Roy - a couple of Taylor 77s have been amongst my favourite bottles over the last year, but equally there were three or four bottles that - while not bad in a sense of flaw or TCA - just didn't show anything like so well (and at £70+ or whatever a pop, that's rather painful!).

It's a port i've been chasing for a couple of years at a sensible price - however, many of the cases that come up in the UK seem to bear the hall-mark of the problems that plagued the T77 in the FTLOP subscribers' op last year (here).

Until i am fully stocked on other similarly priced ports such as F70/F77 (that in my experience have shown much more consistently), i'm disinclined to splash out on it! (and what, for a wine like F70, is fully stocked...?!)

[Andy Velebil]

Adrian has stated there is bottle variation in both the 1977 Fonseca and Taylor's, more so in the Taylor's. From my own empirical evidence from opening a lot of 1977's, and from talking about this vintage (and surrounding vintages) with many producers, there is a general agreement the cork industry was/is the primary source of problems around this time frame. One can't fault the producers, as we've all seen when these bottles rock they rock. But as Rob has pointed out, there is some serious bottle variation not to mention the massive TCA issue as well.