1991 Warre's Vintage Port

[Al B.]

Lots of sediment in the bottle when decanted, more than I expected. Lots of blackcurrant flavours came from the wine as it was going into the decanter.

Tasted after 19 hours in the decanter. Deep rose in colour, hints of brown, looks a mature wine. Attractive and inviting nose of sweet red fruits, strawberries and redcurrants, with a touch of alcohol. Dry into the mouth with a sweetness coming slightly later. Mint and liquorice dominate the initial tastes. Red fruits and sweetness come through on the lovely and complex mid palate, with hints of dried fruits and tertiary flavours mixed in with the redcurrants. Thick textured wine with lovely acidic balance. Alcoholic burn on swallowing precedes a spicey finish with a good aftertaste of liquorice and dates that lasts a while. This is a wine that is drinking well today and - my guess - is probably close to its peak. 90/100.

[Tom Archer]

my guess - is probably close to its peak

I recall someone observing that Cockburn '91 was 'fully mature'

Is this vintage a bit forward? - I wonder..

I have a lone bottle of Warre '91 - I might put it on the drinking list

Tom

[Kurt Wieneke]

I have had the 1991 Graham's, Dow's and Smith Woodhouse over the past year. The Graham's is probably the most robust of all these, and is in IMO still on the way up and these should be held for many years. The Dow's and Smith Woodhouse are beginning to enter into a nice (American) drinking window, but of course will be plateau'ed for many years to come. I tasted the '91 Cockburn's about 3 years back and it was past its prime even back then. I have not drank the Warre's, but I think in general with the '91s that alot is going to depend on the storage conditions.

[Frederick Blais]

Regarding the 1991 vintage, many wines are starting to be at their peek now. From what I've tasted, Dow's in early 2005 was much less evolved than the 2 Graham's I've had in late 2005. I agree that Cockburn was even more evolved.

[Philip Harvey]

I recently cracked open a Quinta do Vesuvio 91 and was pretty disappointed. It didn't seem to have any real life or lift left in it - just a mass of sweet fruit but lacking the tannins to suggest a long life. Could have been a dud I guess. I'd be interested if anyone's tasted a QdV 91 recently.

Philip

[NickA]

I actually preferred the QdV a fews years back to how it shows today. I hope it's just an awkward spot, I've plenty left. But with Vesuvio it was definitely past best from the bottle I tried, but that could be either just the bottle, or the fact that it was still in the process of making the best of the existing vines and infrastructure and it wasn't up to today's standards (quite likely I'd say), and Warre's won't improve although shouldn't drop off a cliff. There's a vegetal note which is coming out in a number some of these wines, which either adds interest or detracts depending on my mood...but for me this is on the drink me now not too much later vintage.

[Tom Archer]

There is a theory that after a flush of innocent youth, vintage port enters a difficult age (think of Harry Enfield's Kevin...) before emerging as a sophisticated adult.

One of those theories that's quite difficult to prove or disprove without an extended timeline of regular and consistently recorded tastings of the same wine over a generation - which has probably been done a few times, but I've never seen.

Will the early Vesuvio's blossom in another five years or so? There's no obvious reason why not :)

Tom

[Al B.]

My second bottle of this wine and one with as much sediment in as the previous. This was a bit of an "emergency" decant so it was not opened as far in advance of drinking as I would normally try to do.

The nose was pretty closed, not much other than a faint whiff of blackcurrants. The fruit came into the mouth but then the acidity started to dominate everything in a fairly unpleasant and off-putting way. I called the wine "spikey". There was some mid-palate complexity, but nothing that compensated for the unbalanced acidity. The aftertaste was acceptable, but short and not well developed. This was very disappointing and nowhere near as good as the bottle I had last year. On Tom's scale, I would put this as a 1 for current drinking but really have no clue as to where it will go in the future - it could be that this was a bad bottle (but came from the same source and provenance as my previous bottle) or that 3 hours in the decanter is nowhere near enough time for this wine. I will come back to this tomorrow night. 1/?

I wonder if this is a wine going through its "awkward phase". Tom - have you tried your Warre '91 yet?

Alex

[Al B.]

The bottle that I opened on March 26 was revisted in the evening of March 27, 26 hours after decanting, and was much improved. The nose had opened out a little and was a lovely perfumed mix of rose petals and blackcurrants. In the mouth the acidity had integrated much better and was now supporting the fruit rather than overwhelming it, allowing plenty of mid-palate development of the black currant and black cherry flavours. The aftertaste was a long, lingering dark chocolate that was so enjoyable it was worth taking a sip between each of the pans that needed to be scrubbed clean just to enjoy the aftertaste again. This was a much improved showing, but I would still rate this VP a little below the average I would expect to drink during the year and still can't really figure out how it will change over time. I'll open another in about a year. 4/4 or 88/100

[Tom Archer]

Well, after a few stays of execution, my lone Warre '91 finally met it's corkscrew..

At first sip I was not impressed - the wine seemed totally lacking in composure, and I wondered if it could pull itself together.

After 12 hours it was more reassuring, and after 36 hours I feel I can judge it fairly.

In the glass it has reasonable colour, but a rather watery edge. On the nose it has fruit, but also heavy on spirit. On the palate it is recognisable as Warre, but MUCH too fiery, it's modest finish eclipsed by the residual stinging on my tongue..

As it stands it seems to be compromised by more spirit than it can handle, and it also seems a little immature still.

To score:

For immediate gratification, this is a reasonable wine, but no star. It is not in the bottom quartile of all vintage ports, but escapes that humiliation by only a small margin. I give it a 3.

Where's it going?

It is not yet fully mature - another five years or so is needed in that regard, so one point more for the future.

Score 3-4

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Thank guys,

i was looking at picking up a few, but unless the price is right, I'll pass.

[Ronald Wortel]

Fully agree Tom. I poured this port blind to a pretty experienced taster last year, and he guessed it to be LBV. Never a good sign...

[Todd Pettinger]

Todd moves his '91 Vargellas to the back of his meagre "cellar under the stairs."

[Tom Archer]

As a post script, the Warre's spirit did finally integrate, but for a top name from a declared year, this is still a poor effort. The last glasses from the decanter tended to highight it's lack of maturity.

~~~~

Tuck that Vargellas right to the back of the cupboard Todd, in case I call round and talk you into opening it!

Tom

[Todd Pettinger]

Tuck that Vargellas right to the back of the cupboard Todd, in case I call round and talk you into opening it!

Tom[/quote]

Tom,
It's to the back of the stairs. One day I will get a picture posted here and IF you should ever make it out my way, I will try to do better than a 91 Vargellas, although I am rapidly discovering that California in particular, but I am guessing most of the US of A seems to have an outstanding selections of VP with prices that make me want to cry.

You do have to promise to bring something old and available your way, because I guarantee that I won't be able to find it out my way!

Todd