For The Love Of Port

My first bottle from a case split with Eric M. and Bryan H. The label says it was bottled and shipped by Paten & Company (Peterborough) Ltd.

Decanted at 10:00 am for dinner at 6:00 pm. Not a lot of the really firm sediment in the bottle, but a significant amount of the thick sludge-like stuff.

1970 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port

Color: Medium dark garnet with maybe just a hint of brick. Very clear in the glass - I managed to keep the fine sediment out of the decanter.

Nose: Very ripe strawberries, some more generic fruits like a fruit compote, and a significant amount of alcohol. There's something... dry?... and fruity as well, but not dried fruit. It's a light and airy note that's softly sweet. Of note, no trace of anything that screams "Taylor" like Christmas spices or black pepper.

Palate: At first taste, which was after ~4 hours in the decanter, quite hot and sharp. It wasn't looking good for dinner. But over the next 4 hours it started to mellow out a little bit. By dinner (D+8 hours) it was still pretty hot, but the sharpness had subsided and was replaced by a peppery note that actually complemented the heat, giving a firey impression. The fruits were neither bold nor soft, but rather struck a balance right in the middle. Mostly a mix of ripe strawberry and ripe red raspberry. Again, not a trace of that trademark Taylor spice. Even the peppery note seemed to be more related to the alcohol than to Vargellas. After dinner and a pause in festivities (D+12 hours) the heat had continued to mellow but the fruits had flattened a bit. This morning at D+24 hours everything is much more nicely integrated and smooth, but it's still bordering on hot.

Finish: The finish is fruity, warm, and fairly smooth. The length is good but not exceptional. Several different impressions of green (nice ones) come and go throughout.

Score: 92 points. While still excellent, this bottle fell short of expectations for a 1970 Taylor. The flavor was fine and could have been rated higher, but the persistent heat bothered me enough to drag down the score. It wasn't obnoxious but it definitely detracted from the experience.

I hope your subsequent bottles show much better. It would be interesting to hear if the other two guys who split the case with you have opened bottles and had similar experiences or not.

Roy Hersh wrote:I hope your subsequent bottles show much better. It would be interesting to hear if the other two guys who split the case with you have opened bottles and had similar experiences or not.

My experience was similar on the first day, but unlike Glenn's bottle, turned for significant improvement on the second.

I think that the next time I open one of these I'm going to shoot for 14-16 hours in the decanter. After Eric's bottle I thought that 8-10 hours would do it, and while that was an improvement over the 4-6 hour mark it still wasn't stellar. Much better at +24 hours, but still not up to expectations for such a normally epic Port.

I'm not really complaining because like Eric said we knew what we were buying into when we put in that lowball bid and the end result is still an excellent Port. I'm just trying to figure out how to optimize the experience.

This is one of those cases where the words aren't as important as the number. It's a 92 to me, which is an excellent Port. The words I wrote express some mild disappointment that we didn't get totally lucky and sneak off with a pristine case of '70 Taylor for a song. We did still get a great deal and I look forward to my remaining 3 bottles.

I still have one Oporto-bottled '70 Taylor in my stash, too, and the last one of those was a legit 95.

Thanks Eric.

Glenn, your point is well taken and I can understand that going in with eyes wide open and knowing you may wind up with 92 point VP that is known to achieve more ... for a great price ... does serve a very distinct purpose. I know lots of people who do exactly the same thing, willingly and happily.

I just "found" some of this that was still in the decanter from Christmas. I guess we didn't quite finish it and I didn't notice.

So... it's a 40+ year old Port and it's been in the decanter for almost 2 weeks. I can't still be good, can it?

As it turns out, yes it can. In fact I'd say it's about as good as it was on Christmas Day. It's no longer hot, which is a big plus. The fruits are a bit flat, but not entirely so. There might even be a bit of that trademark Taylor spice showing up now, but it's faint and very definitely on the sweeter and lighter end of the spice spectrum. On the down side, it has picked up a very slight bitter note in the mouth and the finish. It's also not as full in the mouth as it was before. The green impressions in the finish are no longer as nice as before and are part of the bitter note there.

Even so... after being in a decanter for 2 weeks it's not just drinkable, it's actually still excellent. I'd probably still give it 90 or maybe 91 points.

Not too shabby!

Glenn E. wrote:I just "found" some of this that was still in the decanter from Christmas. I guess we didn't quite finish it and I didn't notice.

Bad, bad Glenn

Ok, time to rib Glenn!

It is tasting notes like that, which really mess up the average scores in the TNDB. A note was sufficient from a freakazoid science experiment. It is one thing to leave a 1970 VP in a decanter for a couple of weeks (but I'm still trying to figure that one out ... this ain't Madeira) but another entirely to then score it!?!?!?!

Roy Hersh wrote:Ok, time to rib Glenn!

It is tasting notes like that, which really mess up the average scores in the TNDB. A note was sufficient from a freakazoid science experiment. It is one thing to leave a 1970 VP in a decanter for a couple of weeks (but I'm still trying to figure that one out ... this ain't Madeira) but another entirely to then score it!?!?!?!

Last I checked, the TNDB only counted scores from the initial post, so what I added after 2 weeks shouldn't be messing anything up.

Yes, the TNDB only uses the initial post. So any replies to that initial post are not used by the TNDB.

Praise the Lord!

David Spriggs wrote:Yes, the TNDB only uses the initial post. So any replies to that initial post are not used by the TNDB.

Unless I split it out