For The Love Of Port

This was given to me by Shawn Denkler to try a bit ago. I seemed to have had a hard time finding the time to open it....but the time is now.

Here is the first TN after opening and decanting.

Very pale ruby that fades to a light pink at the edge. The nose is quite weak, but I can detect plums and strawberries. The palate is thin and lacking in fruit at the moment, but it is not overly hot given the lack of fruit. The finish is short, but not clipped.

While obviously not a blockbuster, I wonder if this may come around and blossom as it does not seem to out of balance. more TN's to come

When I tasted this 4 years ago, it was very much as you describe now. Light and weak. I thought it was on the decline. Would be interesting to see how it develops.

5 hours on:

The only real change is there's more of a carmalized note on the palate and the body has gotten a bit thicker. Definitly past its prime, but drinking surprising decent.

Ronald Wortel wrote:When I tasted this 4 years ago, it was very much as you describe now. Light and weak. I thought it was on the decline. Would be interesting to see how it develops.

Based on how it is showing 5 hours later, I would agree that it is past its prime and on the decline. But like I said, its drinking quite well so far for being over-the-hill and from a lesser house.

I recall a very similar experience with the Borges 1963 about 3 years ago. Unfortunately, I do not have a note to compare specifics but the colour and weight described by Andy sound very similar.

Has anyone had experience of a young and fruity Borges?

Derek

Its day 2 now and i must say it drinking the best right now, some 28+ hours later. Don't get me wrong, it is still over the hill, but there is some nice carmalized flavors along with some very dark (almost overripe) plums, and almost no noticeable heat. The finish is not long, but not clipped either and there is a pleasant aftertaste of dates.

My overall impression and score would be around 84 points..or on Tom's scale 3 or 4-0 (as there is no room for improvement).

It looks as though Andy and I have been using the second digit in Tom's scale differently. I have been assuming that it is the (TOM scale) rating that I would guess the wine would receive if it was drunk again with an extra 10 years of bottle age.

Unless a wine would completely collapse in 10 years, I would not expect to give it a X/0 style rating. If my taste was the same as Andy's then I would probably have given this '82 Borges a rating of something like 3/2. This would put the wine among its peers as every 100 bottles you try, 25 would be worse than this one is today, 65 would be better and 10 would be about the same. The same wine drunk again in 10 years time would compare with its peers as 15 would be worse, 75 would be better (and 10 around the same). This reflects that I think the wine is past its peak and will deteriorate over those 10 years.

I haven't been using the second digit on the Tom scale in the same way as Andy (I don't think) as Andy's comment leads me to believe that he is using the second digit to indicate the addition to the first digit.

Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood Andy's intention on the Tom score? Perhaps Tom could (again) contribute a couple of comments on his intended use for the two elements of scoring on the "Tom" scale?

Alex

Alex,

With my pea brain, I am probably using the "Tom scale" wrong.

So to clarify, if you own any of these, drink them NOW as they willl not last another 10 years.

I love the "Andy scoring system" - drink it now 'cos it ain't gonna get no better!

Excellent

.....my pea brain :wall:

When assessing the second score for a wine that is past mature, consider where it will be in ten years time.

It's rare for VP's to decline very rapidly, and I can't think of a VP that I would dock more than two points from for the second score.

Some table wines could very easily get a 4-0 score though.

Tom