For The Love Of Port

I still haven't digested what and how I should post on the TN forum, but I'll get around to that soon! (Must read the instructions again when sobre... ) Meanwhile, here are my impressions on tonight's tasting of 2003s:

Un-blind . These were decanted about 2,5h before the tasting started and therefore the alcohol wasn't as integrated as it could have been. But for the most part, the flavours were beautifully evident despite the noticable heat.
Niepoort Secundum 2003

Corked. But before the TCA completely took over, I thought it a rather lovable little wine: a rather modern and fruit forward style, easily approachable, no great complexity but fun to drink. Unfortunatley 10 minutes later I found it rather undrinkable.

Sandeman 2003

Initially the nose was a bit confected. It became a bit lactic/milky with time - the nose didn't appeal to me. The palate was much better: big fruit, soft but plentiful tannins - balanced structure.

Delaforce 2003

Blue toned and floral, like a little brother to the Fonseca style. Juicy, herbal, soft on the mid-palate, but pleasantly tannic on the aftertaste. A very nice little port!

Quinta do Pégo 2003

A very primary and expressive nose with a prominent note of honey - seems a bit confected. The palate isn't bad at all: very sweet, a bit lighter concentration than the previous, nice structure but not IMO for the long term. A very fair port.

Quinta do Portal 2003

Black. A modern style Port: very approachable now despite being brooding and primary and opulently fruity. It is very dark toned and liquorice-like. The palate is very sweet yet is still in balance: powerful in fruit yet not in structure. I rather like this, but I do have some doubts as to how it will age.

Offley Boa Vista 2003

Soft and sweet, red toned and full of strawberry jam - I very much like this one (as I have reported before!). The palate is balanced in the fruit and tannin and acid - nothing sticks out either for good or bad. I.e. it's a fair wine: something I wouldn't mind having in my cellar.

Quinta do Crasto 2003

I rather liked this in previous tastes. This time, in this company, it seemed rather overdone and cumbersome. Dark and confected, overly sweet and not structured enough. It was enjoyable despite my note, but enjoyable is all it was. Not great; not bad.

Burmester 2003

This was my least favourite of the day. The nose was weird with a rancid buttery note and bisquity. The palate was rather better with red toned fruit, elegant structure, yet marred by a spirity edge. Not to my taste.

Ramos Pinto 2003

This is a wine rather to my tastes. The nose is herbal and savoury and perhaps a touch rustic - a very "old" style Port. The palate is very tannic, but to my tastes (I suspect I am a minority in this) it is sufficently fruity to withstand that. To me this is balanced and very enjoyable albeit very young, but I think it might not be to the taste of the majority of drinkers.

Niepoort 2003

A peach-stone -like nose - very refreshing, mineral and herbal and lovable. The palate is very tannic and extracted yet light on its feet refreshing. Excellent wine IMO!

Warre's 2003

A gentlemanly Port: sweet but not overdone, tannic but not overdone, elegant. It is true to the house style. Very good.

Croft 2003

A rather confected nose but with depth and some nice herbal nuances. It is very sweet and rather confected though it is also rather acidic for Port. Very nice, but not really the style that I look for in Ports.

Quinta do Vesuvio 2003

Stylistically this is very similar to the 1994 that I recently reported on. It is blue toned and floral in its fruit, elegant yet packed full of stuff. It is a style that begs me to take another sniff and taste to find out what it is like, rather than a style that immediately flaunts its stuff. Very nice!

Graham's 2003

This is rather primary and grapey, but it does have some depth. Frankly, it is a disappointment for what Graham's usually is like - it is a bit simple.

Quinta do Noval 2003

Deep and savoury, with stone dust minerality and peach stone. Oak is noticable but not annoying. It has lovely structure and is refreshing despite the year and despite being very full bodied. Lovely.

Quinta do Noval Nacional 2003

Wow, this is good! Like the previous except more minerality and less jamminess.

Fonseca 2003

At first sniff it was rather lovely and typical Fonseca in its blue toned fruit and floral qualities. Unfortunately, 10 mins later it was obviously corked. What a shame - the first sniff upon opening seemed a fantastic Fonseca.

Dow 2003

I usually love the slightly drier style of Dow. But this isn't Dow as I know it. It's not bad at all - in fact it is a very pleasant Port, but it is rather sweeter than expected. It has fine depth and I think it will develop complexity with age, but I didn't like it enough to seek some out for myself though usually the property is one I like very much.

Taylor 2003

The nose is full of stone dush and strawberries - rather reminds me of warmish climate Rieslings! It is mineral and rather lovable. The palate is sweet and mineral and has noticable structure and very lovably prominent tannins. Very nice!

-O-

Excellent notes Otto! I have only had the fortune to try one of the ports on your list: the 2003 Noval. I found it excellent as well, although I was a bit taken aback when I read your "peach-stone" thrown in there. I have not experienced this particular nuance with any port, nevermind with this Noval. However, my novice palate may begin to pick out some nuances such as this as it (hopefully) refines :)

Thanks for the notes on all these wonderful 2003s.

Todd

Awesome notes! Thanks for posting. Too bad about the Fonseca. It's my wine of the vintage (along with the Noval Nacional). I agree with you on Crasto... good but not great. The Ramos Pinto is a sleeper of the vintage.... a real achievement. I totally agree on almost all of your notes. For me the Taylor's is a disappointment -- my wife put it best - "How could they bottle this as Vintage Port?". Nuf said.

-Dave-

dspriggs wrote:For me the Taylor's is a disappointment -- my wife put it best - "How could they bottle this as Vintage Port?". Nuf said.

Oh my - was it truly that bad, or is it just so young that perhaps the tasting now is nothing what it will be in 30-40-50 years, when (hopefully) it is showing its stuff?

I truly hope that it is better than what you have indicated Dave... I have a case of this for my son in the local wine store's long-term storage.
Perhaps I need to buy one to sample???

Todd

tpettinger wrote:

dspriggs wrote: I truly hope that it is better than what you have indicated Dave... I have a case of this for my son in the local wine store's long-term storage.
Perhaps I need to buy one to sample???

Todd

I wish it was. I've had this a few times and am totally underwhelmed with it. It's not *bad*, but it's not up to the level it should be (all in my opinion of course). It was simply hollow in the mid palate with a short finish. Maybe it's closed, but no other 2003's are. There are many 2003's that blow this away - Niepoort, Noval, Fonseca, and Vesuvio are all far better wines. Tasted alone it's OK, but side-by-side with any of the other top wines and it becomes clear. I'd love to see this wine turn around and surprise me.

-Dave-

Otto,

Thanks for your very fine impressions of many 2003s that you tasted!

My only comments on the specifics are:

a. I'd bet the ranch that the Quinta do Portal will age beautifully. It had all the stuffing at birth, through infancy and even as a toddler the tannins and acidity are just what the doctor ordered for a long life ahead.

b. The Dow's IS sweeter than normal, although according to the stats ... not by much. That said, it is a wonderful VP and was one of the top half dozen of the vintage from where I sit.

I said it in my cask sample report and stick by it. The 2003 has many similarities to the 1966 vintage Port (overall) and I look forward to drinking a few of them if my daughter let's me drink part of her stash, later in life.

"Quinta do Noval Nacional 2003

Wow, this is good! Like the previous except more minerality and less jamminess. "

Almost Parkeresque! Yes, I do read other sites.

Dave, I've also tried the Taylor's 2003 and found it to be one of the few VP's of this vintage that is really hard and tight in this early stage. True to the Taylor's style I would say, as they are always unapproachable in their youth and take a long time to come around. When I first tasted the port, the acidity and tannins literally brought tears to my eyes. For me a sign that it will go a long way.

Thanks for the TN's Otto! It's always good to see notes from this kind of comparitive tastings!

Almost Parkeresque! Yes, I do read other sites.

Reading is great, tasting is better. 8)

tpettinger wrote: [...] although I was a bit taken aback when I read your "peach-stone" thrown in there. I have not experienced this particular nuance with any port, nevermind with this Noval.

Todd, descriptors tend to be very personal - I wouldn't worry not having experienced it. I am sure you have experienced that savoury, refreshing quality that many Ports have on the nose. To me, that smells like a peach stone.

I found it odd to hear about the bad experiences with the Taylor. I find it the hardest Port to drink young, but I did think it had great potential and was typical to the property in every way.

Roy, I remember commenting on a previous taste that the Portal should age well. This bottle, though a fun drink, just didn't have the tannins I remembered it to have on my previous taste. There aren't great wines, only great bottles. And this was a lovely drink just now.

Just a few questions: should I be posting this sort of tasting impressions on the new TN forum even though they aren't full tasting notes? If so, should I put up one thread for each separate Port or should I post the whole tasting as one thread?

-O-(confused about the Parkeresque)

"-O-(confused about the Parkeresque)"

I was pinching somebody else's gag:

http://www.wine-pages.com/ubb/ultimateb ... 1;t=011546

but you didn't understand that one either. Edward's gag concerns the terminology at the beginning of the review, suggesting that is exactly what Robert Parker might write.

Alex, thanks for the explanation! I haven't read so much Parkerisms to know that it would have been an expression he might use. In fact, it is an Andrewstevensonianism.

-o-

Otto,

I think the gulf between British and Finnish humour is too wide so I will step in an help you out

I think the "Parkeresque" comment was intended to convey the message that your introductory comment is exactly what Parker would not say.

This is an example of the reason why most of the English speaking world has not managed to master other languages - because the use of our language is too confusing to deal with on it's own :?

Derek

With language in mind, its probably the wrong time to mention that all us English folk used to wear Parkers as Children! And ride Choppers

Alan