1994 VP Horizontal Tasting

[Eric Menchen]

Memorial Day weekend I hosted several dinners at my home along with nine other FTLOPers and people I've met on Roy's tours. I've hosted 12 people before, but 10 works a bit better in my dining room, and that gives everyone a nice pour of Port. On Saturday we tasted 1994 Ports. These were tasted blind. I knew what was in the lineup, but not the order. I just gave bagged bottles to Glenn and Stewart who decanted them. We did find one bad bottle upon decanting the first round of eight. I pulled another bottle that was going to be for round two and substituted it in. Stewart and I revealed the bad bottle to ourselves, and Glenn might have been there for that. I checked my inventory and saw that I had another, and pulled it to go into the second round. So we knew there was a Quinta do Noval in the second round of eight, but not where. A few people knew some of the others bottles in the lineup, but not all of them, as they contributed bottles and we didn't want to conflict.

1. Quinta do Vesuvio: Deep dark aromas, with prune, black plum, and leather. So young and powerful, with so much fresh fruit. Awesome power! This might be lacking in complexity, but maybe that's just because it hits so hard to notice the nuance. Initially scored 94+ points. Later it was still powerful, showed some chocolate, and some complexity revealed itself. I and several other people guessed this to be Quinta do Vesuvio. 96 points.
2. Smith Woodhouse: Lighter aromas than the first wine tasted (Quinta do Vesuvio), but shows blackberry, some cellar wood, and possibly strawberry. This is also a little thinner bodied, and more subtle than the first wine with lightly fruit flavors like strawberry. The flavor also showed some cinnamon, and hint of Red Hots cinnamon. I guessed Warres. 92-93 points.
3. Churchill: The aroma has a hint of vegetable, maybe green pepper. The body is even a little thinner than the previous wine (Smith Woodhous). The sweetness is unbalanced, and this tastes candy-like, like a Jolly Rancher red. 91 points.
4. Taylor: Warm and savory aromas, and this is definitely a higher alcohol forward wine. But tasting a bigger sip, it is coming around. It is also warm in the finish. With time it is improving and adding weight. Big tannins. I think Glenn guessed Taylor, and that sounded good to me. 92 points.
5. Dow: Smells more of developed (ripe and possibly oxidized) fruits like fig and raisin; along with leather and dried leaf. Later it smelled a bit funky. But luckily it tastes better than it smells with respect to that funk. Lots of warmth made this one remind me of Taylor. Initially scored 92-93 points, but with time the funk went away and this became more powerful and improved. Give this wine more time. 94+ points.
6. Smith Woodhouse Late Bottled Vintage: Pleasant alcohol warmth, with eucalyptus, cherry, and black plum. Tastes of spicy pepper and cinnamon, with that warmth that I smelled showing up in the mouth as well. A bigger sip shows a powerful fruit bomb with lots of tannins. This is great wine for the long term and I think will be better in the future. 94+ points. (A ringer in the lineup that fared really well in my opinion.)
7. Heitz Cellar: Swirling gives some off rotted aroma. Without swirling, it is more like green pepper and a general vegetable character. This is thinner bodied and pleasant, but not great. Then there was an odd off-flavor, and something that tasted of artificial sweetener. Yet even later it improved and some peach showed up. 90 points. Stewart was the only one to guess that this might not be a real Port, and was correct. For the record, it is labeled Vintage Port, but is of course from the Napa Valley.
8. Quinta do Crasto: Smells of blackberry, tar, and creosote. Very tannic and syrupy, with chocolate and roast flavors. Good tannins and acidity as well suggest lots of future potential for this wine. 93 points now.
9. Niepoort: Smells of stewed prunes, cherries, and a little bit like lab chemicals. More chemical character came later. Fairly sweet. Not terrible, but not great either. 90 points.
10. Romariz: Deep and savory aromas. The flavor is nice, but fairly dry, with cinnamon and spice. With time this became more powerful and improved. Lots of tannins and really nice acidity, orange and lemon citric acid. 92-93 points.
11. Burmester: Musty aroma, not terribly bad, but not great for sure. This is medium bodied and flavor is better than the aroma, but overall this is a mediocre wine. 88 points.
12. Fonseca: Sweet and fruity aromas, with raspberry and boysenberry. This is jammy concentrated, and a bit hot in flavor, but tasty too. It is improving, with nice body and good fruit. There are lots of tannins, and juicy acid. Give this some time, as I think it will be better in the future. 92 points now.
13. Warre: Big grape jam aroma with a little bit of tarragon. Lots of tannins, nice medium+ body. A really nice wine with some aging potential; but it is pretty straightforward and perhaps could use some more complexity. Getting better with time. 92+ points.
14. Graham: Smells of leather and leaves, and fruit leather as well. Very tasty, and a bigger sip was even better. 93 points.
15. Delaforce: Smells of brettanomyces--definitely funky. Fortunately I'm one that finds brett not necessarily off-putting, and nice in low levels. Medium bodied, with good tannins and acidity. There is, however, too much heat to make this great. 90 points.
16. Quinta do Noval: Smells of jammy, oxidized fruit, and a bit rotten, like sous bois, but worse. Later I (and everyone else as I recall) found this to be flawed. It was funky bad, like rotten sweat socks. Not scored. (So it turns out there was not one, but two bad bottles of Noval. And I did not purchase them together. They came from different sources.)

[Mike J. W.]

Nice write-up, Eric, thank you. The Vesuvio is not a surprise. I just finished a bottle and it was very good, but like you could tell that it's still young and will improve over time. In my opinion, the Crasto is a sleeper from the '94 Vintage. It's very good and is still improving. I had a Graham's a few months back and that was delicious...even better than the Vesuvio; although with time I suspect the Vesuvio will outshine it.

The surprising thing for me are both the Fonseca and the Taylor's They were the twin darlings of the '94 harvest and yet right now, both seem to be in a bit of a funk for them. I have no doubt they'll improve over time, but you'd think with almost 30 years bottling age they'd be coming around.

[Scott Esterly]

I love the 1994 vintage. What a special event this must've been.

[Andy Velebil]

Nice write-up, Eric, thank you. The Vesuvio is not a surprise. I just finished a bottle and it was very good, but like you could tell that it's still young and will improve over time. In my opinion, the Crasto is a sleeper from the '94 Vintage. It's very good and is still improving. I had a Graham's a few months back and that was delicious...even better than the Vesuvio; although with time I suspect the Vesuvio will outshine it.

The surprising thing for me are both the Fonseca and the Taylor's They were the twin darlings of the '94 harvest and yet right now, both seem to be in a bit of a funk for them. I have no doubt they'll improve over time, but you'd think with almost 30 years bottling age they'd be coming around.

Regarding the F94 and T94 in a funk. The 1994’s, generally, remained very open and relatively approachable for the better part of 20 some years before they started shutting down. Rather unusually long by most VP standards. The past decade or so has then seen them go into what appears to be a rather long and irregular shut down phase. Now, at varying times, they are starting to come out of those phases.

I say that as your comments don’t surprise me. I currently approach and open 1994’s carefully and with the knowledge they may not show perfectly. Knowing they may still have not recovered totally from a shut down phase.

As an example; I find Vesuvio still a bit shut down whereas Dows is back open for business.

Noval has also finally started to come back around and drinking very nicely again as well. But when it shut down it was a hard closure and not enjoyable.

[Glenn E.]

Eric's scores were much more even for this tasting than mine were. I had a couple of really surprising numbers:

97 Vesuvio - one of the best bottles I've had; Stewart disagreed
96-97 Smith Woodhouse - also one of the best bottles I've ever had
93 Churchill
95 Taylor
94 Dow
92 Smith Woodhouse LBV
89-90 Heitz (California) - first time I've ever failed to call a non-Portuguese ringer, but I did note it was "not right but not wrong"
91 Quinta do Crasto
93 Niepoort
91 Quinta da Romariz
91 Burmester
90 Fonseca - whaaat?!?
92 Warre
88 Graham - !! no way
85 Delaforce
NR Noval

I guessed the Vesuvio and Niepoort, but thought the Smith Woodhouse was the Fonseca and thought that the Taylor was a Gould Campbell. I also thought the Smith Woodhouse LBV was a Dow VP.

Normally, I'd have had the Fonseca and Graham probably 7 points higher than I had them at this tasting. They were not right, but also not flawed. Probably just in a really closed down state so not showing like I know they can.

[Mike J. W.]

Eric's scores were much more even for this tasting than mine were. I had a couple of really surprising numbers:

97 Vesuvio - one of the best bottles I've had; Stewart disagreed
96-97 Smith Woodhouse - also one of the best bottles I've ever had
93 Churchill
95 Taylor
94 Dow
92 Smith Woodhouse LBV
89-90 Heitz (California) - first time I've ever failed to call a non-Portuguese ringer, but I did note it was "not right but not wrong"
91 Quinta do Crasto
93 Niepoort
91 Quinta da Romariz
91 Burmester
90 Fonseca - whaaat?!?
92 Warre
88 Graham - !! no way
85 Delaforce
NR Noval

I guessed the Vesuvio and Niepoort, but thought the Smith Woodhouse was the Fonseca and thought that the Taylor was a Gould Campbell. I also thought the Smith Woodhouse LBV was a Dow VP.

Normally, I'd have had the Fonseca and Graham probably 7 points higher than I had them at this tasting. They were not right, but also not flawed. Probably just in a really closed down state so not showing like I know they can.

I find it really interesting how scores can be all over the map on Port. For example, you scored the Graham's at 88 (which had to pain you) and I had a bottle a few months back that I scored at 94 points. I know that storage etc. impacts any individual bottle, but it still never fails to surprise me at the diversity of scores. No one is wrong with the scores because the factors involved in the quality of any one bottle are innumerable.

[Eric Menchen]

I know that storage etc. impacts any individual bottle, but it still never fails to surprise me at the diversity of scores. No one is wrong with the scores because the factors involved in the quality of any one bottle are innumerable.

And personal taste is an issue. In many blind tastings I regularly like Graham less than Glenn does. Yet here I scored it a very respectable 93 compared to Glenn's 88. What this does tell me is that this was an very atypical bottle for Graham, going back to your issue of any individual bottle.

[LOUISSS J]

About 1 month ago I opened a 1994 Dow Vintage and it was very ordinary. Not bad but not great either. A fairly simple Port with little fruit and quite mineral. I tasted it when it was opened and after 8 hours of decanting it was still ordinary. I tried to like it though (I knew what I was drinking) but no...
I still have 4 left so next time (in around 7 or 8 years) will probably be better.

[Bradley Bogdan]

Great write up, sounds like a blast of a tasting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moses Botbol]

About 1 month ago I opened a 1994 Dow Vintage and it was very ordinary. Not bad but not great either. A fairly simple Port with little fruit and quite mineral. I tasted it when it was opened and after 8 hours of decanting it was still ordinary. I tried to like it though (I knew what I was drinking) but no...
I still have 4 left so next time (in around 7 or 8 years) will probably be better.

Oh no! Dow was considered a top 3-4 of the vintage at one point. Could be in an odd phase. I wouldn't write those off just yet.

[Andy Velebil]

About 1 month ago I opened a 1994 Dow Vintage and it was very ordinary. Not bad but not great either. A fairly simple Port with little fruit and quite mineral. I tasted it when it was opened and after 8 hours of decanting it was still ordinary. I tried to like it though (I knew what I was drinking) but no...
I still have 4 left so next time (in around 7 or 8 years) will probably be better.

Oh no! Dow was considered a top 3-4 of the vintage at one point. Could be in an odd phase. I wouldn't write those off just yet.

Very well could be. 1994’s now seem to be beating to their own drum after being so approachable for so long. then they finally went into a shut down phase, came out and maybe back shut down again?? It just seems so random for 1990’s VP’s now. Whereas in the past shut down phase was more predictable.

*I don’t have enough data points on 1992’s to include them. 1997 Noval, which was a rockstar up to a decade or so ago has been in a on/off rough spot for quite a long time. But 97’s in general have been rather slow out of the gate but are gaining traction finally.

I would love to have a discussion with some senior members of the trade and hear their thoughts on why the 90’s VP’s seemingly are behaving so different than previous ones. Jo