"The Fiancee" here! Thanks everyone for steering Kelly right. Reading her posts I'm concerned that shes a more sophisticated port drinker than I am!!
She ended up getting me a 1983 Graham's and a1983 Ferreira "Quito de Seixo".
Last night we popped open the Graham's as we couldn't wait. Some background... we live in the Santa Cruz mountains which has a significant wine-producing economy not unlike Sonoma and Napa counties an hour or so away. So our exposure to port up until now has been CA-style fortified "port" wines and "Late Harvest" wines, etc. I gather that opinions on those styles may not be generally favorable among those in the know, but to be honest with you... we've really enjoyed them up till now; they're our gateway port, if you will. As Kelly mentioned we've also tried some port by the glass at restaurants on occasion and, generally, been disappointed.
Anyway... the 1983 Graham's was... fantastic. I won't fake it: I lack the vocabulary, and maybe even the palate, to really "review" the experience. But I can, at least, compare it with the young California "ports" I'm used to. For one; I see now why port tongs exist... because I wrecked the cork trying to extract it with a conventional corkscrew. It broke into no less than three sections which, thankfully, I managed to extract without TOO much falling into the port... but some did
![Newbie [imnewhere.gif]](./images/smilies/imnewhere.gif)
. Initially I found the smell to be slightly astringent, and I was immediately nervous that my first quality port experience was going to be not unlike the restaurant-port I've had before; that is, tasting like a glass of dessert wine with a shot of rubbing alcohol in it. However the
taste completely changes that opinion, absolutely none of the astringency comes through.
However my initial taste is besides the point, as we let is decant for 4 or 5 hours before really tucking in. At that point the astringency was mostly gone and I found it to have all the sweetness of the CA "port" wines we like, but without being cloying as they often can. I don't know how to articulate the difference, but the Graham's has none of the "syrup"-like qualities that sometimes overwhelm us if we're having more than a glass or two. Simply put, fantastic. Maybe someday I'll be able to describe the flavor, but I think I'd just embarrass myself to try right now.
... now here's the interesting twist...
For my birthday dinner tonight we went to my favorite Silicon Valley restaurant; Alexander's Steakhouse. The place is
completely out of my price range, so we only go when on raise/promotion/bonus/tax return day, but its a FANTASTIC joint that wins a Wine Spectator award for best wine list nearly every year. And wouldn't you know it... it had a 1983 Cockburn on the list (for $40 a glass

)... but hell, its just a tax return, and my birthday, right?!
This may be swimming upstream, but of the two... I think I preferred the Graham's. The Cockburn had many of the same qualities and tastes I enjoyed, but in addition it had a consistent taste of smoke, or tobacco, or wood, on top of the fruit/sweetness from start to finish. It was not in the least bit unpleasant, but it was a more complex flavor, something to be contemplated rather than simply enjoyed while doing other things. I'm sure I'm offending people here with my imprecision, but that's the best I can do. We definitely both liked it, all things considered, but I think we'd reach for the Graham's to just casually sip on for your average weekday.
Anyway - thanks to all you folks who steered Kelly right. This was a phenomenal present and the start to a great way to lose lots of money...
![Toast [cheers.gif]](./images/smilies/cheers.gif)