For The Love Of Port

Tom Archer wrote:No evidence of that. It was the fourth bottle drawn from a case I bought in 2007. There's a steady - but rapid - evolution evident, and if it continues at the same pace, this wine will not be as enduring as many have expected..

Interesting, as I've seen no such evolution, let alone rapid evolution. 1985 Fonseca is still the beast it has always been, at least from the bottles that I've been lucky enough to taste.

Glenn E. wrote:Interesting, as I've seen no such evolution, let alone rapid evolution. 1985 Fonseca is still the beast it has always been, at least from the bottles that I've been lucky enough to taste.

But at the 1985 horizontal, we did have one mediocre 1985 Fonseca and one very good one. Those, however, came from different sources as I understand it.

Eric Menchen wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Interesting, as I've seen no such evolution, let alone rapid evolution. 1985 Fonseca is still the beast it has always been, at least from the bottles that I've been lucky enough to taste.

But at the 1985 horizontal, we did have one mediocre 1985 Fonseca and one very good one. Those, however, came from different sources as I understand it.

Yes, they did. And I rated the "off" bottle a mere 94 points, and the good bottle 95+. (Served blind, yet according to my notes I was still able to identify both bottles. And while my memory isn't 100%, I don't believe we were told that a 2nd F85 had been slipped into day 2 until it was revealed.)

At 30 years old some bottle variation is bound to start showing up. That in no way implies a "steady - but rapid - evolution" in the Port.

I do agree with Tom that 1983 may end up being hailed as the better year overall, but it will not be because F85 is fading. 1985 still has - and likely always will have - a small selection of better Ports than 1983, but below the top echelon 1983 seems to be stronger as a whole. At least for my taste.

And mine.