For The Love Of Port

Oh no, we now have proof. Derek thinks it is Port.

Glenn E. wrote:Oh no, we now have proof. Derek thinks it is Port.

Michael M. wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Oh no, we now have proof. Derek thinks it is Port.

I don't think I ever claimed that it wasn't Port, just that it doesn't taste or smell (or look) like Port :devil:

Shawn wrote:

The 1983 Cockburn must have been bottled in several batches with Roy having a case of the bad batch.

Shawn,

My bottles were from more three sources over the years. We also had a TCA infected bottle in London recently and a plethora of others here have reported they have also had some run ins with tainted bottles. I've had fine bottles of Cockburn's '83, but those are few and far between as of late.

I agree with you that it had to be more involved than just a bag of bad corks. In addition to the California wineries you've mentioned, Gallo of Sonoma and Hanzell also inflicted with TCA taint within the winery and not involving bad corks.

Many wineries have had problems with cork taint in the winery. I have the most experience with the 1985 Heitz Martha's Vineyard CS. The bottles are numbered which made it easy to know which ones had cork taint. Sadly a high percentage were bad. The wine got very high reviews from the wine press, but most of the bottles I every had were tainted. I did have some good ones though. I have not had it for many many years and would be curious to know how the good bottles have developed over the years.

The 1983 Cockburn can be very good, but from your experience Roy it sounds like a high percentage is tainted. Three diferent sources have been bad and more in London. Presumable if you have a case and get one good bottle the rest should be good and vice versa.

It hurts to say It , but the most dissappointing Port in 2008 , was one I brought to Freds place .
Tasted hot , too much alcool . A 1985 Fonseca

Luc Gauthier wrote:the most dissappointing Port in 2008 , was .......Tasted hot , too much alcool . A 1985 Fonseca

Luc, was the bottle in good conditions?

Carlos , the label was faded ( too much direct sun light ? )

That is a shame , the '85 Fonseca is a great bottle.

Maybe the '85 Hoopers or an old Rebello Vallente which vintage escapes me right now. I want to revisit the Hoopers and I doubt I'll see anothe RV as it was from the 50's I think... The amount of vintages I had in 2008 was lot...all a blur.

Lackluster showings were due to bad bottles than bad port. I do not think it fair to criticize a vintage if the bottle was flawed from storage or something.

Luc Gauthier wrote:Carlos , the label was faded ( too much direct sun light ? )

Luc, I'm sorry for it . I haven't try it yet, but it has to be a good one.

I am always amused by the "worst of" threads on wine websites. Why focus on the negative?

Human nature , I guess .
It's good to know that someone else in the world shares your agony .
So ..................... Steelers by 10 pts

Roy Hersh wrote:I am always amused by the "worst of" threads on wine websites. Why focus on the negative?

Cause sometimes you gotta know what NOT to get

Isn't that why people subscribe to the Wine Advocate? :help:

Roy Hersh wrote:Isn't that why people subscribe to the Wine Advocate? :help:

OUCH! :joker: