Of course bottle variation was an attribute that was out of our control, but for those who attended Sunday's event ... what was your opinion?
Did you prefer the '63 to '66? Did '70 carry the day? I am quite interested not in producer preference at this point, but vintage. Thanks!
WHICH VINTAGE DID YOU PREFER?
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
WHICH VINTAGE DID YOU PREFER?
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Roy,
I shall be controversial here (that's more fun!). The vintages we tasted yesterday in order of my preference are:
2003
1966
1963
1970
However, I suspect that by the time we got to the 1970's my palate was tired and I may have underappreciated them. Certainly if I judge from the completeness of my notes, I was less able to describe and differentiate between the wines in 1970 than I was in '63 or '66. (And I got the Grahams and Fonseca the wrong way round in the blind test.)
What I was delighted about was the way the wines changed in the glass. Even the Sandeman '63 put on a lot of weight over a couple of hours and was a much improved from when first poured.
Alex
I shall be controversial here (that's more fun!). The vintages we tasted yesterday in order of my preference are:
2003
1966
1963
1970
However, I suspect that by the time we got to the 1970's my palate was tired and I may have underappreciated them. Certainly if I judge from the completeness of my notes, I was less able to describe and differentiate between the wines in 1970 than I was in '63 or '66. (And I got the Grahams and Fonseca the wrong way round in the blind test.)
What I was delighted about was the way the wines changed in the glass. Even the Sandeman '63 put on a lot of weight over a couple of hours and was a much improved from when first poured.
Alex
-
Derek T.
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
- Contact:
My vote goes to 1966 - this was the only flight where I really enjoyed every wine.
It was great to taste the 2003's but I am not converted. These need at least 20 years for me. Hopefully not too many of the UK enthusiasts will have been tempted to follow the American ways and drink all this stuff before it has a chance to show what it can do!
It was great to taste the 2003's but I am not converted. These need at least 20 years for me. Hopefully not too many of the UK enthusiasts will have been tempted to follow the American ways and drink all this stuff before it has a chance to show what it can do!
-
Justin Willott
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:45 am
- Location: Berkshire, UK
1. 1966 by a mile (oh, that Fonseca!)
2. 1970
3. 1963
Comparing the 66s and 63s it was amazing to see how much younger the 66s looked when there was only 3 years difference.
As for the 2003s - what an experience! I don't know if the dark grey teeth and black lips look will catch on though. I couldn't rank this vintage amongst the others due to the age gap - it's like judging which is the best specimen out of three 50 foot oak trees and a 12 inch high sapling.
2. 1970
3. 1963
Comparing the 66s and 63s it was amazing to see how much younger the 66s looked when there was only 3 years difference.
As for the 2003s - what an experience! I don't know if the dark grey teeth and black lips look will catch on though. I couldn't rank this vintage amongst the others due to the age gap - it's like judging which is the best specimen out of three 50 foot oak trees and a 12 inch high sapling.
My vote is also for the 66s. I throught they contrasted and complimented each other without detriment to the others.
More difficult to choose next, but I say the '63s after plenty of air, as the '70s were split with a light Sandemans, a corked Taylors, pulling down the giants of Fonseca and Grahams (even if I along with a number of others couldn't tell which way around they were!)
The '03s were gorgeous in that hedonistic fruit bomb way - the 03+ just soooo easy to drink, the Portal the most 'powerful' and backward - the Sandeman though utterly delicious - a bit too jammy, forward and almost LBV like suppleness meant for me this is not going to be a top '03.
More difficult to choose next, but I say the '63s after plenty of air, as the '70s were split with a light Sandemans, a corked Taylors, pulling down the giants of Fonseca and Grahams (even if I along with a number of others couldn't tell which way around they were!)
The '03s were gorgeous in that hedonistic fruit bomb way - the 03+ just soooo easy to drink, the Portal the most 'powerful' and backward - the Sandeman though utterly delicious - a bit too jammy, forward and almost LBV like suppleness meant for me this is not going to be a top '03.
-
Ronald Wortel
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:45 pm
- Location: New Plymouth, New Zealand
Ronnie - The Fonseca 66 will keep for decades let alone years. Truly gorgeous wine but the Graham's was the babe of 66 for current drinking.
Shame about the 1970 Taylor's being corked because it showed up well in all other ways. I got the Taylor and the Fonseca mixed up. I think only Ian Wright got all four 1970s correct. I'm blaming it on the TCA.
Best 1963 - Fonseca
Best 1966 - Graham's
Best 1970 - Fonseca
Best overall producer - Fonseca.
I think that Sandeman's didn't show so well because of the beasts that it was up against. The 1963 was a goner but the 1966 was very pleasant. Couldn't work out what the strange smell on the nose for all Sandemans was until the cheeseboard arrived - Brie. It blew off after half an hour but had a detrimental effect early on.
Shame about the 1970 Taylor's being corked because it showed up well in all other ways. I got the Taylor and the Fonseca mixed up. I think only Ian Wright got all four 1970s correct. I'm blaming it on the TCA.
Best 1963 - Fonseca
Best 1966 - Graham's
Best 1970 - Fonseca
Best overall producer - Fonseca.
I think that Sandeman's didn't show so well because of the beasts that it was up against. The 1963 was a goner but the 1966 was very pleasant. Couldn't work out what the strange smell on the nose for all Sandemans was until the cheeseboard arrived - Brie. It blew off after half an hour but had a detrimental effect early on.
I'm telling you - Port is from Portugal.
It's good the Fonseca '66 went down well, but I was somewhat suprised to come across a green, vegetal/leafy top note which I've not experienced in the '66 before - yet in Fonseca I've found it in the '83 and '97. Last year's large Schuster tasting were they had been (double) decanted the night before, a number of '80/83/91's had a similar note, sometimes complexing, sometimes too dominant.
However, in the bottom of the Islay bottle I often use for decanting, was a small pour of the '66. It's in my glass now, and what's amazing, especially given it's been super-oxygenated, it that it's just as fresh now - with rich, clean, spicy/chocolatey fruit and little sign of oxidation, and none of the 'green' elements of yesterday. 'Green' notes can't just blow off - can they? Any ideas? This bottle was effective pristine, with a high neck fill, and with not a drop of port reaching the top of the clean top of cork. It can't be some form of reduction - surely? (As the bottles from last year seem to have suffered from it even after been double decanted for 24 hours). So can it be anything else?
However, in the bottom of the Islay bottle I often use for decanting, was a small pour of the '66. It's in my glass now, and what's amazing, especially given it's been super-oxygenated, it that it's just as fresh now - with rich, clean, spicy/chocolatey fruit and little sign of oxidation, and none of the 'green' elements of yesterday. 'Green' notes can't just blow off - can they? Any ideas? This bottle was effective pristine, with a high neck fill, and with not a drop of port reaching the top of the clean top of cork. It can't be some form of reduction - surely? (As the bottles from last year seem to have suffered from it even after been double decanted for 24 hours). So can it be anything else?
As the organizer, I think we would all be polite to wait for Alex to post his TNs first ... and then we can all add our own subsequently.
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
-
nicos neocleous
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:42 am
- Location: London, United Kingdom - UK
Great time
Roy,
It was great to join you for the Port 'lunch'. We have so much to talk about!
Alex,
Thanks for organising. A very fine effort!
NickA,
I look forward to continuing our heated "discussion" another time.
It was great to join you for the Port 'lunch'. We have so much to talk about!
Alex,
Thanks for organising. A very fine effort!
NickA,
I look forward to continuing our heated "discussion" another time.
YOLO
Nicos,
I think you'd have to start by reminding what was being said! If I recall, it started about blind tasting (again!), but went towards a more personally slant/issue I have, which is the more analytical I've become (or am at the time of tasting), the less chance there is for me to enjoy a wine. Whereas I think your side of the table was the more you know, the more you enjoy?
Anyway, I certainly enjoyed all the company, one and all - as well as all the discussions!
Cheers
I think you'd have to start by reminding what was being said! If I recall, it started about blind tasting (again!), but went towards a more personally slant/issue I have, which is the more analytical I've become (or am at the time of tasting), the less chance there is for me to enjoy a wine. Whereas I think your side of the table was the more you know, the more you enjoy?
Anyway, I certainly enjoyed all the company, one and all - as well as all the discussions!
Cheers
-
Mario Ferreira
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:08 pm
- Location: Alcoba, Portugal
- Contact:
Again, Alex (Bridgema) Thank You for putting this Tasting together. It represented a great opportunity to taste all those fine wines.
Now, for the best vintage year tasted, my personal vote goes to 1966. Comparing to the 63s (which are dam good too :) ) the 66s showed themeselves more vibrant & aromatic. It's an incredible difference spared by 3 years only !!! - 1966 is a really GREAT Vintage Year.
:)
Now, for the best vintage year tasted, my personal vote goes to 1966. Comparing to the 63s (which are dam good too :) ) the 66s showed themeselves more vibrant & aromatic. It's an incredible difference spared by 3 years only !!! - 1966 is a really GREAT Vintage Year.
:)
Folks,
I appreciate all the kind words and thanks. I really enjoyed organising the event and will gladly organise another one when I now the dates that Roy will be passing through the UK next.
However, please don't wait for me to post my notes. I am away from home and didn't bring my tasting notes with me so don't stand a chance of posting my notes until I return to the UK, which is over a week away.
So those who have written up their notes, please post them. I will add mine (contrary or consistent) when I get the chance. Go for it Nick.
(And I think I can say that we all enjoyed the debate between Nick and Nicos. It didn't get personal, but it did get opinionated. It was great. Hope you can both make it to the next tasting so that we can watch round 2.)
Alex
I appreciate all the kind words and thanks. I really enjoyed organising the event and will gladly organise another one when I now the dates that Roy will be passing through the UK next.
However, please don't wait for me to post my notes. I am away from home and didn't bring my tasting notes with me so don't stand a chance of posting my notes until I return to the UK, which is over a week away.
So those who have written up their notes, please post them. I will add mine (contrary or consistent) when I get the chance. Go for it Nick.
(And I think I can say that we all enjoyed the debate between Nick and Nicos. It didn't get personal, but it did get opinionated. It was great. Hope you can both make it to the next tasting so that we can watch round 2.)
Alex
Well, having gone around the houses as to who's going to post first, an invite leaves me no choice - we can't let the event fizzle out with no notes!
And a great event it was too, but after the prelim in other posts, my notes from the event follow:
For the love of port offline
Lindens’ Blind wine. A light ruby – couldn’t see if there was any browning at the rim. Light, spicy fruit on the nose and simple red/cherry fruits and warmth from the alcohol. Seemed like a ripe vintage, possibly losing fruit. Linden mentions ripe vintage is on track – but I not quite getting where he was coming from, go along with a less known house from ’77. Instead, a Dow’s LBV ’61! Quite a novelty - thanks Linden!
As for points, well they are personal. I have more consideration for what the wine tastes like on the day, and after around 15-20 mins air. It’s the only way I know to provide a level playing field for wines served together - as well as avoid the impression I actually know what the wine might peak at! Instead, a + for those that seem to have upside.
Flight 1 1963
Colours quite similar – but Fonseca deepest, Graham’s lightest with some bricking.
Sandeman
Slightly dry/dusty cherry fruit; some date like development. Palate entry also a little dusty with lightish red fruits. Not deep, but good balance with integrated alcohol providing a comfortable warmth. No long on fruit, but a hint of currant/smoke draws out the finish. Nose seems to get progressively more dusty towards cardboardy, and TCA seems probable to me. However, another 30 minutes or so after, no sign of it so not TCA. An odd taint, but clears with air and an additional tea like character emerges. Might just be signs of the wine breaking down, but not easy to be sure either way. Overall this lighter style wine provides interest and enjoyable balance – especially once the dusty edge disappears. 88-/100
Grahams
High toned – touch of nail varnish and sweet red fruit on the nose. Not complex with pinched fruit and a hint of tea. Lovely entry though, rich, sweet glycerol – less problem with the VA on the palate. Lovely balance overall and a clean finish. Some lingering fruit. Gets progressively better with air as the VA diminishes, but again a fully mature wine it seems which could be sliding. 91- (would be higher if not for the VA)
Taylor
Datey/figgy nose – also a touch high toned but more subtle with an almost minty edge; slightly firm entry with bright acids and powerful, somewhat hot spirity fruit – firm but still seemingly mature - overall an attractive, if somewhat singular style. 92
Fonseca
Somewhat closed nose; dates, curranty, concentrated red fruits. Firm palate; richer fruit than the above ports with good extract – but still not supple and open enough for readiness for drinking. Some tannic astringency still – quite long. Opens a touch with air to show dense, slightly smokey/burnt fruit. Still unwinding but certainly classic. 94+ today, should improve significantly if it opens out as hoped.
Flight 2 1966
More variation in colour here, with the Sandeman relatively light and the Fonseca darkest by far.
Sandeman
Light spicy/cherry nose. Much more fruit and sweetness than the ’63 - better balanced. A sweeter, more fruity nose with air. Quite powerful warming fruit – not quite the sweetness of a typical Grahams but without VA and a very pleasurable showing in a lighter style. 91
Taylors
Not quite bright, colour/weight similar to the Grahams. Figgy/datey nose – some demarrara sugar – nicely open and mature. Lovely raison/dried but sweet fruit on the palate – good structure too with just a touch of astringency – quite powerful in a typical Taylor style, and probably the best example of this one for me – certainly at peak. 93.
Grahams
More volatility here in the ’66 than I like – as with the ’63 – but some tea/spicy/smokey notes for complexity though. Again palate entry is lovely – with slightly sweet mature fruit with rounded mouthfeel and agreeable ‘lick your lips’ sweetness on finish. 92. Would be higher but for the VA.
Fonseca
Nose of slightly vegetal/leafy/licorice/cedary red fruits – complex but the vegetal element is a touch distracting. (This was perplexing as I’d not come across it before in the ’66, but I have found it in Fonseca, for example ’83 and ’97). Similar flavours on the palate with more coffee/cedary concentrated fruit – somewhat plumy still – long with still some tannins to soften further – with a hint of smoke on the finish. Quite youthful really, but very drinkable. The small dregs left the next day (no sediment in them) bizzarely showed no green notes at all. I’ve no explanation for what it was then, as underripe fruit is underripe fruit and I’m working on the assumption it ain’t going to disappear with aeration! 95+?
Flight 3 1970 – blind.
A: Darkest colour – leaning towards the Fonseca already. Datey, figgy, spicy Christmas cake (note after the event – jeezz, if that wasn’t a pointer that it could be the Grahams – what was I needing!); good rich and structured fruit – youthful – excellent. One if not the best of the ports showing ports of the day for me, and I guess Fonseca. 96+. Revealed as the Grahams.
B:Lightest colour – leaning towards the Sandeman. Somewhat light, spicy/tea and simple cherry fruit nose. Tea, currant and simple light fruit on the palate but nicely balanced. A nice style and guess correctly as the Sandeman. 85
C: Mid colour. Sweet cherry/cranberry nose – no VA to help me spot it as Grahams but I’m erring towards it on colour. Quite a strong element of minerality running through the palate – quite firm and powerful but with good ripe fruit and sweetness to balanced. Some heat on finish is a touch distracting though. Youthful, powerful and yet I guess Grahams. 94+ Revealed as the Fonseca.
D: Slightly dusty, curranty fruit and then quite a drying disjointed finish. Initially thought it might need some air (a la the miscall on the Sandeman ’63). But showed quite quickly to be real not imagined TCA at work. The Taylors.
Well, I’ve mentioned about the impressive Portal wines, but in summary the 2003 Portal+ was silky, forward, lovely balanced and practically gluggable. I loved it, and showed a balance and elegance I associate with young Fonseca – but the structure and power comes in the Portal 2003. More Taylor like with its quite prominent alcohol and astringency from the structure. The most VP like of the 3, has to be said! The Sandeman 2003 struck me more like a just release Unfiltered LBV. Lovely balance, less obvious fruit than the Portal +, but supple and early drinking. Lovely young port at that. Indeed, I’ve since seen that the International Wine Challenge (a blind competition) notes it would be ready for drinking this Christmas! I guess that’s as they assumed it was an LBV…
Anyway, way to easy to drink the fruity stuff…he says swigging another glass of Quinta da Noval ’98 Unfiltered LBV…
And a great event it was too, but after the prelim in other posts, my notes from the event follow:
For the love of port offline
Lindens’ Blind wine. A light ruby – couldn’t see if there was any browning at the rim. Light, spicy fruit on the nose and simple red/cherry fruits and warmth from the alcohol. Seemed like a ripe vintage, possibly losing fruit. Linden mentions ripe vintage is on track – but I not quite getting where he was coming from, go along with a less known house from ’77. Instead, a Dow’s LBV ’61! Quite a novelty - thanks Linden!
As for points, well they are personal. I have more consideration for what the wine tastes like on the day, and after around 15-20 mins air. It’s the only way I know to provide a level playing field for wines served together - as well as avoid the impression I actually know what the wine might peak at! Instead, a + for those that seem to have upside.
Flight 1 1963
Colours quite similar – but Fonseca deepest, Graham’s lightest with some bricking.
Sandeman
Slightly dry/dusty cherry fruit; some date like development. Palate entry also a little dusty with lightish red fruits. Not deep, but good balance with integrated alcohol providing a comfortable warmth. No long on fruit, but a hint of currant/smoke draws out the finish. Nose seems to get progressively more dusty towards cardboardy, and TCA seems probable to me. However, another 30 minutes or so after, no sign of it so not TCA. An odd taint, but clears with air and an additional tea like character emerges. Might just be signs of the wine breaking down, but not easy to be sure either way. Overall this lighter style wine provides interest and enjoyable balance – especially once the dusty edge disappears. 88-/100
Grahams
High toned – touch of nail varnish and sweet red fruit on the nose. Not complex with pinched fruit and a hint of tea. Lovely entry though, rich, sweet glycerol – less problem with the VA on the palate. Lovely balance overall and a clean finish. Some lingering fruit. Gets progressively better with air as the VA diminishes, but again a fully mature wine it seems which could be sliding. 91- (would be higher if not for the VA)
Taylor
Datey/figgy nose – also a touch high toned but more subtle with an almost minty edge; slightly firm entry with bright acids and powerful, somewhat hot spirity fruit – firm but still seemingly mature - overall an attractive, if somewhat singular style. 92
Fonseca
Somewhat closed nose; dates, curranty, concentrated red fruits. Firm palate; richer fruit than the above ports with good extract – but still not supple and open enough for readiness for drinking. Some tannic astringency still – quite long. Opens a touch with air to show dense, slightly smokey/burnt fruit. Still unwinding but certainly classic. 94+ today, should improve significantly if it opens out as hoped.
Flight 2 1966
More variation in colour here, with the Sandeman relatively light and the Fonseca darkest by far.
Sandeman
Light spicy/cherry nose. Much more fruit and sweetness than the ’63 - better balanced. A sweeter, more fruity nose with air. Quite powerful warming fruit – not quite the sweetness of a typical Grahams but without VA and a very pleasurable showing in a lighter style. 91
Taylors
Not quite bright, colour/weight similar to the Grahams. Figgy/datey nose – some demarrara sugar – nicely open and mature. Lovely raison/dried but sweet fruit on the palate – good structure too with just a touch of astringency – quite powerful in a typical Taylor style, and probably the best example of this one for me – certainly at peak. 93.
Grahams
More volatility here in the ’66 than I like – as with the ’63 – but some tea/spicy/smokey notes for complexity though. Again palate entry is lovely – with slightly sweet mature fruit with rounded mouthfeel and agreeable ‘lick your lips’ sweetness on finish. 92. Would be higher but for the VA.
Fonseca
Nose of slightly vegetal/leafy/licorice/cedary red fruits – complex but the vegetal element is a touch distracting. (This was perplexing as I’d not come across it before in the ’66, but I have found it in Fonseca, for example ’83 and ’97). Similar flavours on the palate with more coffee/cedary concentrated fruit – somewhat plumy still – long with still some tannins to soften further – with a hint of smoke on the finish. Quite youthful really, but very drinkable. The small dregs left the next day (no sediment in them) bizzarely showed no green notes at all. I’ve no explanation for what it was then, as underripe fruit is underripe fruit and I’m working on the assumption it ain’t going to disappear with aeration! 95+?
Flight 3 1970 – blind.
A: Darkest colour – leaning towards the Fonseca already. Datey, figgy, spicy Christmas cake (note after the event – jeezz, if that wasn’t a pointer that it could be the Grahams – what was I needing!); good rich and structured fruit – youthful – excellent. One if not the best of the ports showing ports of the day for me, and I guess Fonseca. 96+. Revealed as the Grahams.
B:Lightest colour – leaning towards the Sandeman. Somewhat light, spicy/tea and simple cherry fruit nose. Tea, currant and simple light fruit on the palate but nicely balanced. A nice style and guess correctly as the Sandeman. 85
C: Mid colour. Sweet cherry/cranberry nose – no VA to help me spot it as Grahams but I’m erring towards it on colour. Quite a strong element of minerality running through the palate – quite firm and powerful but with good ripe fruit and sweetness to balanced. Some heat on finish is a touch distracting though. Youthful, powerful and yet I guess Grahams. 94+ Revealed as the Fonseca.
D: Slightly dusty, curranty fruit and then quite a drying disjointed finish. Initially thought it might need some air (a la the miscall on the Sandeman ’63). But showed quite quickly to be real not imagined TCA at work. The Taylors.
Well, I’ve mentioned about the impressive Portal wines, but in summary the 2003 Portal+ was silky, forward, lovely balanced and practically gluggable. I loved it, and showed a balance and elegance I associate with young Fonseca – but the structure and power comes in the Portal 2003. More Taylor like with its quite prominent alcohol and astringency from the structure. The most VP like of the 3, has to be said! The Sandeman 2003 struck me more like a just release Unfiltered LBV. Lovely balance, less obvious fruit than the Portal +, but supple and early drinking. Lovely young port at that. Indeed, I’ve since seen that the International Wine Challenge (a blind competition) notes it would be ready for drinking this Christmas! I guess that’s as they assumed it was an LBV…
Anyway, way to easy to drink the fruity stuff…he says swigging another glass of Quinta da Noval ’98 Unfiltered LBV…