For The Love Of Port

Mid to deep ruby. Light spicy cherry fruited nose – attractive but not intense or dense. Lovely sweet entry – warmingly alcoholic but good fruit/structure to balance. Quite warm on finish though – not great but attractive and drinking well now. 89 points This tasting note is one of several related t...

Dense opaque burgundy to rim. Blackcurrant throat lozenges (Strepcils) on the nose – a not unpleasant medicinal edge to very strong black fruit flavour. More density/concentration over the ’99, but the rich tannic astringency doesn’t find the length of the ’99. Backwards, needs more time but this se...

Burgundy/black to rim; sweet blackcurrant jam nose – very open and fruity. Not huge on the palate, but supple and lush. Good balance – some astringency pops up on the finish. Overall not the depth of a genuine vintage port, but good fruit driven length and certainly good for the year. 90 points This...

Deep burgundy – near opaque. Dense black fruits – spicy, plumy and quite chocolaty (dark, bitter chocolate). Very intense fruit entry – lovely rich velvety tannins - really exceptional depth and length. Balanced and easy to drink today, but great upside. 95+ points This tasting note is one of severa...

Burgundy/ruby. Sweet, somewhat indistinct fruit but attractively ‘porty’. Good sweet fruit on the palate – moderate alcohol presence – supple, mid-bodied. A little LBV like, but an excellent one at that. 88 points This tasting note is one of several related tasting notes. Click [here] to see the ori...

As there’s no ’93 Vesuvio, this was provided as a comparative port. Not sure if this was truly representative, and certainly didn’t show as well as last year: Deep but maturing ruby. Development apparent with coffee edged raisony fruit cake nose with a liquorice edge. Good complex palate, very suppl...

Deep ruby with a hint of dustiness which might have just been the glass. Tarry black fruits – good dense entry – lovely fruit sweetness – supple blackcurrant seem which is balanced and long. Needs to unwind but excellent potential. 93 points This tasting note is one of several related tasting notes....

Not sure how representative this is, but the compact, high toned palate wasn’t great: Deep youthful looking ruby/burgundy. Initially a lovely lifted, almost floral top note. Good entry then falls off with a firm acidic edge which gives the port intensity, but unbalances the otherwise good fruit. Nei...

Deep ruby – solid to rim. Ripe plumy, smoky nose – reasonably open but not overly perfumed or complex – youthful still. Good palate entry, ripe supple fruit – good integrated tannin with alcohol completely integrated – quite long. Lovely overall, while youthful – perfectly drinkable. 91 points This ...

Bricking throughout – and lightweight colour. Spicy cherry and light plum fruit – some spirit poking through. Alcoholic impact on palate – not just heat but a thin boned wine with little flesh hanging off it. Smokey/burnt finish lingers, but not in an entirely pleasant way. Very sherry like on back ...

Light ruby – some tawny toward the rim. Nose of mature raisony fruit with cherry and sugary coffee notes. Elegant entry – light balanced fruit. Moderate weight with little tannin left – modest smoky finish. Nice modest port for drinking now. 85 points This tasting note is one of several related tast...

Slightly lighter than the ’92 but a more open nose with development – cherry and prune like. Quite sweet on entry with its warming alcohol on show. Less tannin than the ’92 but no less astringency. Good for drinking now – not sure of future. 89 points This tasting note is one of several related tast...

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 distracti...

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. This tasting note is one of several related tasting notes. Click [h...

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 por...

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 This tasting note is one of several related tasting notes. Click [here...

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 conce...

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 ...

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. This t...

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 This tasting note is one of se...