Hosting a Port Tasting - Need Recommendations

[Van W]

Port is my favorite style of wine. And since it's now my turn to host the next tasting for my wine tasting group, I'm going to make it a Port tasting.

Here's the format I'm planning: Two flights. The first being a horizontal of a given vintage for 3-4 different producers. Then we'll have dinner. After that, we'll do a vertical of one producer over 3-4 years. I've got to try to keep this relatively affordable (<$100 per person, for 8 people), but I also want it to be a good overview of Porto for these guys who are not very familiar with the style.

So here's my questions: First, does the format sound reasonable? Would you recommend something different? Second, what years and producers would you recommend?

I look forward to your suggestions!

[Eric Menchen]

If they are total novices, I'd consider tawnies and/or colheitas for a flight, and maybe an LBV in the other flight. As for producers, I'd go with at least several big names like Grahams, Taylor, Dow, etc. A lesser known name or two might be fun too.

Some day I want to do a tight vertical, but for a vertical flight with novices, I'd try for a big age range to show the effects of aging in Port.

[Van W]

Thanks, Eric. They're not complete novices when it comes to port. We've done another tasting where they tried LBV's and Tawnies, etc., where they got a more broad exposure to Port. But I want to make this a Vintage Port tasting (I probably should have made that clear). :) I want to expose them to the very best and help them to understand the different top producers as well as what differences age makes on them. These guys are vinophiles, and are used to tasting Bordeaux, Rhone, cult Napa's, etc. So I have to ante up here. :)

I know it's traditionally "infantacide" to drink port under 20yrs, but I think for our horizontal we'll have to do that due to price. There are so many excellent vintages in the past 20 years. But I don't know which vintages are currently "closed" and which ones are very drinkable right now. For the vertical, I can maybe afford to get into the 1970's for the oldest.

Here's some of my thoughts:

Horizontal: Taylor, Fonseca, Graham, (one more suggestion ??). Vintage ??? (Need to pick a drinkable one: 2003, 2000, 1994, or other?)

Vertical: Taylor or Fonseca (or another suggestion). Vintages 1970 or 1977, something from the '80's, 1994, something from the 2000's.

Of course, I'm open to suggestions to or modifications of the above!

[Lamont Huxley]

Here's some of my thoughts:

Horizontal: Taylor, Fonseca, Graham, (one more suggestion ??). Vintage ??? (Need to pick a drinkable one: 2003, 2000, 1994, or other?)

Vertical: Taylor or Fonseca (or another suggestion). Vintages 1970 or 1977, something from the '80's, 1994, something from the 2000's.

Of course, I'm open to suggestions to or modifications of the above!

As far as the horizontal, I would suggest adding Dow's or Warre's as the 4th producer. I tend to like drinking young vintages myself but if you're going to include Taylor and Fonseca you probably shouldn't choose 1994. Not only are those two 94's particularly expensive (the best prices I've seen lately are around $200/bottle), but are just too massive to open so young (even for me, which is saying something). My choice would be the 97's or 03's. Not that those vintages won't live for decades also, I just think they're more approachable young.

For the vertical, Taylor or Fonseca are obviously great choices but also probably the most expensive ways to go. You could do either Dow's or Warre's if you wanted to stay with a well known producer but not pay quite so much per bottle. Smith-Woodhouse would be another less expensive option and still fairly easy to find. I'm sure there are others with more experience here who could give you more specific advice, but that's just my .

By the way, sounds like it's going to be a great tasting - I'm jealous!

[Glenn E.]

Hi Van, welcome to FTLOP!

Given your desires and constraints, I think you're in a bit of a pickle. There are a couple of really amazing years that are close to fitting, but which don't quite fit your constraints for one reason or another. 1994 is amazing, but still far too young at only 17 years old. I wouldn't necessarily call them closed, but even though many are very approachable they're also not ready for prime time. 1977 is also amazing, but the top Ports from that year can approach $200/bottle which would rapidly consume your budget. In between are several years that weren't quite as stellar overall, but which did produce some fantastic Ports and so might work for your horizontal.

Even though 1985 wasn't as great as 1977 or 1994 overall, there were some home runs that year. The Fonseca ($90) and Graham ($90) are both outstanding, but for completely different reasons. Gould Campbell ($60) and Dow ($60) produced excellent Vintage Ports in 1985 that will help round out your horizontal without breaking the bank.

Now the hard part - the vertical. First, you really need to pick a producer. Any of the top names will work - Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor, Warre, etc. I'd be tempted to pick a name that is not in the horizontal, though, to avoid a repeat. So let's go with Taylor as an example. These prices are approximate and just meant to be a guide, by the way - I pulled them from winesearcher.com.

The 1977 ($150) is one of Roy's top 12 Vintage Ports that every enthusiast should own, and for good reason. Taylor went through a rough patch in the '80s but did produce an excellent single quinta Port in 1987 - Quinta de Vargellas - but you'd be lucky to find one in the US. Any of the 1980 ($100), 1983 ($80), or 1985 ($85) could fill the gap reasonably well and while not great Ports, they'd show what a "down" year for a producer is like. Mind you, all three are still very good so you wouldn't be doing your flight an injustice. Then you come to a pair of 100-point Ports from Taylor - the 1992 ($180, RP rated) and the 1994 ($160, WS rated). I would only include one of them and would probably base the pick on which one you can find for the most reasonable price. Those two are monsters and really nowhere near ready, but they would be educational for your group and so worth including as part of your vertical flight. If you want to stretch your budget a bit, go further back in time and include a 1970 Taylor in the vertical - that's one of my all-time favorite Ports but will probably cost around $200. It would be worth it to me, though.

Looking back at my recommendations, we're at $300 for the horizontal and around $600 for the vertical if you include the 1970. That's not too bad, I guess, and would give you two great flights of Port!

[Eric Menchen]

All good recommendations above there.

For the horizontal, my first thought was Dow. Warres is good too. In fact, if you want to keep costs in check, you could do both and drop one of either the Taylor or Fonseca, but not both. 1977 and 1985 seem like options, and if 1985, keep the Fonseca and drop the Taylor. I'm actually thinking of doing a 1994 horizontal with Martinez, Vesuvio, Smith Woodhouse, and Taylor, but my goal is a little different, to show different rates of aging with the Martinez being quite ready, and the Taylor far from it. Some would say that's a waste of the Taylor, and I do agree with the comments above that it is probably too young for your tasting, unless you specifically want to demonstrate that.

The vertical? Oh, that is tough. Taylor or Fonseca would be great, but spendy. Any of the other major names could work, and if you want to reduce cost, even a lesser name could too if you pick good years.

[Andy Velebil]

Van,

You're in my neighborhood so I show up to crash it Some great advice already and you've chosen a great format for a tasting! Here is my advice given the constraints of $100 per person max, and with 8 people I'd do 8 bottles of Port.

Horizontal
1985 would probably be the best vintage as you can generally get all four of them for under $100 per bottle and they already have some age to them. If it was me I'd pick Graham's, Dow, Fonseca, and Warre's. That will give you a good range of styles to compare side by side.

Vertical
This gets a little more tricky as there are some vintages now that can be well over $100 per bottle. As mentioned Smith Woodhouse (1977, 1985, 1994, 2007)would be a good way to go and still stay in your price range. It would also give you a wide range between the oldest and youngest to see how they develop and change over time.

I wouldn't mix VP's with SQVP's, as you really won't get the same experience of an actual vertical. In this type of setting, I'd stick to VP's and leave the SQVP's for another tasting on their own.

[Moses Botbol]

8 people, I'd do 7 bottles unless they really like to put them back. The first course go for 4 tawny's. 3 -20 year and 1- 10 year. Ramos Pinto 10 and 20, Ferreira 20 and Sandeman 20. After dinner, go for a horizontal of 1980 vintage of Graham, Taylor and Sandeman. You should be well within budget and maybe could get a 8th bottle somehow.

[Derek T.]

I agree with Andy that you should stick to Vintage Port.

One way of making your cash go a little further would be to use one of the bottles in both flights. The pours would be a fraction smaller for that one wine in each flight but it would be interesting to taste that same wine on the same night against the peers from its vintage and then again with its siblings from the same house. Fonseca 85 might be a good one to choose so that you could have a horizontal of Graham, Dow, Fonseca and Taylor 1985 and then a vertical of Fonseca 1970, 1985, 1997 and 2000.

I'm not up on US pricing but the moey you save on having 7 rather than 8 bottles might make the F70 possible within the budget and would give your guests a blow-your-mind VP in the line-up

Have fun!

Derek

PS: Andy isn't joking - he'll be beating your door down when he smells the decanting session going on

[Moses Botbol]

PS: Andy isn't joking - he'll be beating your door down when he smells the decanting session going on

You'll see the flashing blue lights.

[Van W]

So I have a follow-up question. Specifically as I'm thinking about the vintages for my horizontal flight, I can read all the reviews of the different ports, but they were all made at different dates. What I'm curious is how these wines are drinking now. Specifically, how are the vintages 1977, 1992/4, 1997, 2000, 2003 drinking, generally speaking?

A few years back I had the privilege of opening up a 1963 bottle of Taylor. It was a wonderful wine, but it was very delicate and rather thin by then. Most of the fruit and body seemed to have blown off. For the money, I would prefer to drink a wine with a bit more "umph" left in it. So that might give you an idea where I'm coming from in terms of my preferences.

[Glenn E.]

Luckily for you, your budget constraints prohibit purchasing any really old and elegant Ports. The suggestions we've given - purely by chance - center around somewhat younger and more vibrant vintages. We just completed a 1980s retrospective here in Seattle which Roy will write about in the upcoming newsletter, and most of those Ports showed with vibrance and vigor. They weren't powerhouse fruit bombs - you'd want something from 2000 or younger if that's what you really want - but they were excellent examples of Ports near (but not yet quite at) maturity.

1985 should serve you well for a horizontal, but I'd buy one and try it first just to be sure. Get a Gould Campbell or Smith Woodhouse - they're a little less expensive but should give you a reasonable idea of what the vintage is like. All of the Ports that I picked for your vertical are still powerful and (relatively) young tasting, but again that's from a more or less normal perspective. If you try a 1985 and find that it is too elegant for your taste, then you're going to need to move at least a decade younger.

The risk with moving younger is that many of the 1994s, 1997s, and 2000s are currently in down phases of their maturity. Not every Port goes into a down phase, and not even every bottle of the same Port will do it the same way, but in general Port sort of pulls back into itself and is less expressive starting at 5-10 years old and doesn't really come out of it until it is about 15 years old. Particularly powerful Ports like the 1994s tend to lag behind a bit, so many of the best ones are just starting to come around again at the age of 17.

[Van W]

Thanks, Glenn! Great info. Since ports tend to "close down," for my vertical, which Taylor vintage from last decade would you recommend: 2000, 2003, or 2007. I was leaning toward the 2000, but if its too closed then perhaps one of the other vintages would be better?

BTW, I've never experienced this characteristic with Port (my experience with VP's is admittedly limited), but I have experienced it with Bordeaux. It was very interesting: some of these classic masterpieces were almost completely lacking in aroma and flavor! You could tell there should have been a lot going on but it just wasn't there.

[Glenn E.]

Personally, I think that the 2000s are likely in their phase already and that many 2003s are headed there. So if you want a young vintage, I'd go with a 2007 to be safe.

I'm not a wine drinker, but from what I understand the down phase for Port isn't as dramatic as it can be for red wine. It'll still taste and smell like Port, but it just won't show as well as expected. I've had some where the fruit was hard to find on the nose and seemed tame on the palate.

[Van W]

Update: I just opened and sampled a half bottle of Graham's 1985 tonight with my wife and father in law. I decanted it for about an hour. The color was about what I was expecting for the age: Rose with hints of tawny, and a clear white edge; nice legs. On the nose I could detect very little, however; some alcohol, definite sweetness, and that's about it; no fruit that I could discern. The taste was mixed: very smooth entry, mid palate, and finish; little to no tannins left; likewise very little fruit left, there was nothing I could really pick up except, perhaps, some strawberries or plum; secondary characteristics were slight raisiny; very sweet, smooth finish, maybe a little hot but not much. All in all, it was certainly delicate, but it didn't really come across as nuanced and complex as I was expecting.

My wife and father-in-law concurred. Neither of them thought it was very interesting. I liked it more than they, but I had a hard time knowing what exactly I'm looking for in an aged port like this. If I can't detect any fruit on the nose or the palate, what am I looking for?

I'm going to have another glass in about a half hour, before I go to bed (total time out of the bottle 2.5 hr), and I'll see if anything's changed.

[Glenn E.]

I normally decant a 1985 Graham for 6-8 hours, but that's for a full-size 750 ml bottle. I'm not sure how decant times change for 375 ml bottles, if at all. It normally takes at least a couple of hours for a Vintage Port to open up, and for some of the really big wines it can take half a day. The 1985 Fonseca, for example, needs 10-12 as a minimum and it doesn't hurt to decant it for 16.

Without a sufficiently long decant, the Port may still be a bit closed. Which is sort of what it sounds like you're experiencing - not much on the nose and the palate seems a little plain and uninteresting.

However, based on what you've told us here, it may just be that you really like young, powerful, and boistrous Ports. Not to be stereotypical, but that seems to be a fairly common American preference. (Present company here on FTLOP generally excepted.) If the Graham doesn't seem to improve for you at the 6-8 hour mark (assuming you're able to taste it then) then we'll have to re-think our recommendations for you. :)

[Van W]

So I tasted the Graham's '85 again last night after 3.5 hours open. (I had decanted this 375mL bottle into a large (1.5L) decanter, so it's been getting plenty of air.) My wife and I thought it was a bit more expressive. I detected a bit more fruit on the nose as well as on the palate. Strawberries were even more prominent than before. The finish continued to be pleasant, long, and dominated by faint raisin (but not so dominating as with a young tawny). Sweet and elegant are the two words I would use to describe the port. This morning I tasted again (after 13 hours open). No difference that I could detect. I'll try one more time when I get home after work this evening.

Is what I described typical at this age? I know I'm not the best at identifying various aroma/flavor components in wines, so I'm sure much of the challenge is my own personal naivete and amateurishness. But as the port gets older and becomes more delicate, do all the components (alcohol, tannin, sweetness, fruit, etc.) integrate and result in a more elegant but less structured/layered/etc/ wine where the individual parts are not as identifiable as when young?

[Van W]

So my agenda is now set, and the wines are all either ordered and on their way or have already arrived at my house. I was able to pick up one from a local store and the others from two different merchants via wine-searcher.com. Here's the tentative plan for the evening (actual food items still being worked on):

Vintage Port Tasting

1. Arrival and Appetizers, served with:
* Broadbent Vinho Verde NV

2. First Flight - Horizontal: 1985 Vintage
* Fonseca 1985
* Graham 1985
* Dow 1985
* Warre 1985

3. Dinner: a Dish inspired by Beef Wellington, served with:
* 2007 Quinta do Crasto Reserva Old Vines

4. Second Flight - Vertical: Taylor Fladgate
* Taylor 2007
* Taylor 1994
* Taylor 1985
* Taylor 1977

5. Dessert: an assortment of cheeses, chocolate-covered strawberries and some sort of home-made chocolates, served with leftover Port of preference

Obviously, with this much wine it's going to be a long night, so we'll start early and take it slow. Thanks to all of you for helping out! I think this will be a very informative tasting of Port that will provide a good intermediate overview of vintage port, providing both breadth and depth.

[Jeff G.]

So my agenda is now set, and the wines are all either ordered and on their way or have already arrived at my house. I was able to pick up one from a local store and the others from two different merchants via wine-searcher.com. Here's the tentative plan for the evening (actual food items still being worked on):

Vintage Port Tasting

1. Arrival and Appetizers, served with:
* Broadbent Vinho Verde NV

2. First Flight - Horizontal: 1985 Vintage
* Fonseca 1985
* Graham 1985
* Dow 1985
* Warre 1985

3. Dinner: a Dish inspired by Beef Wellington, served with:
* 2007 Quinta do Crasto Reserva Old Vines

4. Second Flight - Vertical: Taylor Fladgate
* Taylor 2007
* Taylor 1994
* Taylor 1985
* Taylor 1977

5. Dessert: an assortment of cheeses, chocolate-covered strawberries and some sort of home-made chocolates, served with leftover Port of preference

Obviously, with this much wine it's going to be a long night, so we'll start early and take it slow. Thanks to all of you for helping out! I think this will be a very informative tasting of Port that will provide a good intermediate overview of vintage port, providing both breadth and depth.

i love food and port pairings,

what foods are you serving the other flights with?

for flight #1, I'd like to recommend blue cheese and almond stuffed dried apricots.

flight #2, if you can do a honey braised short ribs ragu over pasta.

flight #3 for your beef wellington, if you're the type that likes a bit more black pepper / peppercorn and a touch of sweetness in your sauce, i'd recommend you try it with some graham's 85 or dow 85 too as an experiment.

flight #4 I'd have sparkling water and perhaps some raspberry sorbet to sober up/ clean out the palate for a fantastic tasting line up.

dessert is fair game =)

sounds wonderful though!

[Eric Menchen]

The purists would probably leave the Port flights all to themselves, and given the menu, I probably would too. You can always keep drinking Port into the food courses. Then again, Jeff's ideas sound wonderful as well.

Checking Expedia now for airfares