This was my New Years Eve port. By the time we finally got through all the other wines, the port was decanted about 12 hours(I was planning on 8-9). A nice fruity nose not over the top, nice mouth feel with rasin, plum, chocolate and later a lot of coffee. The only major flaw was the finish which was quite short. A nice wine but nothing special. 91-92 points.
BTW, the 85 Grahams was the wine that got me into port years ago... I'm glad I didn't drink this wine back then.
I found myself wondering if Steve had been the victim of something that I have been worried might be happening to me. Did Steve have a weaker bottle of the Grahams '85 or perhaps its just that his port experience is so much more developed since that first bottle and he has now had the opportunity to experience other and more amazing VP's since that time?
For example, I took some colleagues to a restaurant before Christmas and we finished the meal with a glass of 1994 colheita. I thought the wine was very pleasant and enjoyable, but nothing that I would rush out and buy.
My two colleagues were so impressed with the colheita that after I left they stayed in the restaurant and worked their way through a bottle between them.
Sometimes I think that I am being overly critical when I score wines or write my tasting notes. What I may regard as flawed or out of balance may be a stunning revalation to someone who has not been as lucky as I have been with my opportunities to taste some amazing wines and ports.
I've also seen other people who just don't ever drink port fall in love with this type of wine after having been introduced to the style through a wine which I viewed as "hollow and overly acidic but with a lovely long aftertaste".
Does anyone else have similar experiences? Are we being too critical when we post our tasting notes?
Alex