Tasting some Mature Ports in Half-Bottles

[Alan Gardner]

Our port tasting group has suffered some involuntary departures recently, so we convened to discuss the future. With only seven (surviving) members we decided to taste some relatively mature half-bottles, so it was an improvised tasting although it turned out to be surprisingly ‘structured’.
By ‘designed chance’ we had two 1991, two 1994, and two 2000s (in 375 ml).
Also, two Dow’s (1991 & 1994), two Graham’s (1991 & 2000), and two Taylor Fladgate’s (1994 & 2000). All had been stored similarly since original purchase on release.
All were tasted semi-blind (we knew the wines, but not the order of serving) and we ‘hoped for’ a resolution of whether the house or the vintage would dominate
I’d welcome any speculation on what outcome would be expected – our group voted on their favourites before the wines were revealed.
I’ll post the results in a couple of days (depending on whether this sparks a discussion).
As a general conclusion, we found that ‘nearly all’ had fading fruit, and that ‘most’ had noticeable alcohol – suggesting that many (most?) half bottles indeed mature before their 750ml counterparts. The ‘best’ scored in the high 80’s (points) with a couple of laggards struggling to get out of the high 70’s. The best had long finishes but, realistically, I doubt whether there will be much, if any, improvement.
So – over to everyone to speculate:
Did the ‘House’ or ‘Vintage’ dominate the results?
And, whatever you choose – how about speculating on the best (and worst) examples!

[Glenn E.]

Fun! But with scores in the 70s, that sounds disappointing.

With those 3 producers, I would guess that the house style would be pretty distinct. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if your group was able to separate them by house.

But... those 3 vintages should also be pretty distinct, especially considering that both 1991s are SFE. My guess would be that the two 1991s were the least favorites of the group, and given your comments on aging I would also guess that the two 2000s were the favorites of the group. The half bottles affect this, though, because with full bottles I would expect the 1994s to be the favorites.

Which might mean... your group was able to identify everything?

[Alan Gardner]

Hi Glenn,
I expected you to jump in!
The two 1991's certainly were lighter in colour, so easy to pick out (although not necessarily as easy to pick the Producer) and the 2000's the darkest (also as expected).
But this is an experienced group - who have learned (over 30 years) to not be over-influenced by colour.
Only two of the wines failed to get a 1st place vote - and only 1 avoided a last place vote, so clearly some style preferences came into play.
Bizarrely, out of 7 voters, one of the wines got 3 1st place votes and 2 last place votes - so clearly 'stood out' as being different - but because of the differing assessments it ended up in the middle (3rd place overall).
And NONE of us was able to identify ALL the houses or years correctly (some had several correct).

[Glenn E.]

Haha! That's some pretty wild scoring.

I do have a vague memory from one of my Graham's The Stone Terraces tastings that something was overall rated very well, including some first place votes, but one person had it dead last. Strange things do happen!

What was the best taster performance, based on 1 point for house and 1 point for vintage?

[Andy Velebil]

Wild scores. I’d suspect the 1991’s got the split votes. They can show well for certain palates.

But 70’s scores are rather harsh for these producers and vintages. Though in half I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1994’s were in a closed phase. Dunno, just tossing a guess out there.

[Eric Menchen]

I am so surprised that 1994 Taylor didn't do better. I've bought and opened a bunch of Taylor 375s and been happy with them. But checking my notes, they were more recent vintages. The 1994 Taylor in 750 has been such a beast. It sounds like maybe I should check in on one of those to see if the 750s have settled down.

[Alan Gardner]

What was the best taster performance, based on 1 point for house and 1 point for vintage?

We each do our own guesses - but they remain 'secret' unless volunteered - so I don't have individual guesses - only the summary scores - we also use a 20 point scoring system (we pre-date Parker) so I do a 'best-guess' conversion - which I've re-checked and the lowest (converted) score was actually 81 ( also not encouraging) with my top score being 90.
And I gave that 90points to the 2000 Graham's - which was the wine that stood out as being different (3 first-place, 2 last-place resulting in 3rd overall) - the darkest of all the samples - so easily picked as a 2000 - and certainly I picked it as the Graham's because of the overall sweetness and generous fruit, but it also had some good acid structure - so why only 90 points - because it was generally 'clumsy' - all perfume and (IMO) lacked complexity on the palate - basically one good flavour rather than holding interest. It also threw one of the heaviest sediments - maybe all the tannins completely dropped out!

I'll put the full scores together later today.

[Glenn E.]

we also use a 20 point scoring system (we pre-date Parker) so I do a 'best-guess' conversion - which I've re-checked and the lowest (converted) score was actually 81 ( also not encouraging) with my top score being 90.

Ah, that would probably explain the seemingly lower scores. I've never seen a good conversion methodology to get from a 20 point scale to a 100 point scale. The obvious "multiply by 5" isn't really very close, because a 19/20 is generally a better score than a 90/100. And 18/20 is a vastly better score than 80/100.

(At least in my experience.)

[Alan Gardner]

In order of serving (randomized order by last two digits of selo, to avoid bias). [Note: previous tastings have shown a slight bias for first and last wines served to show higher than average results]

A. 1991 Dow’s My score 88, My rank #3, Group rank #2
Lightest of the samples – pale rose in colour with heavy sediment; touch of stewed plums on nose but on palate was sweet fruit, very balanced with soft acidity evolving into the long drier finish that characterises Dow.

B. 1991 Graham’s My score 87 My rank #5, Group rank #4
Pale rose colour with darker centre. Sediment strangely gluey like Chawanmushi! Nose of raspberry juice. Noticeable alcohol at first leading to sweet fruit. Medium length but lacks complexity.

C. 1994 Taylor Fladgate My score 81 My rank #6, Group rank #5
Medium light garnet colour with heavy sediment; bouquet very sweet and redolent of roses. On palate VERY alcohol dominant. With short unpleasant herbal finish.

D. 1994 Dow’s My score 88, My rank #2 Group rank #1
Due to a distraction during decanting, wine D was ‘contaminated’ with maybe 15-20% of wine F. The remainder of F was served ‘normally’ and was uncontaminated.
Again, heavy sediment. Colour medium garnet with lighter edge. Bouquet of deep black plums with a touch of mustiness (? Mushrooms). Initial alcohol but evolved into balanced complex fruits with a very long finish.

E. 2000 Graham’s My score 90, My rank #1 Group rank #3
Cork was poor and lots of sediment. Dak garnet in colour with med garnet edge. Heavy perfume of dark red roses. Lots or red and black fruits with a touch of acid, good structure and medium long finish. Probably at its peak right now.

F. 2000 Taylor Fladgate My score 86 My rank #4 Group rank #6
Another poor cork and heavy sediment. [Can’t explain why the two youngest wines had the poorest corks as all stored under identical conditions]. Colour medium garnet with lighter edge. Noticeable alcohol on nose which eventually evolved to perfumed flowers (rather than fruit). Again, alcohol dominant on taste, with noticeable tannins but essentially a 1-dimensional profile of mainly plums, lacking complexity.

Serious readers may note that my ratings for wines B and F are ‘confusing’. I scored wine B higher but for my final ranking I do a final wine comparison and I preferred wine F in that ‘taste-off’. However, I did not adjust my scores based on my initial assessment.
So, summing up, Dow claimed top 2 places. Graham middle two and Taylor Fladgate bottom two. The group has spoken! And NOBODY predicted that outcome.

[Andy Velebil]

Will come back with some other comments shortly. But the late 90’s to early 2000’s was a shit time for corks (not just for Port). They tend to disintegrate into a million pieces when trying to pull them. No clue why, but suspect it was how the cork companies treated them.

[Al B.]

Will come back with some other comments shortly. But the late 90’s to early 2000’s was a shit time for corks (not just for Port). They tend to disintegrate into a million pieces when trying to pull them. No clue why, but suspect it was how the cork companies treated them.

From what I’ve been told, in an effort to eliminate TCA damage to wines while they age, corks in that period were heat-treated and coated with a thin layer of wax.

With the benefit of hind-sight, we now know the heat-treatment makes the corks become brittle as they age. To make things worse, over the course of a decade or two, the wax sticks to the neck of the bottle.

The result is that you tend to pull the centre of the cork out when you try opening a bottle from this period and it fragments into thousands of tiny pieces, leaving the outside surface of the cork still stuck to the inside of the neck of the bottle.

There is a solution, but it’s a pain to use. If you strip off the capsule and gently steam the neck of the bottle where the cork is, the gentle heat melts the wax into a kind of oil and the cork slides out really easily with little effort. But who wants to steam the neck of a bottle of Port just before they open it!

[Alan Gardner]

And that's why I use a Durand for any aged bottles!
Which I did for these AFTER the issues with the first bottle.

[Glenn E.]

Will come back with some other comments shortly. But the late 90’s to early 2000’s was a shit time for corks (not just for Port). They tend to disintegrate into a million pieces when trying to pull them. No clue why, but suspect it was how the cork companies treated them.

From what I’ve been told, in an effort to eliminate TCA damage to wines while they age, corks in that period were heat-treated and coated with a thin layer of wax.

With the benefit of hind-sight, we now know the heat-treatment makes the corks become brittle as they age. To make things worse, over the course of a decade or two, the wax sticks to the neck of the bottle.

The result is that you tend to pull the centre of the cork out when you try opening a bottle from this period and it fragments into thousands of tiny pieces, leaving the outside surface of the cork still stuck to the inside of the neck of the bottle.

There is a solution, but it’s a pain to use. If you strip off the capsule and gently steam the neck of the bottle where the cork is, the gentle heat melts the wax into a kind of oil and the cork slides out really easily with little effort. But who wants to steam the neck of a bottle of Port just before they open it!

I'd never heard this full explanation before! (It's generally just "mid-90s corks are terrible" which is accurate but not enlightening.) But the description of the corks and their removal does fit my experience very closely.

What I find interesting is that it does not seem to affect the Port at all. I've had some very beautiful VP from the mid 1990s that came out of bottles that had corks that turned to sawdust while being extracted.

[Eric Menchen]

But the description of the corks and their removal does fit my experience very closely.

+1 here. I had a bunch of bottles where the center of the cork came out in crumbles. I haven't noticed it lately, but I haven't opened many bottles from that timeframe lately either.