Provenance: A case that was bought by me some time ago and has since laid in my cellar (62F 80-85RH)
Bottle was chosen for having slight signs of seepage when the case was opened. Cork proved to be sound and wine was decanted with very little wastage.
Wine is a little light for a VP - more magenta than red, with a clear meniscus.
Bouquet almost non-existant! - slightly dusty smell, no more.
Slightly syrupy on the palate, smooth and inoffensive, slides down well but lacking complexity and finish.
Overall somewhat disappointing. A few more years may make it a little more interesting, but for the rest of the case I am thinking Christmas presents for my less discerning business associates.
I don't do Parker points, but would suggest a max bid of £180 for a case with provenance at Uk auctions. UK wine shop price: Max £22/bottle or USA $48
1983 Fonseca Vintage Port
Moderators: Glenn E., Andy Velebil
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
-
Richard Henderson
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:21 pm
- Location: fort worth, Texas, United States of America - USA
I have several bottles of this port. I have had better experience with it.
Maybe this one bottle was corked? Maybe oxidized or had some damage, hence the seepage? I think I will open one and see for myself!
P.S. I just opened one , beautiful ruby color. I am looking at it through a candle flame in a crystal glass. It looks like the book jacket of Suckling's book.
Layers of fruit and spice on the bouquet. Great power on the entry middle and back palates. Lots of fruit cake flavors and spice and a little honey.
After making these notes , I checked RP's rating and notes. 92 and he said " magnificently complex" and "broad expansive flavors". I agree.
No doubt your bottle was flawed.
Could you classify me as a " less discerning" business associate and send me the balance of the case?
I also note that although they could not have bottled it there, this bottle has a Berry Bros. sticker on the back. Don't know how it made its way into the U.S market and to my local retailer's inventory???
Maybe this one bottle was corked? Maybe oxidized or had some damage, hence the seepage? I think I will open one and see for myself!
P.S. I just opened one , beautiful ruby color. I am looking at it through a candle flame in a crystal glass. It looks like the book jacket of Suckling's book.
Layers of fruit and spice on the bouquet. Great power on the entry middle and back palates. Lots of fruit cake flavors and spice and a little honey.
After making these notes , I checked RP's rating and notes. 92 and he said " magnificently complex" and "broad expansive flavors". I agree.
No doubt your bottle was flawed.
Could you classify me as a " less discerning" business associate and send me the balance of the case?
I also note that although they could not have bottled it there, this bottle has a Berry Bros. sticker on the back. Don't know how it made its way into the U.S market and to my local retailer's inventory???
Richard Henderson
-
Tom Archer
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Near Saffron Walden, England
OK - I'll test drive another bottle in a few days time.
For better or worse, my palate is somewhat insensitive to TCA - there have been a number of occasions in the past when I have found an allegedly corked bottle to be perfectly drinkable.
But the lack of bouquet IS far from normal - I'll give this one a second chance.
Tom
For better or worse, my palate is somewhat insensitive to TCA - there have been a number of occasions in the past when I have found an allegedly corked bottle to be perfectly drinkable.
But the lack of bouquet IS far from normal - I'll give this one a second chance.
Tom
-
Richard Henderson
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:21 pm
- Location: fort worth, Texas, United States of America - USA
24 hours later, color is still photo-op ruby. Still a lot of pleasant alcohol on the nose from some great brandy used to fortify this fine, fine port. Some dark ripe cherries on the nose but added to the previous bouquet. Softer on the palate. A superb port. Sorry for your off bottle , Uncle Tom. My test bottle is great and glad I have more.
Richard Henderson
-
Richard Henderson
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:21 pm
- Location: fort worth, Texas, United States of America - USA
Nick, I always respect dissenting opinions but I would like to hear some more facts as to why you think the 83 Fonseca is amoung their worst in the past half century.
Michael Broadbent gives it **** out of 5 and Robert Parker Gives it a 92.
I use points and ratings of critics as guides only. They do not dictate my tastes and preferences.
My own expereince differs from yours, as do these critics.
Your experience is obviously different. What is that experience?
Michael Broadbent gives it **** out of 5 and Robert Parker Gives it a 92.
I use points and ratings of critics as guides only. They do not dictate my tastes and preferences.
My own expereince differs from yours, as do these critics.
Your experience is obviously different. What is that experience?
Richard Henderson
-
Ted D
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:53 am
- Location: Durham, New Hampshire, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
I think the 80 is the worst Fonseca ever! I like the 83 and think you had an off bottle.
I've had three bottles in the past couple of years. Consistently rated 90-92 points. Here is my first (and only extensive) TN
Ted
Fonseca 83 10 may 2004
Purchased recently from Premier Cru, and allowed to rest for about 10 days after delivery.
Decanted 8+ hours
Fonseca 83 - 90 points, in a phrase, "barely outstanding"
Nose - toffee and carmel, with a dark spicy component that includes cinnamon nuances, perhaps with nutmeg and mace.
On the palate this doesn't seem to have that characteristic big "Fleshy" Fonseca feel to me like many Fonsecas do. It very round and long, with plenty of red fruits that build for 20 seconds or so. With more air, about 11 hours, more of that Fonseca fleshiness arose. Some dark molasses in the aftertaste on the edges of the tongue. Visions of sleeping in clean sheets alone - i.e. perfect relaxation.
NONE of that alcoholic taste/feel that some others have reported.
This will never be mindblowing, but to my tastes is a good solid Port with a good short term life (10-20 years depending on your preferences) ahead of it, as evidenced by its evolution between 9 to 11 hours of air. In other words, should be fully mature before I'm fully Bald. But I could be wrong, hairloss is so difficult to judge!
I've had three bottles in the past couple of years. Consistently rated 90-92 points. Here is my first (and only extensive) TN
Ted
Fonseca 83 10 may 2004
Purchased recently from Premier Cru, and allowed to rest for about 10 days after delivery.
Decanted 8+ hours
Fonseca 83 - 90 points, in a phrase, "barely outstanding"
Nose - toffee and carmel, with a dark spicy component that includes cinnamon nuances, perhaps with nutmeg and mace.
On the palate this doesn't seem to have that characteristic big "Fleshy" Fonseca feel to me like many Fonsecas do. It very round and long, with plenty of red fruits that build for 20 seconds or so. With more air, about 11 hours, more of that Fonseca fleshiness arose. Some dark molasses in the aftertaste on the edges of the tongue. Visions of sleeping in clean sheets alone - i.e. perfect relaxation.
NONE of that alcoholic taste/feel that some others have reported.
This will never be mindblowing, but to my tastes is a good solid Port with a good short term life (10-20 years depending on your preferences) ahead of it, as evidenced by its evolution between 9 to 11 hours of air. In other words, should be fully mature before I'm fully Bald. But I could be wrong, hairloss is so difficult to judge!
Any Port in a Storm
>>Bottle variation may have something to do with it
We'll put it down to that shall we?? I'll see if I can find any other critic's views - say CC, or JS - otherwise I guess you can say you've been luckier than me! (PS. I've had better luck with the 80, which while nothing special, has not had the mark of faulty (bottles?).)
We'll put it down to that shall we?? I'll see if I can find any other critic's views - say CC, or JS - otherwise I guess you can say you've been luckier than me! (PS. I've had better luck with the 80, which while nothing special, has not had the mark of faulty (bottles?).)