For The Love Of Port

That's a great explanation. Thanks Andy.

Andy Velebil wrote:One question. Do you have a natural predisposition to any one of the port brands and does that creep into your scoring at all?

I too think it is a great question. And I didn't score anything here. But I'll admit a natural predisposition against Graham's, and perhaps slightly for a few labels (Smith Woodhouse, Vesuvio?). I think Graham's is a great label, but over the course of blind tastings over multiple vintages, I've typically scored it a few points lower than others in the room, or a few places lower in the rankings against other bottles.

It is extremely hard to do a 100% objective evaluation a bottle of port when it is not served to you completely blind. (This is not a knock on Andy or anyone else inhere)

Previous track record, experiences, settings, producers, relationships, rumours, readings, state of mind, talk over the table and others scores will make an impact weather you are conscious about it or not. And in the end will impact the grades given.

I also find it curious that people rate these young vintages so highly. Even more so when older more proven wines from also great years does not even reach those marks currently and while being far more mature. Could that be the news / hype factor? Also are the shippers getting into our heads with these "low" yields and more ready to drink from the get-go VPs?

/tinfoil hat off

Thomas, I agree 100% with your objectivity statement, it is almost impossible not to be influenced by the label.

With regards to the newer vintages receiving high scores, I think (hope) it is more an indication of the potential for the wine 30-40 years down the road, that is how I interpret them and how Iscore them anyway.

While I can only speak to the ones I've had thus far, the quality is better than 2016. In fact the best quality I've had in a long time. If you look at the overall scores from various reviewers and Port lovers the consistently higher scores are a reflection of that.

Also are the shippers getting into our heads with these "low" yields and more ready to drink from the get-go VPs?

If you look at how much TFP actually made and bottled, not exactly small yields. So the answer to that is no. And the 16 VP's I've had aren't exactly what I would call ready to drink. So no to that as well.

I readily admit that I am influenced by a label, though often not in the way you might expect. For example, given that I have never had a truly superb Nacional, I'm pretty pessimistic now whenever I taste one. I'm just not expecting it to be good because that's been my experience in the past. (My best experience was a 95-point 1967, IIRC, while I often rate them only 91-92 points and have had them as low as 87-88.)

That said, I prefer Graham's Ports over just about any other, and that's been backed up many times in blind tastings. So while I cannot guarantee that my scores are unaffected when I'm tasting Graham's Ports in a non-blind tasting, I do know that my preference is honest and valid. I thought that I preferred Taylor, Fonseca, and Vesuvio, but after reviewing my notes for several blind tastings I noticed that while I only occasionally scored Graham 1st, it was regularly 2nd on the night or occasionally 3rd. Taylor, Fonseca, and Vesuvio would all take 1st now and then, but they would also drop to 4th or 5th sometimes. Graham never left the top 3. I realized that my blind notes were trying to tell me something.

In one particular blind tasting after I'd had this revelation, in fact, I thought that I'd already identified the 1985 Graham in the flight and was disappointed in its showing. "Only" 93 points. I then also identified the 1985 Fonseca which was stellar as usual. But I was hung up on some mysterious Port that I could not identify, but which was wonderful. I had a hard time doing it, but I eventually gave it my WOTN over the Fonseca and then had to laugh when it turned out I was wrong. The earlier Port was the 1985 Gould Campbell, and my mystery Port was in fact the 1985 Graham.

What does this have to do with 2017s?

I clearly have a style that I prefer. I like big, voluptuous, fruity Port. 1970 and 1994 were great years for me. 2011 seems like it might be even better. I've tasted a few 2015s and while I like the style, the quality doesn't seem to be there for me (compared to '70, '94, '11 which is a tough crowd). 2016 seems to have the quality for me, but doesn't really seem to be my "style" of year.

Which is why I'm excited about 2017. I'm hearing great things about the quality, but perhaps more importantly I'm hearing that the style is closer to 2011 than 2016. Or 1945, if you think you can believe the hype. Big, dark, fruity, tannic beasts tending more toward black/blue fruit flavors than red/purple. I.e. the entire vintage is being described with a Graham-like profile.