For The Love Of Port

I don't think I could pick an outright winner but the 1908, 1912 and undeclared 1977 were all stunning wines.

So what do you think. After reading the newsletter, Miguel Corte Real sent me his scores made during the tasting. I have really not looked them over yet, to compare or contrast with my own scores. I know Miguel well enough to say he would not have an issue if they were posted here, but don't know if you folks would like to see them or not.

What say you?


Jeffrey K. does this mean that you and Laura are considering joining us for the January bash here in Seattle? That would be great! Please let me know. If you brought the kids, I am sure my wife would not mind babysitting, although she will probably join us for one of the three nights, so we could get sitters for that night. We use a pair of sisters to do our sitting. Let me know, it would be great to have you two with us!

Roy Hersh wrote:So what do you think. After reading the newsletter, Miguel Corte Real sent me his scores made during the tasting. I have really not looked them over yet, to compare or contrast with my own scores. I know Miguel well enough to say he would not have an issue if they were posted here, but don't know if you folks would like to see them or not.

I would love to see Miguel's scores and think you should post them here an anywhere else you think would be appropriate

Derek T. wrote:I don't think I could pick an outright winner but the 1908, 1912 and undeclared 1977 were all stunning wines.

The 1977 is a stunning wine! It was one of the highlights of the very first harvest tour. I didn't put that down as best because it's not officially declared

David,

I remember that 2005 trip as if it was yesterday, at least sitting at the board table with the Cockburn's 3 wise men at lunch and then they pull the mystery blind bottle on us. Anyway, I loved that '77 but honestly, from the appearance it seemed much older than it actually was. The bottle in London seemed quite a bit fresher.

That was a pretty great trip considering the size of our "group." They don't make 'em like that anymore, eh?

It was very special. I'll never forget it.
-Dave-

OK, here are Miguel Corte-Real's scores that he sent to me; he wrote:


For the record, my own classification was as follows :

2003 – 92-94

2000 – 94-96

1997 – 90-92

1994 – Oxidized bottle ( if not oxidized , could be easily a 90-92 )

1991 – 80-82

1985 – Too high VA

1883 – 90-92 ( but with a bit of TCA . Without TCA 93-95 ! )

1977 – 92-94

1975 – 88-90

1970 – 92-94



1896 – 88-90 (?)

1908 – 95-97

1912 – 98-100

1924 – 88-90 (?)

1927 – 92-94

1935 – 90-92 ( 92-94 considered the half bottle effect )

1947 – 93-95

1950 – 90-92

1955 – 93-95

1960 – 95-97

1963 – 90-92

1967 – 92-94