For The Love Of Port

1963 Sandeman VP.

1964 Ramos Pinto VP
1964 Vasconcellos* VP

This year was the first of four planned openings of 1964 Vintage Ports (coinciding with nice round numbers on my birthday-o-meter). I had purchased 4 of the Ramos Pinto and 1 each of Vasconcellos*, Fonseca Guimaraens, Taylor Vargellas, and Graham Malvedos. Then there's the Nacional for my retirement party. (Plus I also have a Niepoort Garrafeira and numerous tawnies... this plan was only put in place for VPs since they are so difficult to find from 1964.)

I'm sure you've noticed the asterisk. That's because while the (upside down) paper label clearly says produced and exported for Vasconcellos Oporto & Co., the bottle's stencil and capsule indicate that it's actually a Butler, Nephew & Co. Port. (Julian's book has a picture of the Butler Nephew which is what tipped me off to look closer, otherwise I likely would have destroyed the evidence of the capsule without a second thought.)

Neither was a great Port. The Ramos Pinto's cork was completely soaked through and somewhat loose (though not leaking), but that allowed the Port inside to oxidize thoroughly over the years to the point that it was much closer in color and taste to a 10-year old White Port than a VP of any age. The Butler Nephew ne Vasconcellos was pleasant enough, but about what you'd expect from a 55 year-old Port from an off vintage. I gave them 87 and 88 points respectively, which may sound weird but I rate based on how the Port tastes not how it should taste, so the Ramos Pinto was still a nice drink. I'd have been perfectly happy to sit and chat on the patio while drinking the bottle with someone.

But of course there were other Ports, too! Lisa brought a 1964 Quinta de Brunheda Colheita Branco, and I still had a little over half of a bottle of 1964 Quinta do Noval Colheita to share. Roy brought a 1977 Smith Woodhouse, Lindsay brought a magnum of champagne, and Amy brought a Taiwanese Whisky. Plus there were lots of bottles of wine! It was a fun evening to say the least.

2005 Kopke White Vintage half bottle
1970 Dow Vintage

Opened a bottle of Vesuvio 1995 and a bottle of Graham 30YO Tawny this week as vacation drinking.

Glenn - when do you plan to retire. I might have something worthy of accompanying a bottle of Nacional 1964...

I’ve decanted a 1997 Delaforce Corte VP. Will report back later on it.

Andy Velebil wrote:I’ve decanted a 1997 Delaforce Corte VP. Will report back later on it.

I have a few bottle of this but haven't tried it yet. I'll be curious to see what you think.

Mike J. W. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:I’ve decanted a 1997 Delaforce Corte VP. Will report back later on it.

I have a few bottle of this but haven't tried it yet. I'll be curious to see what you think.

I’ve not had it in years. Best I can tell was almost exactly 12 years ago. Just took first sip and it’s pleasant so far. Will get a proper note up for you soon.

Feuerheerd 20 yo Tawny (bottled 2017). The color is a cross between a light Pinot Noir and a dark brown. It's a pleasant 20 yo. with a nice nose of cedarwood and burnt almonds. It's fairly well balanced but could use a touch more acidity. It has a light sweetness to it and is a very smooth drink. All in all, I'd give it a 90.

1994 Sandeman VP at a friend's house. Bottle was very prune and baked tasting.

I had the same vintage a few months ago and it was fantastic. I hope this is not theme for this vintage.

Fifteen to twenty years ago, both the industry and writers got seriously cold feet on the '77 vintage - a concern that has proved about 90% misguided. Go back further and you can find influential comments made in the mid 80s suggesting that '60 was an ephemeral vintage to drink through. Yet completely wrong.

In the past year I have attended a '94 horizontal that was not at all inspiring. Most of the wines seemed over evolved and two showed an unpleasant earthy character. My gut reaction was that this was far from the Alpha + vintage we had expected. However, the past evolution of vintages has played games in the past and may be doing so again, so my advice on '94 is:

1) For now, drink something else.

2) Go easy on following the herd when buying - it may, or may not, be a classic. Importantly, it's reputation has only one way to go.

3) Revisit in five years time and compare notes with recent tastings. If it has not embarked on a positive trajectory, relative to today, then it may be case of 'Houston - we was sold a pup..'

Tom Archer wrote:Fifteen to twenty years ago, both the industry and writers got seriously cold feet on the '77 vintage - a concern that has proved about 90% misguided. Go back further and you can find influential comments made in the mid 80s suggesting that '60 was an ephemeral vintage to drink through. Yet completely wrong.

In the past year I have attended a '94 horizontal that was not at all inspiring. Most of the wines seemed over evolved and two showed an unpleasant earthy character. My gut reaction was that this was far from the Alpha + vintage we had expected. However, the past evolution of vintages has played games in the past and may be doing so again, so my advice on '94 is:

1) For now, drink something else.

2) Go easy on following the herd when buying - it may, or may not, be a classic. Importantly, it's reputation has only one way to go.

3) Revisit in five years time and compare notes with recent tastings. If it has not embarked on a positive trajectory, relative to today, then it may be case of 'Houston - we was sold a pup..'

I had a '94 Presidential (Dalva) a couple of summers ago and thought it was awful. Almost like a joke. Same with a second bottle shortly after that one.

A few months ago I wanted a casual bottle of port so opened another and it was like "wow". Quite enjoyable. I felt bad initially rating or debasing the wine as such. The earlier bottles were not off; just not that good. I will be more measured in open the last few of the 6 pack OWC.

1977 Gould Campbell Vintage Port
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=41958

Tom Archer wrote:Fifteen to twenty years ago, both the industry and writers got seriously cold feet on the '77 vintage - a concern that has proved about 90% misguided. Go back further and you can find influential comments made in the mid 80s suggesting that '60 was an ephemeral vintage to drink through. Yet completely wrong.

In the past year I have attended a '94 horizontal that was not at all inspiring. Most of the wines seemed over evolved and two showed an unpleasant earthy character. My gut reaction was that this was far from the Alpha + vintage we had expected. However, the past evolution of vintages has played games in the past and may be doing so again, so my advice on '94 is:

1) For now, drink something else.

2) Go easy on following the herd when buying - it may, or may not, be a classic. Importantly, it's reputation has only one way to go.

3) Revisit in five years time and compare notes with recent tastings. If it has not embarked on a positive trajectory, relative to today, then it may be case of 'Houston - we was sold a pup..'

Agreed! II still believe tha the 1994's are wonderful, but they continue to go through a rough patch on and off. Even the amazing Vesuvio seems off to me, but some bottles are showing well. Just adolescence.

I opened a Quinta da Roeda for home consumption earlier this week It's a very pleasant Port.

Al B. wrote:I opened a Quinta da Roeda for home consumption earlier this week It's a very pleasant Port.

what year?

2005 Kopke Colheita. Really good stuff for being so young.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

Andy Velebil wrote:

Al B. wrote:I opened a Quinta da Roeda for home consumption earlier this week It's a very pleasant Port.

what year?

Good question! 1967.

I’ve opened a 20 year Ramos Pinto Qta. D. Bom Retiro bottled in 2005 as an experiment. Will report back.

1985 Fonseca Vintage Port

Niepoort 10yr - bottled 1982

These Niepoort tawnies are just bulletproof - they mellow for the first decade or so in bottle and then go pretty much nowhere, patiently waiting to be drunk - eventually..

Smooth, nutty, good casual quaffing - no sign whatsoever of age degradation.