1985 Kopke Vintage Port

[Derek T.]

Purchased at Heathrow Airport in Aug 1985 - provenance unknown

My first experience of Kopke

The cork crumbled and it took significant effort to extract all of the bits with various kitchen implements before decanting.

Decanted easily off remarkably little crust. Colour was a bright brownish red. An attractive floral aroma filled the room whilst decanting. Nose in the decanter revealed strawberry jam and no spirit whatsoever.

First taste (on decanting) was smooth and thick with a slightly bitter anecede flavour. A small amount of heat came through after a few seconds but quickly faded to a minty tingle and then a long sweet finish of strawberry.

+5 Hrs Significantly darker. Now a ruby red which has lost the brown tint from earlier, perhaps a trick of the light. Very smooth but quite light in the mouth. Anecede and dark chocolate with a mouth watering sweetness. Finish still has that minty tingle followed by long fruit.

Perhaps it's time for my first attempt at a score - I'll use Tom's scale - in terms of the VP's I have tasted this year this scores a slightly above average 6 - I did not detect any significant tanins and the colour was quite light on decanting despite the absence of heavy sediment so I don't think this will improve from here. That said, it's not dying by any means, so I'll give it a 6-5

I have 375ml of this in a half bottle in the fridge (from decanting) which may make it to the Christmas bash on Sunday - a poor partner to Tom's left-over N31 but it will be interesting to hear other opinion on this wine.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

Purchased at Heathrow Airport in Aug 1985

Huh :?

uhh, it wasn't bottled until 1987...keep drinking Derek :wall:

[Derek T.]

Oops - I meant 2006 :?

.....and I haven't even had much to drink

[Ronald Wortel]

Seems like you encountered a bad bottle. I've had this port several times, and it always showed much younger and concentrated than you describe. One of the better Kopkes around IMHO.

[Frederick Blais]

I've been reading from different sources including Broadbent who gave this a 4 stars that this wine is a very good VP. But just as Derek I've never been impress with this Port and my notes are similar. I've been drinking this around the year 2000 several times as it was cheap, around 40$ can at that time. But I did not find in this wine character to age further and I already thought at that time that the wine was going downhill showing alcohol and mainly tertiary flavours.

[Robin L.]

Derek or Uncle Tom or anyone else,
Does someone would have the kindness to explain me how the Tom's Scale works ?

[Derek T.]

Robin,

I will try to explain, but as Tom invented it he may need to add some details.

The first score relates to how the wine is drinking now compared with the other wines you have tasted in the recent past. The second score is an assessment of the wines potential to improve further over time. So my score of 6-5 says (to me) that the Kopke 85 was just above average today (6) and shows signs that it will last a few more years but not improve (5)

I think this method provides more information than a simple score out of 100. You will often see wines scoring in the high 90's that are not particularly enjoyable to drink today (they may be "closed down" or too young to really show themselves properly) and conversely you will see wines quoted as scoring high 90's based on how they tasted 40, 50 or 60 years ago. Tom's method is, I think, intended to level out discrepancies that a single point system often shows.

Am I anywhere close, Tom?

Derek

[Steven Kooij]

i've had this VP several times, and always rated it between 85 and 90 points. My last bottle was opened last August, and (of course) showed the most youghtful: dark, packed with fruit...I is still quite easy to find here: Kopke is a major brand in The Netherlands. I might buy more.

[Ronald Wortel]

The bottles I tried were all (close to) 90 points, with one exception: a bottling that said "Qta. S. Luiz". According to the importer it was exactly the same as the regular bottling, but it tasted more simple and evolved.

[Tom Archer]

My scoring system is designed to compare wines against their peers-

So a VP is judged against all other VP's, a Colheita against all other Colheitas - etc.

The first score relates to the ability of the wine to give immediate gratification, the second is your perception of how good it will be when fully mature, or in the case of a mature wine, where it will be in ten years time.

If you feel that the wine you're tasting is in the top 5% of all the wines you've known, then it gets a 10, if it's in the bottom 5%, it gets a zero.

Each of the other scores gets a 10% share.

In practical terms, start by considering whether the wine is better or worse than the median. If it's neither, score 5.

Then consider whether the wine is in the top quartile (if it's good) or bottom quartile (if it's poor).

A wine that is better than the median, but not in the top quartile, will score either 6 or 7. A wine that is worse than the median but not in the bottom quartile, will score 3 or 4.

A wine that is in the top quartile, but not decisively so, will score an 8, a better wine will score 9 or 10, but remember that only one bottle in 20 should be good enough for a 10 score.

The same happens in reverse at the bottom end of the scale. An uninspiring, but drinkable wine will normally rank a 2, a poor wine a 1.

Only one bottle in 20 should rank a zero - for VP, this is about the proportion that gets dumped in the cooking or down the sink.

If a bottle is so badly corked that you have to abandon it, don't venture a score. If you suspect a poor bottle, put your score in parentheses ().

Over time, an average of all your scores should come to 5. A slightly higher average is forgiveable if you focus on the best and ignore the rest, and a lower average is equally forgiveable if you are a budget drinker.

This gives you your first score. You then have to consider where it's going.

Even top wines may earn quite a low first score when they are young, raw, immature and closed down, but it is often possible to get a feel for where they are going.

So for a 2003 VP, a score of 3-9 would not be exceptional. A typical 1991 VP, which have generally got a little way to go, might rank a 5-6 or 6-7.

When wines are mature and set fair on a plateau, the first and second scores are the same, so a 1983 VP might rank a 7-7 or 8-8.

When wines are mature, but beginning to run out of steam, a point off for the second score is in order - most 1980 VP's fall into this camp.

Where an old wine is beginning to fall apart, and seems to have very little future, two points off for the second score is appropriate - some of the 1960 VP's are in this category.

Tom

[Robin L.]

Thanks for details about the scale,
I think I will adopt it.

[Derek T.]

Who needs Parker or Broadbent you have your own Uncle Tom

Derek

[Jay Powers]

I agree, the scale is more descriptive than most and I like it a lot. Keep it going.

Jay