For The Love Of Port

I've been meaning to tackle one of these for ages. One of six bottles bought some years ago.

Decanted reasonably cleanly, leaving a moderate amount of fine gritty sludge.

Decanted four hours ago. First sip was not very encouraging, as the wine seemed bereft of bouquet, bar a little bottle stink.

Now, a small glass..

There is a certain pinkish-purple colour that makes the 77's almost identifiable by sight alone. The wine has now found some aroma, but not a great deal. The spirit is noticeable.

On the palate it seems light and sharp - not terribly impressive or integrated.

I can understand why some people have slated this wine, but I also have a hunch that it may come round after a more time in decanter.

Will re-visit tonight

Tom

"...fine gritty sludge. "

{sigh} I think I'll never learn all this technical jargon...

Folks,

I think this is a plea from Mike for some help.

If I understand him correctly, he is looking to build up his knowledge of the types of sediment and their correct descriptions.

To help in this, I suggest we all collect the sediment from, say, the next 3 bottles we open and decant. Dry the sludge and put it into a clean, white envelope and write on the envelope the description of the sediment. Then post the envelope to Mike. Mike can then open the envelope, add water to the sediment to get it back to its original state and can then inspect it to see the difference between sludge, sediment, gumph, slodge etc and also the different grades - fine, gritty, bitty, lumpy, bumpy, lots, little etc.

Mike - all we need from you is your address.....

Alex

:joker:

MIke,
Ignore that crazy guy named Alex I think it was him, when this site first started about 1 1/2 yrs ago, that got me to try the sediment from an old Port bottle. I've not been the same since

Actually, I think Alex has tried it a few too many times as well :joker:

8 hours on and the wine is showing a little more bouquet and much more integration - berry fruits and caramel are both noticeable, and the integration affords more weight. There is no fire now. A pleasant wine, although there is a slight medicinal note..

My hunch that this wine needs it's time in decanter seems to be paying off - this might account for the diverse reviews. I will wait till tomorrow before venturing a score.

Tom

Tom,

Had this twice and it does need considerable time in the decanter. A good Port, that is just misunderstood by those with no patience.

i too had just tried a 77 grahams at christmas, along with a 77 warres and a 77 gould campbell. the grahams was the most perplexing. i agree with tom, there was virtually no nose to speak of for the first 6 hours after decanting, and very little after that. we tasted it after 9 hours of decanting and the fruit was there, but subdued and almost hidden. there was caramel notes as well as some berry. it was amazingly smooth and velvety, but i thought it lacked body and structure. this is the second 77 grahams thats been a bit disappointing, and not up to snuff for this house

bridgema wrote:Folks,

I think this is a plea from Mike for some help.

If I understand him correctly, he is looking to build up his knowledge of the types of sediment and their correct descriptions.

To help in this, I suggest we all collect the sediment from, say, the next 3 bottles we open and decant. Dry the sludge and put it into a clean, white envelope and write on the envelope the description of the sediment.

Strangely enough I was racking my brain for a description of the sediment that was thrown in my bottles of White's of Liecester 1873 when writing my post on the subject on another thread yesterday. When I drained the bottle it looked like a mass of large black flat crystals loosely assembled in a stack going up to one third of the bottle. As a first entry in the big book of port sediment I would like to put forward "Black Coral Reef Crust"

Derek

Derek,

Are you sure that was a bottle you were looking into with that dark crust?

Positive - where else would i have seen it?

Derek Turnbull wrote:Positive - where else would i have seen it?

No comment

- I just remembered about the Douro Crust Effect that is a side-effect of one of Roy's trips

Derek

bridgema wrote: I think this is a plea from Mike for some help...

:idea:

Alex, thank you, yes! Life is about expanding one's horizons. I'm very grateful for what I take away from these forums. Well, may I venture to offer a start on this terminology...standing on the shoulders of giants and all...

Traditional – dawn of time through 1990s

Crust
Sediment
Residue

“We decanted a bottle for Tiffany’s debutante ball; Mr. Cobbs nevertheless noticed some fine sediment as he was serving.”

Evocative – 1990s and post-millennium

Black coral reef crust (© Mr D. Turnbull)
Light shale
Ebon scale
Rich loamy flake
Natural skin

“We opened a bottle for Brittney’s Sweet 16 and admired the robust skins left in the organic muslin filter.”

Down to earth – post-modern

Gunk
Goop
Muck
Dregs
Scab
Sludge
Crap

“When Jake came out of the closet we cracked a bottle. Used a flannel shirt to strain out the crap.”

Boy times are a changing!

Hmm - one well hijacked tasting note..

..oh well, back on thread...

A little over a day after decanting, this wine is now in much better form.

Bouquet is now respectable, if a little medicinal. On the palate it is now fully integrated, with good depth and finish, but a little fire is returning to the fold.

However, whilst respectable, it is not a star performer - it lacks the wow factor.

To score.

I think I have known as many VP's that were better as I have that were worse, so for immediate gratification, this gets a 5.

Where's it going - whilst fully mature, I don't believe this will enjoy much of a plateau, so a point off

Score 5-4

Tom

Thanks for posting this.... I have one Graham 77 as well that I was planning for May this year around the birth of my first.

But I have to confess, I wasn't thinking of 24+ hrs of decanter time. Ok, your experience will help me plan this better.

One question... what was the temperature of the storage of your bottle?

cheers
paba

The 1977 Grahams is in my opinion the poster child for bottle variation. I have been through almost a case of this at various times. The bottles that are good are very, very good--even outstanding--and the bottles that are not so good are very middle-of-the-road, almost insipid. To say they lack the 'wow' factor is really right on the money.

How this came to be I have no idea. My wines were all from the same case and got the same storage treatment.

This may be a TCA effect, but I'm not at all certain that it is.

The ratio of excellent to fair is about 50-50 or perhaps 60-40. This means that if you're wanting to drink x bottles at an event, you'd better bring along 2x bottles, to account for this bottle variation. Makes this wine a very expensive one.

Best, John

One question... what was the temperature of the storage of your bottle?

My cellar averages about 58F year round, ranging from 53F in the winter to 63F in the summer.

After decanting, I keep my decanters 'cellar cool' throughout.

Tom

This was one of my favorite ports but I liked it better in the 90's. Roy has been unusually quiet on this thread. He has stated on other threads that the 77 Graham's is a flawed port.

I am starting to agree with him on the 77. But I am also coming to the conclusion that the 85 Graham's, my first case buy nearly 20 years ago, is showing similar flaws.