For The Love Of Port

Local wine shop tasting. These had been decanted for about 2 hours, and I tasted them over about an hour in the glass. It was clear they were changing even during that time, so these brief notes are but a single snapshot data point. Roy's methodology of tasting over many hours to days is clearly preferable, but I didn't have the luxury in this case. I have no doubt that if I had had the chance to sample these over a day or two these notes might change. And the usual caveats: one man's opinion, YMMV, etc., etc.

First, some first impressions on the vintage, again based only on a very short evaluation: the 2003 wines are not as explosive and complex as either the 2000 or 1994 vintage, nor do they have the tannic structure. I would expect many or most of the 2003 Ports to mature on the earlier side - which is not to say they are ready to drink now, just that my bet is they'll be in their prime in 20 years instead of 30-40. Given the prices of the 2003 wines, it is possible to find most of their 2000 vintage counterparts for equal or lower prices.

2003 Dow's
Impressive entry, with dark blackberry, slightly grapey, nice undertones of herb/garrique, hints of anise on the finish. One of the better structured wines, with medium tannins. 94 points.

2003 Croft
Dark, brooding flavors, medium/moderate tannins, some nice garrique complexity on the finish. 93 points.

2003 Smith Woodhouse
Noticeably sweeter, moderate tannins, quite ripe, but not grapey. Very nice, but too sweet for my tastes. 91 points.

2003 Graham's
Fairly simple, one-dimensional, moderate/low tannins, short finish. After some time in the glass this improved considerably, gaining complexity, and the finish lengthened a bit, but it falls well short of the incredibly explosive 2000 model, which was like a 4th of July fireworks finale in your mouth, and gripped your tongue in a tannic vice that wouldn't let go. 92 points.

2003 Quinta do Vesuvio
This is similar to the Dow's, but a bit less grapey, good tannic structure, wonderful finish, the best of the bunch for me by a nose. 95 points.

2003 Taylor
The nose has a bit of distracting VA, but there is good dark fruit, medium sweetness, medium/moderate tannins, decent finish. If the Dow and Vesuvio are slider and curve ball, with their range of complexities, the Taylor is a straight fastball, right down the middle. Good wine, but nothing to grab my interest. 92 points.

2003 Fonseca
Again, slight VA on the nose; not dissimilar to the Taylor, but there is a medicinal component that puts me in mind of cough syrup; only moderate tannins, with a medium-short finish that leaves quite a sweet aftertaste. Another wine that falls well short of its 2000 brother. 91 points.

Unfortunately, no Niepoort or Noval, which I still have yet to try.

Regards,
Alan

Alan,

Thanks for posting these notes. They made interesting reading.

Alex

Some revised thoughts: I have now had the chance to try both the Taylor and Fonseca 2 more times each, as well as Grahams and Dow once, and for the first time Noval and Niepoort. My opinion of 2003 has risen in general, and both Fonseca and Taylor have moved up considerably. I now consider both of those to be excellent to outstanding, with classic proportions of sweetnes, spice and tannins.

Grahams stayed put, not quite measuring up to the vintage for me, just a bit too sweet and syrupy. My first try of Roriz left me a bit flat, that wine is a bit simple and grapey, though a decent value. Dow kept its place, or moved up slightly.

Both the Noval and Niepoort lived up to my expectations for them, particularly based on Roy's reviews. I love these two wines for their uniqe and fascinating complexities, black licorice, dried fig and date, bitter chocolate, herbs and spice. I've been trying to reconcile Robert Parker's review of the Niepoort with my own notes (he actually didn't rate it, scoring it below 85 points, claiming it was so brutally tannic that it would never come around). I hope he tries it again, and reconsiders that position, as I found it to be extraordinary, and wish I was 20 years younger so I could anticipate drinking it when it is 40 or 50 years old.

Regards,
Alan

Alan,

I was really scratching my head while reading your first post and wondered if the bottles you tried were off. Fonseca especially sounded way off from the handful of times I have now had this wine, especially one full bottle over 3 days.

Ok, the Dow's we're splitting hairs and you liked it more later than your first 94 pt. experience, so that seems right on the money.

The Croft still surprises me as this is such a lush and approachable wine. Hard not to love for the immediacy.

Vesuvio sounds right on except from your description, maybe a bit stingy at 95. : )

I am glad that both the Noval and Niepoort wowed you. They are superb wines. But the way, it was not Robert Parker that rated the 2003 VPs in the Wine Advocate. It was Pierre Rovani. His 80-84 pt. score on Niepoort and Quinta do Portal still boggle my mind, but hey, that is his opinion and he is welcome to it.


My big questions for you are.

a. You tasted the wines and rated them. Then you tasted them again and all of a sudden the whole vintage has improved and gained more respect from you. What happened to change your mind?

b. Why did the Taylor/Fonseca duo show so much better than the first time?


Respectfully,

Roy

Roy,

Some good points and questions. You're right, it was Rovani who actually rated the Ports. I was thinking about the thread on Squires, where Parker responded, and concurred (it was immediately after my post about tannins in young ports being a positive for future longevity, and Parker said that the Niepoort was so tannic it would never come around, or something like that).

I too believe that the first bottles of both Fonseca and Taylor were not quite right, as I've now had two more samples of each, and all four of those bottles showed remarkably. It could also be that my palate was having an off day the first time but I think I was in good shape that day. My scoring is probably a bit more conservative than many, 95 or 96 points is essentially the top of scale for me with a young wine that needs much time and development to really prove itself, so we may not be very different at all in our scoring. I think I re-scored Taylor and Fonseca at 95 and 96, respectively.

I tried to blunt my original comments a bit with the caveat that it was a short tasting of a limited sample - not nearly the breadth of time or samples that you were able to taste before posting even your first comments. Sometimes I wonder if it is better just not to say anything before I have more info, but then no one listens to me the way they do to you I have to believe there was something off with the original bottles of Fonseca and Taylor, and given that they are part of the core of the top tier, having them fall down a notch or two said something about the overall vintage in my mind. I definitely picked up VA notes on those bottles that would suggest they were flawed. And not having tasting Niepoort or Noval at that point left only a couple of wines really performing at the top level for me.

As I will turn 50 in a month, I am actually thinking seriously that this might already be a vintage which I won't ever have the chance to enjoy to its fullest. It may be the last vintage I buy in any quantity.

Regards,
Alan

Alan,

I appreciate everything you wrote and totally understand. That is why it is essential to try the wines more than once, early on before one (and I am talking about critics and journalists) goes on the record. It is imperative!

I turn 50 in 6/07 and feel the same way about 2003. I only own 3 cases from this young vintage and bought mostly 4 bottles of the wines I liked best, with only the Vesuvio at 6 bottles, due to their phenomenal wine and packaging.

I will never buy more than a case or two of any younger Port vintages as the bottles will solely be a gift for my daughter when she comes of age in 18 years. I spend lots of time coaching her.