For The Love Of Port

Tasted blind. Aroma is sweet and jammy, and beery too, yes beer--malty and a hint of yeast, primarily Belgian ale with a hint of Flanders. Later the aroma was herbaceous, with beechwood and wintergreen. Tasting gives a tannic pucker, but I wonder if this is caused by the sediment in my pour. Cherry, concentrated flavor and alcohol warmth, like cough syrup, but with some maple syrup too. There is a little bit of acid, but not enough to give the balance and complexity needed. Overall, just a bit too sweet and one dimensional for me. 90 points.

Wow. Every time I've had this it's been killer. As IMO one of the best of the vintage. Even better than well showing bottles of Fonseca/Taylors. A shame it didn't show better. Perhaps the curse of '77.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andy Velebil wrote:Wow. Every time I've had this it's been killer. As IMO one of the best of the vintage. Even better than well showing bottles of Fonseca/Taylors. A shame it didn't show better. Perhaps the curse of '77.

Perhaps. I've had 1977 Taylor and Fonseca before and thought they were decent, but nowhere near as great as others would suggest. But in this blind tasting of 13 1977s, Taylor, Fonseca, and Neipoort came out on top.

Shocking. Shocking I say!

PROVENANCE is everything. When people seek only the lowest prices off Winesearcher, that is the best way to find sub-par or poorly stored bottles. I am not saying it is impossible to get lucky and find a real bargain, but the odds are fair enough that the quality has been compromised somewhere along the chain, by poor storage and myriad other bad juju.

Roy Hersh wrote:Shocking. Shocking I say!

PROVENANCE is everything. When people seek only the lowest prices off Winesearcher, that is the best way to find sub-par or poorly stored bottles. I am not saying it is impossible to get lucky and find a real bargain, but the odds are fair enough that the quality has been compromised somewhere along the chain, by poor storage and myriad other bad juju.

Well that's all well and good, but there is only two ways to get this bottle. Well theoretically there is a third, at auction, but I've never seen or heard of one sold at auction from the original "unreleased" lot. So, one way was from someone at Cockburn's directly and one was the recent release of it from the Sym's. Which bottle was this from?

Eric Menchen wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:Wow. Every time I've had this it's been killer. As IMO one of the best of the vintage. Even better than well showing bottles of Fonseca/Taylors. A shame it didn't show better. Perhaps the curse of '77.

Perhaps. I've had 1977 Taylor and Fonseca before and thought they were decent, but nowhere near as great as others would suggest. But in this blind tasting of 13 1977s, Taylor, Fonseca, and Neipoort came out on top.

Taylor's and Fonseca are a total crap shoot from this vintage. You either get a good one or you don't and there's no in between. In my experience, the Niepoort has generally always showed well but is more mature than some others.

Andy Velebil wrote:Well that's all well and good, but there is only two ways to get this bottle. Well theoretically there is a third, at auction, but I've never seen or heard of one sold at auction from the original "unreleased" lot. So, one way was from someone at Cockburn's directly and one was the recent release of it from the Sym's. Which bottle was this from?

This was one of the recent release bottles from the Symingtons. Lindsay found them while looking for Ports for the Anniversary tasting, and I told him to buy everything they had. Which was only 2 bottles, 1 of which I now possess. They came from a store in California, but since they're late release they spent by far the majority of their lives in the cellar in VNdG which means the provenance should be damn near perfect. So while I agree that provenance can be important, it's clearly not everything. (Though... keep reading...)

My impressions were much better than Eric's. My glass had no sediment, and there were distinctly different impressions that people got around the room. (Glasses were passed around to smell and taste.) I actually guessed this to be Graham's. I found it rich, full, and very round with layer after layer of flavor. A beautiful, classic old VP. I scored it 96. So maybe provenance does matter?

Glenn E. wrote:My impressions were much better than Eric's. My glass had no sediment, and there were distinctly different impressions that people got around the room. (Glasses were passed around to smell and taste.)

Pours matter, apparently. POURS are everything!

Eric Menchen wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:My impressions were much better than Eric's. My glass had no sediment, and there were distinctly different impressions that people got around the room. (Glasses were passed around to smell and taste.)

Pours matter, apparently. POURS are everything!

Yes the bigger the better.

Glenn E. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote: I found it rich, full, and very round with layer after layer of flavor. A beautiful, classic old VP. I scored it 96. So maybe provenance does matter?

I generally think of Cockburn ports as being rich tasting, so this does not surprise me. This is one vintage I have been curious to try. '77 seems to be crapshoot; even within the same brand. That being said, I have been digging '77 Grahams the most in recent tastings. The Niepoort is too hard to find and have only had it once...