Decanting Taylor's 1985

[JanTore]

I only have a single bottle of this. How long before drinking do people in the know suggest that I decant this (hopefully) lovery bottle of port?

[Moses Botbol]

2-3 hours if you are decanting it; some will say longer. Enjoy and report back!

[Glenn E.]

I would probably give it 4 hours, but Moses's recommendation is a good one if you'll be drinking the Port over a few hours. That way you'll be able to see a little bit of its evolution as it opens up. But I suspect it will show best around the 4 hour mark or possibly a little longer.

[JanTore]

Thanks, folks. Decanted three hours plus before drinking at the end of a meal with Portuguese wines (Pato Vinhas Velhas Branco 1991, da Silva Colares Chitas 1999).

Dried fruits (esp. prunes and dates) and some spice on the nose. Quite soft and easy and, by all means, very, very pleasant. People loved this, but for me it lacked a bit of complexity and elegance (and — dare I say it for a wine this age — freshness). I liked it, but didn't find it all that exciting. I expected more, and judging from Cellar Tracker, there may be more exciting bottles out there. (Even if it's difficult to judge based on people whose palates and experience you don't know.)

[Glenn E.]

I liked it, but didn't find it all that exciting.

I would say that's a fairly common reaction. With the exception of the outstanding 1987 Taylor Quinta de Vargellas, the 1980s were a "down" decade for Taylor. They're fine Ports, but one expects more than "fine" from Taylor.

To be fair, that seems to be true of just about every house during that decade. Most producers had at best 1 excellent Port during the 3 full declarations (and 1 shoulda-coulda-been in 1987) and many had none. It was a pretty pedestrian period overall. The only producers who immediately come to mind who didn't have a down decade are all Symington brands: Dow, Graham, Gould Campbell and arguably Smith Woodhouse. All 3 major declarations ('80, '83, '85) from Graham and Gould Campbell are excellent, and while I don't have much experience with 1983 Dow or Smith Woodhouse I do know that their '80s and '85s are worthy of their names.

[Eric Menchen]

... and while I don't have much experience with 1983 Dow or Smith Woodhouse I do know that their '80s and '85s are worthy of their names.

I've had 1983 Smith Woodhouse many times, with some weak showings, but I scored one bottle 95 points in a blind tasting, the FTLOP 1983 retrospective. I only have one note on 1983 Dow, from that tasting, and it didn't fare very well--90 points.

[John M.]

I've had the 1983 Dow numerous times (one fellow in the Port Club has a special affinity for it). Usually in the 92-94 point range.

[Andrew Kirschner]

1985 was a bizarre vintage. There was practically no real consistency from house to house. The Ports went from very good to really average- with your Taylor Fladgate being one of the better ones. I am in th minorit of those who think this one will continue to improve and probably hasn’t peaked yet. I’ve opened a bottle about every three years for the past dozen years, and they do continue to improve. Your description is pretty consistent with my experience.
Enjoy!
Andrew

[Moses Botbol]

1985 is generally a solid vintage with a few outliers for both just OK and Excellent. Compare an '85 ten years ago to a '94 today and it's pretty stark the difference. '94 is way younger than '85 was ten years ago.