NV Prime’s (Messias) 30 Year Old Tawny Port
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:55 pm
My God, was this something. What, I have not a clue.
A fondness for Messias tawnies is not something to be disclosed in the company of connoisseurs of barrel-aged ports; and, mercifully, I do not suffer from this affliction. Purchased recently at minimal price out of simple curiosity, this particular exemplar had been bottled in 1995. It was the strangest tawny of purported maturity which I have ever tasted – and would ever again hope to taste.
Served after the wine had been afforded four hours to breath in its bottle, in the glass the port sported a clear rim, was largely translucent and showed something akin to the colour of Roman red. In this latter respect, this wine was redolent of a ten-year-old tawny. Beyond its appearance, had this port been served to me blind, I am not certain whether I would have guessed it to be a tawny, a late-bottled vintage or a ruby reserve. On the one hand, the wine was remarkably crisp after twenty-five years in the bottle, with fresh cranberries being very much in evidence. At the same time, subtle hints of dried dates, leather, lacquer and vanilla were all discernible. The mixture of ruby and tawny notes likewise characterised the mouth. At the fore-palate, dried prunes and vanilla were clearly manifest, giving way to grape stem and a mint-infused, tannic wave. The best that might be said of the non-descript finish is that it warmed the cheeks whilst being neither cloying nor fiery.
Just how this wine was approved by the IVDP as a thirty-year-old tawny is a mystery. The uncharitable would suggest that there are only two possible explanations: chicanery or gross incompetence. It is not that this wine was bad. It was more a case of its being incongruous at every phase of its examination and, most especially, not as advertised.
-86 points
A fondness for Messias tawnies is not something to be disclosed in the company of connoisseurs of barrel-aged ports; and, mercifully, I do not suffer from this affliction. Purchased recently at minimal price out of simple curiosity, this particular exemplar had been bottled in 1995. It was the strangest tawny of purported maturity which I have ever tasted – and would ever again hope to taste.
Served after the wine had been afforded four hours to breath in its bottle, in the glass the port sported a clear rim, was largely translucent and showed something akin to the colour of Roman red. In this latter respect, this wine was redolent of a ten-year-old tawny. Beyond its appearance, had this port been served to me blind, I am not certain whether I would have guessed it to be a tawny, a late-bottled vintage or a ruby reserve. On the one hand, the wine was remarkably crisp after twenty-five years in the bottle, with fresh cranberries being very much in evidence. At the same time, subtle hints of dried dates, leather, lacquer and vanilla were all discernible. The mixture of ruby and tawny notes likewise characterised the mouth. At the fore-palate, dried prunes and vanilla were clearly manifest, giving way to grape stem and a mint-infused, tannic wave. The best that might be said of the non-descript finish is that it warmed the cheeks whilst being neither cloying nor fiery.
Just how this wine was approved by the IVDP as a thirty-year-old tawny is a mystery. The uncharitable would suggest that there are only two possible explanations: chicanery or gross incompetence. It is not that this wine was bad. It was more a case of its being incongruous at every phase of its examination and, most especially, not as advertised.
-86 points