1986 Graham Quinta dos Malvedos Vintage Port
Moderators: Glenn E., Andy Velebil
-
Mike J. W.
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:55 pm
- Location: In the middle of cornfields & cow pastures, PA
1986 Graham Quinta dos Malvedos Vintage Port
10 hour decant. Dark purple with absolutely no fading on the edge. If I hadn't known it was an '86, I would have sworn I had opened a 2007 Graham's VP. The color was just that dark. Beautiful blueberries on the nose with a hint of alcohol. The legs on this were solid and thick and they stained the glass. It was so smooth upon entry, and everything was as it should be, lush, sweet, integrated and just so good. Initially I tasted raspberries that eventually gave way to grape jolly ranchers on the finish. I polished the last glass off after the 6th day and it was still going strong. I could easily drink this every day and I'd be a happy camper. Try one if you see them at auction, it's worth it. 93 points.
"I have often thought that the aim of Port is to give you a good and durable hangover, so that during the next day you should be reminded of the splendid occasion the night before." - Hungarian/British journalist & author George Mikes
-
David Spriggs
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:51 pm
- Location: Boulder Creek, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Re: 1986 Graham Malvedos Vintage Port
Thanks Mike! I have a few of these and I'll try to find one and open it up.
-
Glenn E.
- Posts: 8186
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:49 am
- Location: Sammamish, Washington, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Re: 1986 Graham Malvedos Vintage Port
We had one this past weekend (thanks Lisa!) and it was quite excellent. I gave it the same score you did - 93 points.
I misidentified it as a 1991 Smith Woodhouse, and specifically said during the discussion that while it tasted like a Graham, it wasn't sweet enough, so must be either Smith Woodhouse or Gould Campbell. But the fruits weren't dark enough (in flavor) to be a Gould Campbell, ergo Smith Woodhouse.
Ours was also kind of shockingly opaque. One person at the table thought that, based on the color, it had to be a 2011 or younger. And we also noted some synthetic grape flavors like jolly rancher, grape bubble gum, and grape laffy taffy.
That said, everyone present said that they prefer the 1987. Now we just need to try them side-by-side!
By the way: I've corrected the thread title. Graham's didn't use "Quinta dos Malvedos" until the 1998 Vintage. Until then it was simply "Malvedos" and was technically considered a second label rather than an SQVP. (The reason being that they were using grapes from non-Malvedos properties, but by 1998 they had purchased all of those properties and rolled them into Quinta dos Malvedos so they could use the SQVP-style name.)
I misidentified it as a 1991 Smith Woodhouse, and specifically said during the discussion that while it tasted like a Graham, it wasn't sweet enough, so must be either Smith Woodhouse or Gould Campbell. But the fruits weren't dark enough (in flavor) to be a Gould Campbell, ergo Smith Woodhouse.
Ours was also kind of shockingly opaque. One person at the table thought that, based on the color, it had to be a 2011 or younger. And we also noted some synthetic grape flavors like jolly rancher, grape bubble gum, and grape laffy taffy.
That said, everyone present said that they prefer the 1987. Now we just need to try them side-by-side!
By the way: I've corrected the thread title. Graham's didn't use "Quinta dos Malvedos" until the 1998 Vintage. Until then it was simply "Malvedos" and was technically considered a second label rather than an SQVP. (The reason being that they were using grapes from non-Malvedos properties, but by 1998 they had purchased all of those properties and rolled them into Quinta dos Malvedos so they could use the SQVP-style name.)
Glenn Elliott