Page 1 of 1
1991/1992 split vintage article on WS
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:32 am
by Frederick Blais
In the mood of the Fonseca 1992 and other 1991 VP being taste recently, I found this article on the WS web site. Follow this link:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:jo ... =firefox-a
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:28 pm
by Al B.
Fred,
Interesting article. I wonder how it would change if the wines were revisited today? Maybe an idea for a future newsletter or magazine article by Roy?
Alex
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:33 pm
by Steven Kooij
The was an article in the magazine "Portuguese Wines", the English version of the Revista de Vinhos (Portugal's leading wine magazine) on the '91 and '92 Vintages published about a year ago, with TNs and scores on many VPs from both years. The authors, João Afonso and João Paulo Martins, gave the following recommendations:
Drink
Barros '91
Burmester '91
Dalva '91
Ferreira '91
Graham's '91
Krohn '91
Niepoort '91
Smith Woodhouse '91
Warre '91
Burmester '92
Cruz '92
Q.d. Canais '92
Q. Nova d. Nossa Senhora do Carmo '92
Drink or keep
Churchill '91
Croft '91
Dow '91
Osborne '91
Poças '91
Pousada '91
Q.d. Castelinho '91
Q.d. Estanho '91
Q.d. la Rosa '91
Rozés '91
Delaforce '92
Fonseca '92
Niepoort '92
Osborne '92
Q.d. Infantado '92
Q.d. la Rosa '92
Q.d. Vesuvio '92
Taylor '92
The article concludes with the following:
From the stance of evolution and degree of resistance to oxidation, the odds are weighed more in favour of 1992. We felt there was a high number of 91 Vintages suggesting short term frailty and even one or two that had passed their best. One could speculate, therefor, that the 1992 Vintages have better structure and conditions to develop than 1991 Vintages. This is merely a possibility - nothing more. Nonetheless we would advice readers with stocks of these Vintages at home to see for themselves in order to avoid unpleasant surprises a couple of years from now. As for the great wines from both years, while there is absolutely no hurry to drink them, there is no reason not to open one or two bottles now (decanted in advance, of course) to delight in the "essence" of the Douro Valley.
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:10 pm
by Roy Hersh
I have often written about the '91 and '92 split declaration, mostly on the old AOL wine message boards but also on EBob/Squires.
João Paulo Martins is one of the most gifted Port palates although we often disagree. I respect him very much and love reading his articles in the aforementioned publication. Sadly it is very difficult to obtain here and I have to receive my copies from friends in Portugal.
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:49 am
by NickA
bridgema wrote:Fred,
Interesting article. I wonder how it would change if the wines were revisited today? Maybe an idea for a future newsletter or magazine article by Roy?
Alex
It was! There's a WS article from the beginning of the year. I have a print out, but not the original link. Anyway, not that much difference from the '94 article
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:20 pm
by Steven Kooij
Nick:
link! (it's from March this year)
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:18 pm
by Chris
Not mentioned on the list above: Gould Campbell 1991. I popped my first bottle last week: Powerfull, layers of fruit, velvet tannins. Really exellent and ready to drink now. It seemed to be more forward and gave me much more pleasure to drink than the 1983 Grahams I had recently. This port is the best bargain on port in my country (around USD 28 ) and I'm happy to have quite a few more bottles in my cellar.
Chris
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:15 am
by Al B.
Chris
Thanks for the tip. I've seen this wine retailing around GBP 20 per bottle in the UK. I'm desperately trying not to buy any port between now and Christmas - trying to make space in the cellar and also trying not to buy when prices are at their highest - but maybe after Christmas I will go and get some of these.
Alex