For The Love Of Port

A really interesting tasting (Michael Schuster) showing the evolving nature of a recently purchased Quinta high up in the Douro, famed a century ago but in decline until the Symingtons got their hands on it in ’89.

Not sure how representative the '94 was, and the Grahams '94 didn' show as well as last year but they produced a cracker in ’95 for the vintage, and in 2000 they really did arrive – absolutely superb port and hopefully the signs of things to come.

Double decanted 24 hours in advance (which may not have worked for all of them).

’89


Bricking throughout – and lightweight colour. Spicy cherry and light plum fruit – some spirit poking through. Alcoholic impact on palate – not just heat but a thin boned wine with little flesh hanging off it. Smokey/burnt finish lingers, but not in an entirely pleasant way. Very sherry like on back tasting. In decline. 78-

’90


Light ruby – some tawny toward the rim. Nose of mature raisony fruit with cherry and sugary coffee notes. Elegant entry – light balanced fruit. Moderate weight with little tannin left – modest smoky finish. Nice modest port for drinking now. 85

’91


Slightly lighter than the ’92 but a more open nose with development – cherry and prune like. Quite sweet on entry with its warming alcohol on show. Less tannin than the ’92 but no less astringency. Good for drinking now – not sure of future. 89

’92


Deep ruby – solid to rim. Ripe plumy, smoky nose – reasonably open but not overly perfumed or complex – youthful still. Good palate entry, ripe supple fruit – good integrated tannin with alcohol completely integrated – quite long. Lovely overall, while youthful – perfectly drinkable. 91

’94


Not sure how representative this is, but the compact, high toned palate wasn’t great:

Deep youthful looking ruby/burgundy. Initially a lovely lifted, almost floral top note. Good entry then falls off with a firm acidic edge which gives the port intensity, but unbalances the otherwise good fruit. Neither expands on the palate or draws out much of finish. Indeed as other remarks about volatility on the nose, I have conclude the impact on the palate impact is due to its effect, and hardly a positive one. ?

Grahams ‘94


As there’s no ’93 Vesuvio, this was provided as a comparative port. Not sure if this was truly representative, and certainly didn’t show as well as last year:

Deep but maturing ruby. Development apparent with coffee edged raisony fruit cake nose with a liquorice edge. Good complex palate, very supple and drinkable – but the port seemed to lack a good enough backbone for great. 90?

’95


Deep ruby with a hint of dustiness which might have just been the glass. Tarry black fruits – good dense entry – lovely fruit sweetness – supple blackcurrant seem which is balanced and long. Needs to unwind but excellent potential. 93

’96


Burgundy/ruby. Sweet, somewhat indistinct fruit but attractively ‘porty’. Good sweet fruit on the palate – moderate alcohol presence – supple, mid-bodied. A little LBV like, but an excellent one at that. 88

’97


Mid to deep ruby. Light spicy cherry fruited nose – attractive but not intense or dense. Lovely sweet entry – warmingly alcoholic but good fruit/structure to balance. Quite warm on finish though – not great but attractive and drinking well now. 89

’98


Dense opaque burgundy to rim. Blackcurrant throat lozenges (Strepcils) on the nose – a not unpleasant medicinal edge to very strong black fruit
flavour. More density/concentration over the ’99, but the rich tannic astringency doesn’t find the length of the ’99. Backwards, needs more time but this seems to have serious upside. 90+

’99


Burgundy/black to rim; sweet blackcurrant jam nose – very open and fruity. Not huge on the palate, but supple and lush. Good balance – some astringency pops up on the finish. Overall not the depth of a genuine vintage port, but good fruit driven length and certainly good for the year. 90

2000

Deep burgundy – near opaque. Dense black fruits – spicy, plumy and quite chocolaty (dark, bitter chocolate). Very intense fruit entry – lovely rich velvety tannins - really exceptional depth and length. Balanced and easy to drink today, but great upside. 95+

thanks for the great TN's Nick.

When I had the Graham's 94 last summer, I had the same impression as you.

One of the more interesting comparative notes in that it lacks pretention and meaningless language.

But, hang on, a 16yr old VP "in decline"?

It can be argued that the Sym's launched Vesuvio on the market with excess haste after aquiring it - it is often stated that the Quinta was in poor condition at the time - but this seems very young for even a lesser VP to be over the hill.

- Odd!

Well, '89 wasn't the best of vintages, so that probably didn't help either.

Thanks Tom; but just to note this bottle was sliding badly - and should not have tasted like sherry 20 minutes after pouring - however: it was double decanted 24 hours prior to tasting.

The host didn't explain why even vintages he knew to be older and weaker got the same treatment as the 2000, but it might have seemed easier. He did however say it is a port for those that prefer the tawny style, which you can read into (and when I remarked about the smell of sherry later others said they agreed).

If you don't mind a spirity tawny style, then you may rate it (and enjoy it) more highly. But as a vintage port it was not great, and showed signs of serious decline - after being open 24 hours...what was it like on opening? I think I'll have to ask...