For The Love Of Port

OK, either I'm the only one drinking 1983 ports or I cannot figure out how to search on this site!

These TNs are from 36 hours after opening, of which the first 12 were spent in an open decanter after which it was stoppered.

Medium full bodied, medium sweet. Lots of alcohol on the nose even after so much air but not overly alcoholic in the mouth.

Just the beginning of the pale rim at the edge of the glass that usually signifies a mature port.

I tasted black cherry, big juicy sultana raisins, cinnamon, cigar box, and somethin like mango on the finish ( )

Long finish.

Much better than expected.

I score this 92 points.

Bob, I'm slacking to post most of my TN, I often make a quick comments on them in the Port Forum section. I love a lot those 83, my favourite lately was the Gould Campbell, tasted 1,5 month ago. QH was also very good, but a bit behind the depth of GC.

This is the 1st Quarles Harris TN I can remember seeing. Interesting... I did see one in a wine shop when visiting California last year, but have never seen it in AB.

Quarles Harris is the bottom of the barrel (to use the term) of the Symington's brands. It doesn't even have its own web site. I've been fairly impressed with the '77s that I've had. Not a blockbuster, but better than I thought it would have been for a lower tiered house, and they can be found at good prices. I havn't seen the '83 around my area, but if I do it looks like its worth grabbing a bottle and trying it.

andy velebil wrote:Quarles Harris is the bottom of the barrel (to use the term) of the Symington's brands.

I respectfully disagree Andy, insofar as I think it compares favourably with the other Symington "twins", as I call them, Gould Campbell and Smith Woodhouse. I find that I end up scoring them all consistently around 89-92 points. I haven't had enough of any of them over several vintages to try to properly characterize them, but have had one or more of each, usually twice or more each, from 77, 80, and 83, as well as the 95 Madelena (SW I believe) and I find them good value, though rarely stellar. Now that James Suckling has rated the 77 Gould Campbell one of the top wines of that vintage, however, I am dying to try it to see if I need to revisit that opinion.

Bob,

I was refering to what the Symington's consider it. It really is their "lowest" house...sorry but I'm not really sure how to say it any better. That doesn't mean it isn't a good product, just where it lies in the heiarchy of the Symington's labels.

If I recall correctly, Smith Woodhouse and Gould Campbell both have associations with specific vineyards and Quintas (Madalena, as Bob points out above, for SW). Quarles Harris, by contrast, does not have any formal ties to specific vineyards and so is free / forced to buy from grape growers and blend the best they can out of what is available.

I wonder if any of the Vesuvio grapes make their way into Quarles Harris these days...

Its interesting that QC was established in 1680 according to the Symington's web site, yet there is almost nothing else I can find out about this label.

Maybe a good Port trade topic or article. "What is the history of Quarles Harris."

andy velebil wrote:Bob,

I was refering to what the Symington's consider it. It really is their "lowest" house...sorry but I'm not really sure how to say it any better. That doesn't mean it isn't a good product, just where it lies in the heiarchy of the Symington's labels.

Thanks for the clarification. :) That may explain why it is usually at least a bit cheaper than the other twins.