Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil
-
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:54 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Excluding vintages from the most recent decade, what is the most recent, the youngest, general declaration of which you have never tasted a Port?
(Some answers to this question have already appeared elsewhere.)
(Some answers to this question have already appeared elsewhere.)
-
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:54 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Assuming that 1894 and 1892 are unworthy of the term “general declaration”, my answer might be 1887.
- Andy Velebil
- Posts: 16717
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
To my knowledge this, 1887, would be mine as well.Julian D. A. Wiseman wrote:Assuming that 1894 and 1892 are unworthy of the term “general declaration”, my answer might be 1887.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
- Derek T.
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
- Contact:
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
1887 for me too.
I feel a tasting coming on
I feel a tasting coming on
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
If you include the 1992/1991 as a general declaration those have eludede me so far in my brief port life. If not it would the vintage of 1966.
Last edited by Thomas V on Tue May 31, 2016 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:54 pm
- Location: London, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
I’ll bring all my 1887s.Derek T. wrote:I feel a tasting coming on
You bring all your 1887s.
And we should each bring something to drink.
-
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:38 am
- Location: Boston, USA
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
If I understand this correctly...All of my 2003, 2000, and 1997. I've not a taste of any of these vintages, and not likely to for a while.
-
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:38 am
- Location: Boston, USA
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Never tried any 2011's either...Edward J wrote:If I understand this correctly...All of my 2003, 2000, and 1997. I've not a taste of any of these vintages, and not likely to for a while.
Welsh Corgis | F1 |British Cars
- Glenn E.
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:49 am
- Location: Sammamish, Washington, United States of America - USA
- Contact:
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Not generally declared.Moses Botbol wrote:1972
I'm pretty sure mine is 1945, though there's some chance it is 1975. I own bottles of each in my Graham vertical, but don't think I've tasted any other 1945s. I also can't recall having had a 1975 specifically, but it seems likely that I have.
Glenn Elliott
-
- Posts: 6422
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:48 pm
- Location: Longmont, Colorado, United States of America - USA
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
I've had lots of 1955s, but no other VPs from that decade, so whatever other years were declared. I have had 1950, '51, '52 and '58 colheitas. Do those count?
Hmm, Taylor lists only 1955 from the 50s:
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... ine/years/
Hmm, Taylor lists only 1955 from the 50s:
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... ine/years/
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
The way I read the question, colheitas count.Eric Menchen wrote:I've had lots of 1955s, but no other VPs from that decade, so whatever other years were declared. I have had 1950, '51, '52 and '58 colheitas. Do those count?
Hmm, Taylor lists only 1955 from the 50s:
http://www.taylor.pt/en/catalogue/vinta ... ine/years/
Excluding the last decade means 2006 or earlier I guess. I need to go and look at a spreadsheet...
-
- Posts: 1443
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:19 am
- Location: Texas, USA
Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?
Assuming you count anything other than '55 from the '50s, that's the decade I'm most recently lacking, so I guess '58 would be the most likely fit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U