1890 Burmester Colheita Port

[Stewart T.]

This bottle had, I believe, was suffering from travel shock when I tasted it. Herbal notes on the nose. A little cloudy, brownish-green tone in color. Some heat on the mid-palate and finish, but still some great acidity. 89 points.

[David Spriggs]

Oh man! Too bad. I would have expected this to be extraordinary.

[Andy Velebil]

Don't think that was travel shock as it wasn't all that spectacular when I had it.

[Roy Hersh]

LOL. Andy, the bottle had flown over from the UK a week before you tried it and then flew again under the belly of the plane from Seattle to LA, less than 24 hours before you started drinking it and don't think it possibly could have been travel shocked? You've gotta be kidding me.

[Andy Velebil]

Hey, I heard that whole travel shock thing was a myth **stirring the pot**

That is a bit of travel in a short amount of time. But it still begs the bigger question..then why do some bottles that travel show well and others that travel the same distance don't? While I do think travel shock is real to some degree, I also think it sometimes becomes an easy scape goat when a bottle doesn't deliver as anticipated. But in this case you've got some similar experiences with the same bottle drunk at different times.

But how many people have ever had this bottle of Port, let alone had it more than once? So we may never really know if this bottle was representative or not unless we open say another 5-6 bottles to test the theory

And sometimes because a bottle is old people automatically think it should be great. As with any old wine, it's only as good as the bottle in front of you. We all know how much bottle variation can happen with older wines, even ones stored side by side all their life. However, it was truly an honor to try this and thank you very much for sharing it with me.

[Espen S.]

I have to say, it's pretty mindblowing to read a TN about a 120 year old wine. I'll probably never even see a 1890 bottle. Thanks for sharing.

As for travel shock, is wine really that fragile? It still tastes good after 100 years, but it gets "jet-lagged"? I don't know much about this, forgive me if it's a stupid question.

[Roy Hersh]

Andy raises great points. But if a person can get jet lagged, it is not that far of a stretch to think a bottle could go through something similar. In fact, I've been reading threads on TRAVEL SHOCK and articles in Wine Spectator for at least 15 years. So, we know a few things:

a. there is no scientific proof of whether this exists or not and certainly none that can explain why.
b. there are hundred is not thousands of wine lovers who think it is a myth
c. there are typically a slightly higher percentage of people in these discussions that believe it to be absolutely true.
d. Roy's belief is that there is no absolute in this case.

I have seen MANY bottles that I've flown with, that have shown beautifully. I have also seen hundreds of bottles which did not show properly, with examples of Ports and wines that I had enough times before flying with the bottle to know how off it was.

But back to Andy's last post, specifically relating to the 1890. He mentions that "how many people ..." and I agree, there isn't enough evidence here. What I can say is that when discussing the bottle before it was shipped to the USA, it wasn't cloudy and I read about the color and appearance. When it arrived from the UK, I was very hesitant to bring it down for Andy to try, because of how cloudy the appearance was and how much the sediment in this Colheita had been shaken up. But I really wanted to share it with him for several reasons he and I have discussed. Anyway, throwing caution to the wind, the bottle was on a plane down to LA (only a bit over 3 hours) but again getting jostled a ton.

What I have also found, is that the older bottles ... not just older vintages ... but older table wines, Ports, Madeira -- that were bottled long ago (as opposed to a recent bottling of very old wine) are MUCH more susceptible to travel shock. A great example was a bottle of 1906 Brunheda that I was dying to open for Derek and Uncle Tom a couple of years ago, traveling from Portugal to the UK with the bottle and sharing it less than 48 hours later. A few days later the remnants were shared with another UK friend and Port lover, Nicos Neocleous. We both shook our heads at how much better it was a few days later, although it remained cloudy and still not what it looked like when I left Portugal. I had a second bottle, that settled down in my cellar at home and was poured for Glenn and others here ... a totally different experience. Delicious and significantly better. Glenn who has an excellent palate for Tawny felt it was the best Tawny (Colheita) he had ever tasted and at that time it was (maybe it still is, I don't know?). That said, I truly believe and have seen so many times with Madeira too, that older bottlings are much more prone to travel shock.

One more thing, Andy raised questions that might not be able to be answered, but I will share in my next post my tasting notes and also please note what I said about the variation and wishing I had a way to gauge how much of this was travel shock or not. It is actually explained better in the newsletter which I'll copy in the post below.

[Roy Hersh]

When it arrived, I was blown away by how great it looked, the fill level and amazing pristine condition. Then I
saw that it was bottled in 1969, which allowed the flavors to concentrate greatly. I brought the bottle
down to share with Andy Velebil about a week to ten days after it arrived. It probably could have
used a month to resettle, but I did not have that much time in order to share this with him. It was “well
protected” in the belly of the plane and flew a few hours from Seattle to LA and we opened it the
following day. My tasting note will follow. I then left Andy with about four ounces and took returned
home with another four ounces to share with a couple of local FTLOP’ers. Tasting notes were pretty
consistent across the board.

1890 Burmester Colheita Port – bottled 1969. Mollasses color with a brown-golden edge and the
appearance of PX Sherry, but cloudy (from travel). Exotic scents of dried figs, slight VA, dark roasted
espresso and toffee are compelling. Malvasia-like palate impression, sweet style with dried apricots,
raisins, cedar, toffee and gentle heat. Light to medium body, smooth as cashmere, with plenty of
acidity to carry the sweetness. Initially the finish was only medium in length and by the end of a
couple of glasses a few hours later, the length was a tad longer and the aftertaste had gained a citrus
element and was more similar to fine Madeira. A good but not great showing and I’ll never know if
the impression was marked by the travel of the bottle (2x in just a couple of weeks) so anyone with a
bottle from this offering, I urge you to let yours stand for a month or more. 90-91 points ~ 3/6/10

1890 Burmester Colheita Port – bottled 1969.
After yet another flight home, I let this sit for nearly a
week and sipped a little each of two days. It had improved just slightly, and was more viscous,
showing a medium bodied richness. Wild aromas of grapefruit, toffee, nutmeg and mace with flavors
of raisins and prune. Acidity is spot on and the finish remained medium in length but the spiritous
characteristic was fully resolved. 91-92 points ~ 3/13/10

[Andy Velebil]

Roy,
Very good points and I agree we don't know enough about travel shock, and probably never will in our lifetime. But I should clarify as I obviously wasn't clear in my replies. While I didn't think this was "spectacular" I still enjoyed it, yet didn't find any major signs of bottle shock when I tasted it. My final score on this was 90 points. While to some, that may seem low for an old wine. But IMO any score that high (or higher) for any wine this old is a darn good score. But it begs the question....most people have an unrealistic expectation that any wine so old should always be a 100 point (or near there) experience. So while I wasn't blown away by it, I still think it was a good bottle and worthy of buying for anyone who loves enjoying the nuances an old Port has to offer. But I also think it's fair to let people know what to expect so they don't get a false self-expectation (and I see your TN's do exactly that).

[Glenn E.]

Glenn who has an excellent palate for Tawny felt it was the best Tawny (Colheita) he had ever tasted and at that time it was (maybe it still is, I don't know?).

It still is the best Port I've ever tasted - that glass of Port was amazing! It is still the only Port I have ever rated 100 points... or even 99 for that matter. To me it was simply magical, and I'll probably never forget that experience. It's my go-to story about Roy and Port.

I rated this 1890 Burmester Colheita 91 points, so I'm right in line with everyone else's experiences with it. I too felt like there might have been something a little bit weird going on though I didn't state it explicitly (just mentioned the flight back and the weird finish). I don't really know how to recognize travel shock though I do think I have experienced it a few times - a cloudy tawny is one possible indicator, though, which I think has to do with the pressure changes it goes through on take off and landing. Obviously, floating particles of sediment is another indication that it's been traveling.

To me, shocked bottles seem more muted and their flavors feel mixed up instead of harmonious. What's curious though, and what others have alluded to, is that you could pack two bottles of the same Port in the same suitcase on the same flight, and one of them would come through fine and the other one would be in shock.

I think Roy's suggestion to let this Port rest for at least a month (if you buy one from the FTLOP opPORTunity) is a good one. Or two months if you can stand to wait that long. It's really old, and while I wouldn't call it fragile it clearly doesn't like being disturbed. Think Clint Eastwood's character in Gran Torino.

[Peter W. Meek]

RE: the 91 vs 100 ratings.

I think that there are ports that "speak" to each of us in some fundamental way. One port that might fall within one person's spectrum of quality, seems to be just exactly right for another individual. It might even be limited to a single bottle of some particular port that has been stored and transported in some unreplicatable way, that makes it, somehow, into that perfect port for that one person.

Possibly that's why I like Nimrod so much. By all accounts, it is a workmanlike tawny, not unlike other good tawnys of moderate age, and yet I can seem to find no other to replace it. I certainly don't claim it to be a 100, but still, it "speaks" to me.

[Roy Hersh]

Peter,

The alluding to 91 points was the 1890 while Glenn's 100 point experience was for the 1906, vastly different bottles.

Thank you, it had been well over a month since I saw the word Nimrod and you bringing it back up eased my sense of nostalgia.

[Peter W. Meek]

Peter,

The alluding to 91 points was the 1890 while Glenn's 100 point experience was for the 1906, vastly different bottles.

I must have misread the thread.

Nonetheless, I do think certain Ports (or wines, or even events of other kinds) resonate in some indefinable way with individuals, as opposed to the fundamental characteristics of that Port which are apparent to any experienced taster.

Sometimes a port seems to reap similar ratings from almost everyone, yet gets a very high rating (or very low -- it probably works both ways) from a single experienced taster. Something about that particular Port affects that person in some way unlike the vast majority of person/port combinations.

It's very hard for a person like myself with only a few dozen ports under my belt to explain this to someone with hundreds or thousands.

Yet, I think it may be so. I do love my few remaining bottles of Nimrod. (Under 12 now.)

[Glenn E.]

What you're saying about different Ports resonating with different people is completely true, Peter - all you'd have to do is take a look at my 2007 TNs and Roy's 2007 TNs to see one very consistent thread.

I just can't deal with young, bold, powerful tannins if they're not accompanied by equally strong and forward fruits. I don't know what to do with them, and I can't tell where the Port is going to go when the tannins are so strong right from the start. To me, they make the Port feel unbalanced. So I rated the Sandeman, Niepoort, and probably a few others that we tasted together significantly lower than Roy did simply because those Ports don't resonate for me right now. (Like 4 or 5 points lower.)

I'm sure that in the long run, Roy will probably be proven correct. Those Ports will probably grow on me over time... but right now the style just doesn't speak to me.

You're also right about the 1906 Brunheda Colheita that I rated 100 points. Roy also rated it very highly, but for me it was magical. It struck all of the right notes in exactly the perfect order to create the perfect Port symphony in my mouth. For Roy it was "merely" an extraordinary Port, probably one amongst many.

But back to the 1890 Burmester... I was actually surprised to see that Roy, Andy, Stuart, and I all rated it so consistently (Roy twice). It always makes me happy when my wild guesses (that's what they feel like anyway) end up matching the palates of such experienced Port tasters!