For The Love Of Port

Dow 80

A messy odd bottle from a mixed auction lot - from its condition it might well have been cellared beneath someone's kitchen sink.

But there is nothing amiss with the contents - except that it is still at 38 years, inky black in colour and way too immature still.

This has to be the VP of choice for anyone who wants to lay down some bottles for their great grand children - I have little doubt that this will still be in fine form when it hits its centenary..

Score 7-9

Bulas 10yo tawny. What a rich flavorful 10! Quite unusual, very herbal.

1991 Croft VP. Yummy good.

Tom Archer wrote:

The LBVs were a bit of a let down. Seemed way to light and no backbone.

Bear in mind that Noval make two different LBVs

The ones with white labels are filtered and intended for near term drinking, but the black label ones are unfiltered and intended for aging.

- Which ones did you try?

The unfiltered ones.

Another S. Leonardo 40 year old to share with friends at the Showdown in Juarez Canyon barbecue competition.

I know, I spoil them.

Malvedos '79

First bottle from an owc bought five years ago. A light, uncomplicated, but pleasant wine with just enough tannic structure left to keep it ticking over for a while yet.

Readily quaffable - Score 3-3

Viera de Souza 1978 - very tertiary and easy to drink; pleasant flavours but no complexity.

Al B. wrote:Viera de Souza 1978 - very tertiary and easy to drink; pleasant flavours but no complexity.

Do you or others know if this is from Luisa Borges' family, or from the other company that had that/their name for a while?
(If only there was an authoritative book with such information )

Martinez '67

From a well cellared stash I've owned for a long time now, last sampled in 2012. Good wine, but it pales in comparison with the classic postwar Mz's like '48, '58 & '60. Judging from past notes, it may also be gradually entering into the downslope now, whereas the greats are holding up fabulously.

Score 7-6

For Port Wine Day

i decided not to open a bottle on my own for port wine day.

but then in the evening at a friends workshop (he doesn't have/drink port) we were offered a taste of a local home made 'port'. without any background information on how it was made.
the smell was ok but it was undrinkable
very very oxidized and quite hot too. and then i know why people say they don't like port

Bert VD wrote:i decided not to open a bottle on my own for port wine day.

but then in the evening at a friends workshop (he doesn't have/drink port) we were offered a taste of a local home made 'port'. without any background information on how it was made.
the smell was ok but it was undrinkable
very very oxidized and quite hot too. and then i know why people say they don't like port

Yikes! Yeah, people using the term port can ruin it for others for years to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yikes! Yeah, people using the term port can ruin it for others for years to come.

And the other classic scenario is a few guys go out on the town, have several beers, cocktails and shots and then stumble into a Indian restaurant when they put back half a dozen bottles of Cobra beer and a chicken Vindaloo before finishing off with a cheap ruby port..

- In the cold grey light of dawn, with a throbbing head and a mouth that felt like the cat slept in it, all they can remember drinking was the port..

Just decanted a 2005 Dow Quinta do Bomfim. It's very dark and smells very spirity, but hopefully that smooths out by later tonight (in about 7 hours).

Tom Archer wrote:Martinez '67

From a well cellared stash I've owned for a long time now, last sampled in 2012. Good wine, but it pales in comparison with the classic postwar Mz's like '48, '58 & '60. Judging from past notes, it may also be gradually entering into the downslope now, whereas the greats are holding up fabulously.

Score 7-6

Tom,

Could you explain your scoring system to me please? I don't follow it. For example, you score this one 7-6 and then I saw another scored as a 3-3. How does your system work? Is it a system that you developed or is it a system that I'm just not familiar with yet? Thanks in advance.

How does your system work?

It's a simple way of relative scoring. Of all the VPs I drink in a year which are neither faulty nor damaged, I apportion scores according to the following ratio:

Worst 5% - 0
Next 10% - 1

- and so on in 10% increments to a score of 9

and finally, the best 5% get a score of 10.

The first score is my appraisal of the wine as presented, the second score is either my prediction for ten years hence if the wine is already aged - or my prediction for maturity when tasting a wine at release.

Unlike the 100 pt absolute scoring system which has been suffering grade creep for years, a relative scoring system can stay good for the long haul.

I also have a relative scoring system for vintages, first developed as a fifty year rolling cycle but now revamped for sixty years.

This works by assigning a grade of Alpha to Zeta - or A to F if you prefer - to each year, assigning the initial grade in the autumn of the second year following vintage.

Thus the current list covers the years 1956 to 2015, but next month will be updated to pension off 1956 and include 2016.

Within that time frame there will always be exactly ten vintages assigned to each of the six grades. Of those ten vintages, two are assigned a suffix of plus and two a suffix of minus.

The list is reviewed each year to see which vintages are maturing better than expected, which vintages are not realising earlier promise and which are going downhill prematurely. To avoid kneejerk changes, I have provided in the methodology that vintages may only be moved by one tick in one year - thus a Beta plus may be upgraded to Alpha minus or downgraded to a straight Beta, but no further in the course of one year's revision.

I have also prepared a vintage ranking list for the prior sixty years, 1896 to 1955 as a simpler star rating system - Zero to 5 stars - again as an equal allocation (in the first instance) based on the standing of the vintage when it was sixty years old. The idea is that when vintages 'fall off' the first system, their final ranking will be converted to a star rating in perpetuity.

Thus 1956 is currently at the bottom of the pile on the initial rolling system, with a ranking of Zeta minus (or F-) This will translate to a zero star rating on the second system.

For vintages prior to 1896 there is simply not enough data on each year to construct a relative scoring system (and some years after 1896 are very difficult to appraise) Thus for vintages prior to 1896 I humbly defer to the star rating accorded by Broadbent.

I'm mulling over a suitably significant date to release my update each autumn. October 21st - Trafalgar Day - is tempting, as it marks a famous British naval victory over the French and Spanish in 1805. Had we never been at odds with those nations, would anyone ever have troubled to fortify Portuguese wine?

That's a very interesting, well thought out ranking system. I'm impressed. And thank you very much for the detailed explanation.

I've opened bottles of Fonseca 1966 and 1985 to drink to cheer myself up while friends visit the Douro and send me lots of pictures to make me jealous.

Al B. wrote:I've opened bottles of Fonseca 1966 and 1985 to drink to cheer myself up while friends visit the Douro and send me lots of pictures to make me jealous.

I've not had the '66, but hopefully will one of these days. I just have to get my hands on some at a half-decent (relatively speaking) price. The '85 is very good and is probably my second favorite after the '94. All in all, a very nice way to console yourself.

15/9 - Burmester '92

Not a superstar this one, but maybe in an awkward phase right now - hopefully will blossom in time 2-4

20/9 - Borges VVV - bottled in 1947, exact age of wine not known but probably over 100 yrs old. Drunk indulgently at home..

Very dark, slightly cloying but otherwise very sound juice - bullet proofed by its prior wood age, will easily last another century..