For The Love Of Port

What has been the worst Vintage Port you have ever tried? Please exclude bottles that were bad due to storage, serving temp, or TCA kind of things.

Keep it to only VP's if possible.

I am going to have to think about this one, but wanted to post the question before I forgot...

Probably Kopke 1980 for me. Only tasting alcohol. It was about 4-5 years ago.

I know its probably blasphemy, but at this point i go for the Dow 1994. It was not really really bad but with all the praise and hallelujah for this particular vintage i would have expected more.
I still hope it was a off-bottle, only time will tell.

Erik Wiechers wrote:I know its probably blasphemy, but at this point i go for the Dow 1994. It was not really really bad but with all the praise and hallelujah for this particular vintage i would have expected more.
I still hope it was a off-bottle, only time will tell.

Erik,
When was the Dow '94 tried? I wonder if it was simply very closed as it was young?

I have to think about my own response. I have had not had so many VPs that I can tell at this point which was "bad" per se.

Good question though Moses

What a great question!

To my mind this deserves two answers - VP that is dreadful to drink today but may well improve over time (could be closed, too young and tannic or just not in balance yet) and VP that was just downright horrid.

In the first category I would actually put some of the young but potentially great ports. Honorable mentions go to Vesuvio 1994 tasted straight after opening the bottle was horrible and unbalanced, but came round beautifully with some time in the decanter. Quinta de la Rosa 2003 was far too acidic for my taste when I sampled it late last year, but it may well improve in the bottle with time. However, my selection in this category goes to the Vargellas Vinha Velha 2000 which I drank over Christmas 2006. This was tannic, closed and unbalanced with mouth puckering acidity. At £100 a bottle this was such a mistake to drink last year and was truly revolting - but I bet it will be great in 20-30 years!

The worst drink ever that I can't simply put down to youth or a bad bottle was a Cockburn 1950 that I drank about a year ago. I thought this was weak and disappointing, although it could have been damaged by poor storage. I rated that particular bottle at 80/100 so it was still drinkable, just not what I would expect from a VP.

Alex

Todd,

here is the tread.

http://www.fortheloveofport.com/ftlopfo ... php?t=3614

rings a bell ?

My worst Vintage Port was the first of my nine Smith-Woodhouse 1985 that I tried in the late 1990's. It was light but with a horrid bitter finish. The other bottles I have had since improved but that first one is definitely my worst experience. I have had disappointments ie not what I was expecting and my fair share of old fading ports and brusque young ones but this was just not nice!

Paul.

at first it seemed it was going to be the Fonseca '77 yesterday but after only 3 hours of decant time it was showing very poorly. Nothing that further decanting time could not help. Fortunately after 5 hours it lost the incredibly powerful heat and by 7 hours was showing its real beauty.

A few months ago I ran into a client who had a bottle of 1912 Ramos Pinto VP. Level was low shoulder, label badly torn, signs of slight past seepage. Cork was half black half still there. Drying out with a polish kind of nose. Very light on the color and just not that nice. I could have been wanting more out of it but it just seemed to be not there.

1977 Graham in 2003. It was not integrated at all. The alcohol was very pronounced and completely separated from the fruit. We quite manfully finished it, though

75 Sandeman about a year ago. Thin, washed out, astringent.

1995 Smith Woodhouse Madelena - so acidic that it was face-crumpling awful. This did not improve overnight either.

2003 Fonseca - The nose was so spirity that I could not even 'nose' the wine without coughing (at tasting put on by hired-gun Roy). It took a week before this wine smoothed out and became very drinkable though the fruit was still in check. I did not get a lot of (expected) complexity but it ended up very tasty. It seems like a strange wine for stocking on the shelves at grocery stores. Why don't they put something like 2003 Croft up instead, seems a much better way to attract new customers.

A previous thread suggested Messias 1985, but side-by-side with the Royal Oporto 985, the RO85 was even worse.

Gary Banker wrote:1977 Graham in 2003. It was not integrated at all. The alcohol was very pronounced and completely separated from the fruit. We quite manfully finished it, though

Attaboy Gary... at least nobody can say you don't finish what you start!

Interesting to me is that no-one has suggested the Cruz 1989, despite the slating that it received earlier in the year. To date I've had this wine twice, once was awful and once was enjoyable so I have put the awful experience down to a poor bottle.

Also useful to see the note about the Royal Oporto 1985. I've seen one priced at around £5 - is this too much to pay for it?

Alex

Interesting to me is that no-one has suggested the Cruz 1989

That was my worst vintage

João Rico wrote:

Interesting to me is that no-one has suggested the Cruz 1989

That was my worst vintage

Guedes '77 *shudder*

Al B. wrote:Interesting to me is that no-one has suggested the Cruz 1989, despite the slating that it received earlier in the year.

I'll plead ignorance on this particular producer and vintage as I have never seen a single bottle of ANYTHING, never mind VP, from Cruz around these parts. (Anyone really surprised?)

Every 1975 VP I have drunk (awful) :x