Page 1 of 1

Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 3:33 pm
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
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.)

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 3:34 pm
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
Assuming that 1894 and 1892 are unworthy of the term “general declaration”, my answer might be 1887.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 4:42 pm
by Andy Velebil
Julian D. A. Wiseman wrote:Assuming that 1894 and 1892 are unworthy of the term “general declaration”, my answer might be 1887.
To my knowledge this, 1887, would be mine as well.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 12:20 am
by Derek T.
1887 for me too.

I feel a tasting coming on [cheers.gif]

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 12:49 am
by Thomas V
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.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 2:13 am
by Julian D. A. Wiseman
Derek T. wrote:I feel a tasting coming on [cheers.gif]
I’ll bring all my 1887s.

You bring all your 1887s.

And we should each bring something to drink.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 5:09 am
by Moses Botbol
1972

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 6:42 am
by John M.
1966---then 1955.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 7:53 am
by Edward J
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.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:17 am
by Moses Botbol
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.
Never tried any 2011's either...

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:52 am
by Glenn E.
Moses Botbol wrote:1972
Not generally declared.

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.

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 9:55 am
by Eric Menchen
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/

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 11:32 am
by Al B.
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/
The way I read the question, colheitas count.

Excluding the last decade means 2006 or earlier I guess. I need to go and look at a spreadsheet...

Re: Youngest never-tasted vintage?

Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:56 pm
by Bradley Bogdan
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