For The Love Of Port

This taste is what remains of a bottle that Roy opened. It's been open for some time, but I don't know exactly how long.

The color is a gorgeous red... ruby is the best word to describe it. It fades evenly out to the edge of the glass where it almost - but not quite - reaches pink before there's a hint of tan. Lights reflecting off of the glass through the Port look like gems, the red is so pure.

There's a very faint hint of something savory on the nose - something almost Madiera-like. I've already tried to call it bacon, then leather, then deleted both of those only to finally have to write them down for lack of anything better. I can smell alcohol, but not in an overt way. It just sort of hiding in there along with everything else. With great effort I think I can smell some apricot as well.

This Port has great structure. I've often wondered what that means when I've read it in tasting notes, but I think I understand it now. This isn't soft, silky, or elegant. It's not young or tannic. It is... Sean Connery. And damned proud of it. The flavors all carry their own weight, as do the tannins, yet none of them stand out to give you something to nit-pick about. It is full, robust, and smooth, but it also feels like it would go well with a meal without overpowering the food. But it would demand an equally robust meal - it could easily stare down buffalo or venison.

I note that I haven't actually listed any flavors yet. Well... beyond "port" they're hard to find. It's possible it has been in the decanter too long at this point, but since it is so well structured it hasn't faded into mediocrity yet. There is a solid backbone of red fruit, but I can't name any. "Strawberry" and "Raspberry" both seem too specific to fit this compote, but both also come to mind. Sweet cherries, possibly. I don't think you'll find find blackberries anywhere in here, though... everything that's even remotely passing through my mind is red.

The finish is smooth and fades evenly, the flavors remaining constant throughout. It's also much shorter than I expected. After a couple of minutes there's an aftertaste that makes me think of orange rind, but without the citrus.

Nice tasting note. That bottle of Taylor was decanted at 5 p.m. on Sunday for 5 hours, we drank some from 10 p.m. onwards and I saved some for today of which you received half. So by the time you had it, the wine was certainly over 24 hours although for 10 of that it sat in an open decanter in my refrigerator and was not going to be changing much that way, until I handed it off to you. Glad you enjoyed it and I liked reading your TN.

Of the 3 that I tasted this weekend, this one was easily the best. Compared to the 1992 Niepoort and 1985 Smith Woodhouse, both of which seem to be mostly (if not completely) mature right now, this one feels like it probably still has some room to grow. Yet it still manages to feel more mature than either of them at the same time.

Tasting the three side-by-side allowed me to really see the differences. The Taylor Fladgate really stood out as the most structured and boldest of the three and felt, to me, the most like a wine I could drink with a meal. The Niepoort and Smith Woodhouse both feel like they would be more appropriate used as a dessert or served with dessert. The softness of their sugars (which I refer to as processed sugar because it reminds me of powdered sugar) makes them more elegant and suitable for sipping, while this one demands that you drink it.

Even so, I could also tell the Niepoort and Smith Woodhouse apart too. I'm going to call it the age difference, I guess, because the SW seems a little bit more rounded and developed at this point in time. When tasted side-by-side with the SW, the Niepoort exclaims that it has more potential and needs time to flourish. When tasted alone, it seems like it's ready to drink now or at least soon. When tasted side-by-side with this Taylor Fladgate, it seems soft and meek, almost as if embarassed to be in such regal company, and the entire concept of when it might be ready to drink just seems irrelevant. The SW compares better to the TF, probably due to being somewhat closer in age, but it also backs down and yields the stage to the TF.

A poignant and insightful assessment. I enjoyed the Niepoort but think that it was a problematic bottle. You'll see my TN on this soon.

Glenn,

Great TN. Bang on from what I remember of the TF '70 as well. It was my WOTN when I sampled it with Roy last November in a vertical that went thru most of the Taylor Vintages (and a few Vargellas') back to '63. Although I figured going in that the '63 would be my fav, the '70 turned up way more "blow up the skirt" power.

I also had it pegged as being able to last a while longer, possibly a decade or two before it starts to truly peak, but it was just so damn good at the moment too.

Amazing stuff!

Will probably peak in the 50-60 year old range and then hold on a long plateau for decades. I'd say the same about the 1963 and 1977 too. The 1994 OTOH, will be longer lived than any of these except possibly the 1977, imo.

Great taste note Glenn. It makes me want to open one of the few bottles of '70 Taylor that I have.