For The Love Of Port

I opened this bottle for my birthday on May 7, 2010. This bottle was purchased from MacArthur Wines in Washington DC in December 2006 then stored well until opening. Fill level was mid-neck with no signs of leaking. Stood up the night before to prepare for decanting.

The cork crumbled on extraction to about the half way point. I pushed the rest into the bottle and filtered through a fine-mesh strainer into the decanter at about 8:00 am. Poured until about 3 ounces remained in the bottle. It was a good, clean pour -- though the remaining 3 ounces were completely saturated with sediment. There was a lot of sediment in this bottle. More than I have seen in some older vintages. I poured a small amount into a glass to taste fresh from the bottle. Aromas were somewhat muted but more like a tawny than a vintage. No real fruit in this one. Color was completely orange fading to about 1/4 inch of clear rim. This appeared to be a very mature bottle. Initial taste was dominated by eucalyptus. Though the mouthfeel was a little thin, everything here was very well integrated. No heat and smooth tannins. Finish was short, but still enjoyable.

11th hour: No significant change since the intial taste in the morning. Still a little thin, short finish, strong eucalyptus. Maybe even more characteristic of a tawny than it was in the morning.

I enjoyed this, but wonder what a "younger" bottle of this might be like. My wife said that she did not enjoy it at all. She prefers the Graham's 1970, Fonseca 1963 and Dow's 1970. But, who wouldn't.

Overall score: 90 points.

Update: 2nd Day: Drinking the last of this right now, and the tannins are much more pronounced. The integration that was really saving this bottle has almost completely fallen apart. Still drinkable, but not nearly as enjoyable as the day before.

Update: 3rd Day: There was one small pour left in the decanter, so I decided to finish it off. In just a day, this seemed to pull itself back together. However, if I was tasting it blind, I would have guessed that it was a 30+ year old Colheita ... certainly not a 1977 Vintage Port.

Overall, this was a fascinating experience for me. I watched this Port evolve considerably over a 3 day period. Though it was far from what I expected, it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. It would have made a fine Colheita

-- Gary

Gary,

This is not a VP that gets a lot of press, so I especially enjoyed this note. I have not had this Port all that much so it is always good to have other's views on it too. Thanks and happy birthday (belatedly).

Here are my two notes on this one for comparison sake. The most current note was decanted longer and the older note, was at a Croft vertical at the Factory House with an ex-cellars bottle ... with about two to three hours of decant time:

1977 Croft Vintage Port
I was getting carried away with six of the last seven Ports fitting into the "epic proportion" stratum. This brings a sense of elegance. Medium strawberry red with a light ruby rim. At 31 years of age, this is showing signs of some maturity and is at a wonderful stage right now. Fruit filled and sweet, with ripe red berry flavors and a spicy appeal. Very easy to sip on today ... especially after some tannic beasts like the 1994 Taylor. A tough act to follow, this was not hurt by it; on the contrary, it was a pleasure to have a kinder and gentler, medium-weight VP with resolved tannins and fine length. No hurry to consume this Croft, but certainly start opening them during the coming decade.
90 Points (2008-09-29)

1977 Croft Vintage Port
An extremely wet winter, that was welcome after three years of drought like weather. Medium ruby color with an orange-pink edge. Herbal with pine forest scents and a spirituous note. Good weight and mostly smooth with zesty acidity and round tannins. Flavors of red fruits and a touch of tart pomegranate. The '77 provides a gentle finish that is tasty and then it drops off sharply. Drink now through 2012.
89 Points (2007-11-29)

Roy Hersh wrote:Gary,

This is not a VP that gets a lot of press, so I especially enjoyed this note. I have not had this Port all that much so it is always good to have other's views on it too. Thanks and happy birthday (belatedly).

Thanks for the birthday wishes, Roy. I had read your notes before opening this bottle, so my expecations were far different than my actual experience with it. In spite of that, I found this to be a very interesting (and enjoyable) experience. It really illustrated the truth that every bottle is different based on a wide variety of factors ... only some of which are environmental.

Now, I will have to find another bottle of this to see what it "should" have been...

-- Gary

For such a big name, they did not make a great '77 vintage. '77 and '85 were not kind to Croft. Graham is another one that '77 wasn't as kind as one may think (unless they've had that vintage). The makes for strong case to say '77 wasn't as epic as many thought it is. Dow has a lot bottle variance, even Taylor does too.

I have had the '77 Croft 6-7 times and I don't think I have ever scored it above 90. I see Todd's review on a bottle we had together in FTLOP tasting notes section. I guess I did not submit one?

Moses,
I agree the Croft '77 wasn't up the same quality as some of the older vintages. But I'd disagree with your statement on Dow's , Taylor's, and Graham's. Dow's is a great bottle and I've never had bottle variation on it. Lots of corked issues, yes, so it's possible you're variables with it was actually slightly corked bottles that affected the overall experience.

While Graham's has generally been very spirity early on (of the early times I've had it) the last several I've had in the past 1.5-2 years have all shown far less heat and have been quite good. My take on it is that it's taken a long time to settle down but it's now finally starting to do so.

I've also not experienced bottle variation with the '77 Taylor's, have you?

Andy Velebil wrote:Moses,
I agree the Croft '77 wasn't up the same quality as some of the older vintages. But I'd disagree with your statement on Dow's , Taylor's, and Graham's. Dow's is a great bottle and I've never had bottle variation on it. Lots of corked issues, yes, so it's possible you're variables with it was actually slightly corked bottles that affected the overall experience.

While Graham's has generally been very spirity early on (of the early times I've had it) the last several I've had in the past 1.5-2 years have all shown far less heat and have been quite good. My take on it is that it's taken a long time to settle down but it's now finally starting to do so.

I've also not experienced bottle variation with the '77 Taylor's, have you?

The Dow has been as you say from the corks, but enough to scare me buying more of this vintage at a premium.

The Taylor's, well I have seen some difference on them, (storage related) but all have been from "good" to "outstanding", so that was slight of type... Now that I read what I said, "I had Taylor on that list"? Let's change this to 1975...

The amount of heat on the Graham seems really out of line compared to other Graham vintages and the expectations are high with Graham along with suppose to be awesome vintage really sets the bar high.