I would answer yes to the original question with the caveat of sometimes.
Certainly 1880 Ramos Pinto, 63, 70 and 77 Taylor, 62 Nacional and a handful of others have reached the lofty level. I am working thru a bottle of 77 Taylor this weekend. Many other very fine Ports provide excitement and thrills but to me just do no have the enhanced level of detail that the best dry reds give me.
When it comes to the extended finish and length of flavors yeah Port is one of the best. I do find the bottle bouquet to be very pretty but often lacking in complexity compared to say a Chateau Margaux or spicy Vosne Romanee.
I’d say it is very rare. Maybe those Nacional qualify, but otherwise I am rarely “wowed” by a vintage port (or tawny/Colheita) for that matter. That’s not to say they aren’t often very good, even outstanding wines - just that the levels of complexity and interest (for my tastes) rarely come out to play the way they do in table wines. OTOH, it’s hard to make a “bad” Port, everything tastes at least “good” because of the sweetness.
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that the very best Port with the optimal long aging to them are going to be top-notch experiences.
The tougher question is at the levels below that. What if you’re paying $30-60 a bottle and not having the benefit of having cellared the bottle for several decades?
It’s totally subjective, of course, but I probably lean the way Alan does, that I find them to be tasty for once in awhile and an occasional situation or event, but I’d usually reach for table wines at similar prices the large majority of the time.
Having said that, let me put the challenge to Officer Andy and others - if you were trying to show people the light on the kind of complexity and wine experience they could have going out and buying some Port tomorrow, say for $75 or less, where would you have them look?
Andy, my point is only that sweetness tends to make just a mediocre wine acceptable. There are tons of dry table wines I don’t care for, but it’s uncommon to find a port (of any style), sauternes, etc. that aren’t at least moderately tasty, even if not exciting. In a way, I think this makes it harder for the truly great sweet wines to be recognized as such - gaining the complexity and interest necessary to really impress, over and beyond the pleasant sweetness factor, is no easy feat.
However, if you wanted to try Port without spending too much money, look to LBV (Late Bottle Vintage) Port. I picked up a case of 2007 Taylor Fladgate LBV for about $20 a bottle once shipping was figured in. I think 2009 or 2010 is the current release.
Tawny Port is a decent option too. Graham’s 10 Year Old Tawny is about $35 a bottle.
Arnold got a cheap port as a holiday present last year. Both of us found it undrinkable. Decent in a port sauce once you flame some of the alcohol off.
Of course there are also some very good inexpensive ports. Quinta do Infantado Ruby Port comes immediately to mind.
It really depends. I tend to introduce people to Port with Tawny’s that have some age on them. I find that most people tend to like tawny’s and “get them” better than they do with VP’s. And they are easier for people to go out and find, buy, and enjoy right away without needing to cellar anything and without bottle variation issues.
There are lots of options in the tawny game and any of the upper end 20 or 30 year tawny’s with an indication of age or a Colheita of the same age range is a great place to start at under $75. Producers like Niepoort (everything), Sandeman (everything), Fonseca (20 & 30), Ferreira (everything), Krohn’s (Colheita’s & 30), S. Leonardo (everything), Taylor’s (20 & 30), are all good places to start for current top notch tawny’s that are generally easy to find (sans the S. Leonardo but they now have a USA importer thankfully).
As for VP’s, it’s getting harder to find them with sufficient old age under $75 now. The mid 1970’s thru middle 1980’s were a tough patch with lots of underperforming VP’s and lots of issues with corks (bottle variation and TCA). So I tend to recommend very carefully during this time period.
Alan,
I am not going to get into the typical WB pissing match of “I’m right and you’re wrong.” We obviously have different views on sweet wines and their qualities or lack there of. I simply disagree with your earlier stated opinion and lets leave it at that so as not to derail this thread like so many here on WB.
Andy, my point is only that sweetness tends to make just a mediocre wine acceptable. There are tons of dry table wines I don’t care for, but it’s > uncommon to find a port (of any style), sauternes, etc. that aren’t at least moderately tasty, even if not exciting. > In a way, I think this makes it harder for the truly great sweet wines to be recognized as such - [gaining the complexity and interest necessary to really impress, over and beyond the pleasant sweetness factor, is no easy feat.
This went through a rough patch of not being very good compared to other top end 20 's and has come out of it in the past few years. It’s really a darn good easy to find 20 year old Tawny now. Same with the Fonseca’s, which I was never really impressed with until the past couple years. The Fladgate Partnership has been putting the extra effort to get these two back on track.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
