Port fans...

WINE TALK
41

Good to know. Thank you!

It’s been well over a decade since I had the Taylor. Maybe even 2 decades.

42

Completely agree with Andy, I’ve stuck to pouring Tawny’s for my friends over LBVs.

I would look at ~20 years (tawny’s or colheita’s). Also, there are decent amounts of good 375’s out there under $40 if they wanted to try a couple different kinds.

43

Pissing match? Seriously? The OP is asking if the top ports rival top wines of the world in terms of complexity. This is exactly where you could have a discussion of the merits of top Ports vs top table wines. My answer is that in my experience it’s more rare to find a Port (and I’m extending that to sweet wines more generally) that reaches the heights of the best dry table wines. Not impossible, but more rare. And the reason is that I believe great complexity is something that is more difficult to surface in a sweet wine, where sweetness often masks imperfections, as well as complexities. On the flip side I continue to contend that your “average” sweet wine is likely to be more enjoyable than the “average” dry wine. You are free to disagree, but maybe you’d like to supply an argument in favor of your position?

44

My belief is that long wood aged fortified wines are the most complex wines on earth. The 1863 Krohn Colheita (now owned by Taylors) is the most shatteringly great thing I’ve ever tasted. The only bare your head, kneel, and thank god for the experience thing.

45

I don’t get any of the ratings stuff anymore, but when I did, I used to always notice how high the floor was for scores on sweet wines. Sauternes, Port, Ice Wine, German riesling. It seems as though 90 is almost the lowest score those wines can get, including cheap ones.

I always figured the reasons were (1) that sweetness makes even otherwise unremarkable wines pleasant enough not to feel like they deserve a low score (e.g. compare the experience of drinking an $8 German riesling or $8 Moscato d’Asti to an $8 Woodbridge merlot or $8 no-name Bordeaux), and (2) wine critics were not usually people with much expertise or depth about sweet wines and probably were less critical about them.

I don’t say any of that to criticize Port or other sweet wines, or to suggest that it limits how good the good ones can be, but Alan’s comment reminded me of how I used to notice the high floor to sweet wines.

46

Chris,
#2 is spot on. Most wine reviewers only touch Port when there is a major declaration, and then if they taste more than a dozen of the top ones or spend more than 10 seconds evaluating it, I’d faint from surprise. The only other time they may have it is if someone brings a top notch bottle to a dinner and they have a small glass after tons of dry wine drinking. Of course you’re gonna like it as that was the point of someone opening the bottle. And have you ever seen a bad review from a major reviewer on a Nacional. Nope, not gonna happen. Yet I and other serious Port lovers can easily point to times they’ve had them and they’ve been closed and not showing great, off bottles, or just a bad vintage.

VP also only makes up only about 2% of all Port made. That is a tiny tiny amount, yet it is what gets talked about the most, has the most reviews, and what gets posted about most. So there is a perception of always being high scored. Kinda like here on this forum, as with all forums, people tend to mostly post their great wines and not the average run of the mill daily drinkers or the bad ones. So that skews people’s perception. If all you read are great notes then you assume most are great. I love to read TN’s on Ports that I know aren’t that great, yet people are raving about how awesome it is. 1977 Graham’s and 1980 Fonseca are the classic examples. Graham’s is hot, simpler than normal, alcoholic, and not anywhere up to par for this house yet reviews (from non-port geeks) are always raving about how great it is. Fonseca is just down right ugly, the worst that house has produced in anyone’s living memory. Yet a 20 second search here showed a 95 point TN for it [head-bang.gif] There is always label bias when it comes to VP because the perception is it’s always good. The minds a great thing to screw with, lol.

47

This right here. î

I try to be a little tactful about the '77 vintage when somebody else brings a bottle from that year, but I don’t like it much at all. Too much vanilla / oak, not enough berry, and the alcohol burn is overpowering. If you put a '66, '70, '77, and '85 Graham’s side by side in a blind tasting, I guarantee the '77 would finish DEAD LAST. Even the weaker, less renown '83 vintage is more favorable to my palate than '77.

48

For me it’s the 1937 Warre’s Colheita. Perhaps the most exquisitely complex wine I have ever had, sweet or dry. So the answer to the OP’s question is a definite “yes”: a top port can definitely rival - or exceed - the best dry wines in complexity. But damn, it’s rare to find that. I’ve gone through dozens of other tawnies and Colheitas, but have yet to replicate that '37 experience.

49

Dennis I can remember buying 3 cases of 85 graham 375s for $26 per.

As for others on the $75 threshold:

85 fonseca
77 dows
Many 20 year tawnies
And a few 30 year tawnies
78 krohn colheita
68 krohn colheita
77 & 82 Porto roca colheitas
96 kopke colheita
A few 94 vintage ports
95 Taylor fladgate.

Best port I ever had: 1910 inglenook private stock port. Can still taste it.

50

[swoon.gif]

Didn’t we chat via PM about some of your Krohn’s?

51

Yes, we also talked about krohn 61, 66 and 76. Better years the the 78 and 68 but can’t be had for under $75.

The 66 is probably my favorite but the 61 is no slouch.

I should add, picked up some mags of 85 Graham’s for $140. And recently saw some go for $160. Nothing like a mag of port to be the star of a party.

52

For me it’s the 1937 Warre’s Colheita. Perhaps the most exquisitely complex wine I have ever had, sweet or dry. So the answer to the OP’s question is a definite “yes”: a top port can definitely rival - or exceed - the best dry wines in complexity. But damn, it’s rare to find that. I’ve gone through dozens of other tawnies and Colheitas, but have yet to replicate that '37 experience.

1937 is one of the greatest Colheita Port years of the twentieth century. Noval, Kopke, Niepoort are all great.

53

You… you… you take that back, you! I LOVE the Graham’s 1977 VP! Todd Estroff used that to make me a Vintage Port lover for life! So there! [swearing.gif]

But in all seriousness, I laugh becuase everything you wrote is 100% true looking back. It WAS hot and alcoholic, but in fairness all the tannins had completely receded and there was plenty of dried plum and cherry flavor, however simple, and that combined with the texture opened my eyes to how great VP could be. I still have the bottle and it will always hold a fond place in my heart and history as a Wine Berserker. flirtysmile

But despair not, Andy, for I will be tasting MUCH better tomorrow at a Winetasters of Toronto meeting where I will try Croft ‘66 and ‘77, Delaforce ‘77, Dow ‘70, Graham ‘63, Martinez ‘63, and Taylor ‘66 and 70 VPs.

54

I don’t agree with this at all. I’ve had lots of mediocre Port and other sweet wines, and a much smaller number of really good ones. I think the ratio is probably similar to other categories. A lot of what I look at in terms of quality is aromatic complexity, and we can’t smell sweetness. Another major indicator is balance, and 100+ g/L residual sugar with ~20% ABV is going to make that more difficult to achieve, not less. Those two elements can help to balance each other to an extent, but to me, it’s still not as easy to find balance in such a wine as it is in a dry wine in the 12%-14% ABV range.

55

Fixed the quote.

Stellar line up for sure. Enjoy your tasting with those beauties. [cheers.gif]

56

I love port, but I am wondering if people think that the top vintage ports rival the top wines of the world in terms of complexity. I have to admit that sweet red wines are a bit of a question mark for me. Are these wines as great as the greatest reds?

First and foremost, there are MANY different categories of Port: from Ruby and Ruby Reserve to LBV and Vintage Port, Crusted, Tawny and Tawny Reserve, Tawny Port “with an indication of age”, White Port, Aged White Port (10/20/30/40), Colheitas (red and white) and more. So to lump them into one category is just plain wrong.

That being said, any wine consumer with significant experience with drinking a variety of Ports from the aforementioned distinct categories, will find them to rival the aromatic and flavor complexities found in the best of Bordreaux, Barolo and even Burgundy … not to mention hundreds if not thousands of wine types.

Maybe the only other wine on earth that can surpass the extraordinary depth of nuances that Port can provide, would be the best of Madeira. Madeira can live longer than Port and often times still show its greatness more often than not, well back into the 18th century. Not the case with Port or likely any other wine … with the success rate of 1700s Madeira.

That being said, as one whose life is devoted to Port wine, as a consumer for 33 years and as a career for a dozen years … there are very few wine types that can equal Ports from the 1800s, (no less those from the first half of the 20th century). Having tasted well over 10,000 Ports and having visited Portugal more than 30x, with an additional 5 more visits planned in 2016, even SOME young Ports can provide a good degree of complexity, even if they will be far more evolved decades hence.

Come to think of it, in the past decade, I am positive I’ve tasted more than 1,000 Ports with Andy! [cheers.gif]

57

How do people rate the '77 Fonseca? Had some a year ago and loved it (and I have one bottle downstairs).

58

Peter, did you notice a distinct vanilla note to it? I don’t think I’ve tried a 1977 which didn’t have pronounced vanilla.

59

Sorry, I don’t remember one way or the other. It was at a WB event and I was tasting lots of things, so my note is a little thin.

60

The 1977 Fonseca VP, is a tale of two distinct outcomes:

a. In the best of cases, it is an outstanding, deeply extracted and gorgeously concentrated VP that has just recently begun to show any sign of real evolution and it keeps getting better. While I still have never seen this as close to a 100 point Port (as a rating bestowed upon it by James Suckling 27 years ago), nonetheless, it is a real beauty and with ages to go.

But then comes …

b. the other side of the coin: Due to poor corks as Andy has mentioned with many Ports from this vintage, those with the weaker corks will often show a '77 Fonseca that can range in color from light ruby to pink in some cases. Sadly, the anthocyanins have precipitated out and when that happens, the flavors seem more like that of an older Port and far less complex or enjoyable both aromatically and from a flavor profile too. Structurally, the tannins are very soft and when pouring into a decanter, if the color proves to be this kind of Port … drink up sooner rather than later as more air, will exacerbate the flaw.

So while I’ve found maybe a 4 or 5:1 positive outcome over all of the Fonseca 1977 I’ve been a part of, that’s still a fairly high “fail” rate … even if the weaker ones are still good … just not excellent by any stretch of the imagination.