what did I just buy? I’m not familiar with “Tercentenary”
any help would be appreciated.
thanks
-paul
I have one or more in my cellar. I believe it is just 1970 Warre’s, and 1970 happened to be their tercentenary.
Not a special reserve or anything. It should be about as good as it is going to get, once you let it up and let the sediment settle.
P Hickner
Correct.
This is just an anniversary label. It’s simply a 1970 Warre’s VP. If well stored it’s a very good one. Decant about 5-6 hours ahead of drinking.
IMO, it hasn’t totally peaked yet. And once it does in the future should hold there for a good many years. You can drink up now or hold it for at least another 15+ years with no issues.
One of my least favorite Warre’s VPs between 1945 and 2000. It is not bad, I’ve just never found it to be anything special.
Roy and I rarely disagree. But we do on this one. Lol.
It’s interesting when the two people I think of re: Port knowledge disagree about a specific Port.
Warre’s, more so in this vintage than some others, comes off as more feminine than most other 1970’s. Which, arguably, most producers produced more masculine VP’s. That doesn’t mean it isn’t complex and intriguing. On the contrary, it’s quite complex and still a young showing VP. But some people are not fond of the Warre’s style. Warre’s is, and has been, a more feminine Port. I have said it before, and often. Warre’s is like a Rolls Royce where as the likes of Fonseca, Graham’s, Taylors, etc., are like a Ferrari. Both top class, but very different cars which appeal to different people.
1963 is also another great vintage for this Port, from well stored bottles. I’ve had it single blind (we didn’t know order of the ports served) where a 1963 Warre’s beat out several Fonseca’s including the 1963 and 1966. It was one of the Ports of the evening, beat only by an older Fonseca VP (Why blind tasting is sometimes a good thing). Yet others, including Roy, will tell you 1963 Warre’s is past its best and not up to the standard of other '63s. I totally disagree (Roy and I have had some fun conversations about this).
Warre’s is also a VP that tends to need a much longer decant to come round that others of the same vintage. I suspect that also has something to do with some lesser reviews of it.
thanks all for the color, when I bought it (haven’t seen the btl yet) it sounded like it was a different bottling than the standard VP. Still happy with the purchase price.
thanks again,
-paul
‘More feminine’ Port sounds to this ignoramus a bit like a more feminine Left Tackle, but what do I know.
If Andy and I always agreed, then For The Love Of Port would be one hell of a boring place. While our views and ratings in most cases are quite close, we definitely differ on some subjects and some bottles of Port. I don’t think either of is more right or more wrong, just different palates and views … all healthy.
Anyway, when the 1970 Warre’s was fairly young, I was not a huge fan. It was very spirity and backwards and a bit disjointed. Around 1990 it really started to get even hotter and remained that way for six to eight more years. I was DEFINITELY not a fan, especially considering how many great 1970’s existed then and even now. Circa 2000, it began to calm down a bit (kind of like Graham’s 1977) and has improved more in the past 5-10 years. Yes it is feminine and elegant, which is part of the Warre’s house style anyway … try the 1977 too for a great example of the style. But there’s still a part of me that finds this Port not in full synch when I try it blind or sighted. Anyway, it is good, but there are so many others in 1970 that I would choose to drink before this one. Just my 2 cents.