ThePortForum.com

Tentatively, yes from me.

AHB wrote: ↑

19:37 Sat 14 Dec 2019

If I could, please could I bring a guest?

Added to list.

The book has a chapter Vintage Reviews , in which I wrote, p601, 1991s are junior to the 1992s. Insufficiently tasted to say more. In 2019 George organised an excellent tasting of 1991s , after which any opinion was less uninformed. Then: I intend to arrange a 1992 horizontal. We need a 1992 horizon...

This post to hold links to thread and documents.

• Placemats (and in the list of placemats);
• Planning and arrangements.

This post to hold arrangements as and when agreed. Theme: 1992s . When: 6½pm, Tuesday 12 th May 2020 . Where: Red Room of The Boot & Flogger ( Google maps ). People: Possible industry guest; JDAW ; CSD ; CMAG ; GEAG ; TC ; WPS ; THRA ; AHB ; DRT ; ZDR ; SCD ; AHB’s +1. Shippers and who has: Burmest...

I have in storage some excellent matured Cubans, which could be for sale. Contact me if interested.

Who is to print the sticky labels, TNs, vote recorders, etc?

Who is to print the the placemats?

I intend to arrange a 1992 horizontal.

BTW to jdaw1, the WOTN scores for myself and NA appear to have been transposed. Sorry. It’s not easy for the prosopagnosic. As others have said, praise to George for organising. I did not have a clear mental map of this vintage, and now I do. The ’91s are reasonable drinking, but not a vintage of t...

rich_n wrote: ↑

23:45 Tue 10 Dec 2019

I will do, just awaiting confirmation (or otherwise) of whether Christopher can take the final spot.

I’ve asked; he can’t.

Current draft of the placemats (I chose stars rather than flowers — willing to be overruled).

Please update first post’s list of attendees.

I will do so as soon as I have confirmation of who will be taking the final space. I have zero knowledge of how placemats will work, having only attended the 2017 VP tasting, so would one of our more experienced guests please weigh in with a preferred option? I’ll ensure functionally good — fret no...

Later, still liked. But not as full as some.

SW91. Red-pink, 20% opaque. Nose revolting. Taste less revolting — but this is not praise.

Ni91. Dark red, 35% opaque. Dry then sweet, light, hint cantaloupe melon, very long. Liked.

Rs91. Dark red, 65% opaque. No nose. Minerality and sweetness, soft plum, with structure. Good size. Liked.

NN91. Red-pink 40%. Red cherry, soft and oleaginous, good length, lots of heat. This is good Port, texture very fine but not a giant, and not the best here.

N91. Red, 40% opaque. Pleasant, but not great. Simple sugar leading to a dry mid palate.

Mg91. Dark red 70%. Dark plum. Big dark Port, not yet mature. Really liked.

Cr91. Dark red, 70% opaque. I like. Big, structure, fruit (plums), dry mid palate. Proper Port properly declared.

FG91. Dark red, 45% opaque. Mid weight, dry, little fruit. TFP made the right decision not to declare this.

TV91. Dark dark red, 90% opaque. Dark plum, closed, dry. Might end up as excellent, might not, but needs another decade in the cellar before which can be known.

CkC91. Drowned in vinegar acidity. George: “remarkably undrinkable”.