ThePortForum.com

DRT wrote:Is that because this was your first G91?

Yes, I believe so.

JacobH wrote:Is not the plural of fez "fez"?

Wikipedia wrote:plural fezzes or fezes

DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.

Except the ’91, me too.

Welcome to . As Derek says, we are often”  in your neighbourhood, and when you are in ours, join us for a bottle or few.

”  Meaning, so far, exactly once in my life.

We also had a splendid idea. We should have made some :tpf: drinking fezzes, probably in a dark red. We should also have embroidered small badges, 2″ wide by ½″ high, labelled with a centred-version of: Graham’s 13 February 2009 or 1970 30 January 2009 Each person’s Fez could then, over time, accumu...

A fine night in good company why we do these things. But disappointing. My internal myth of Graham’s port is a big sweet wine, without the tannic strength of Taylor and Fonseca, but nonetheless large. And these weren’t. Only the 1980 was long viscous and full. The 1963 jolly good, but delicate; 1970...

Graham’s 1994: too young, showing strong tannin. And lighter than it should have been. I had expected a powerhouse of a wine, but this was mid-weight at best. Is there a risk that 1994 fails to deliver on its promises?

Graham’s 1991: Another horrible bottle stinker, though not as strongly as the ’85.

Graham’s 1985: I might have thought it boded well, but this bright-red port had a foul and ’orrible bottle stink. Attempting to ignore the stink I found a taste that I could only describe as ‟heat; nice weight”. The stink diminished with time, but not enough.

Bizarrely, Anthony liked this.

Graham’s 1983: mid red. No notes on the nose. To taste heat, light, somewhat astringent. Rightly likened to tea.

Graham’s 1980: dark red, and saturated dark red (similar to my previous taste of this). Nose was hard for me to describe floral? but John found ‟Tuscan-like meat flavours”. Long, viscous and full, medium sweet with good acidity. Moses tasted ‟bake”.

The garottes have a ring of metal, through which the wire goes, that you have bent into shape for the job. The ends of this ring sometimes catch the wire. Is there a reason you chose not to use a large plain keyring? It would last longer and have a smoother surface and hence be less likely to catch....

Grahams 1977 : translucent red fading to brown. Once Elys rightly declared that it smelt of ‟mint gum” all my other descriptors dropped out of the race. Nosing of mint gum. Tasting of mint and heat, with nothing behind it. Entirely drinkable basic port. (I know what you’re thinking. Or what, under...

Graham’s 1970: full lovely red, deep and wonderful. But the nose rather closed, an the taste also below ideal. Thinner than expected, good sticky length in the mouth but not throat, very sweet with red fruit including strawberry.

Good port, but it should have been great and wasn’t.

Graham’s 1966: palest port of the set, and too orange. Looks old. Faint nose, containing some spearmint. To taste I wrote ‟Thin, not a real ’66. Acidic.”

But some loved it. ‟Ethereal”, I imagine they might have said.

Graham’s 1963 : red, brown at edge, 30% opacity. Nose neither faint nor heavy, with lots of sweet cranberry. To taste good texture and length, very sweet, and lots of red fruit. John rightly said ‟orange peel”. Moses, rightly, thought good acidity. Some vegetable notes. Others but not I found ‟cig...

Graham’s 1960 : mostly red, though starting to orange. Initially the nose was weak and hot, with the taste being very hot and sugary. But it improved through the evening, raspberry appearing in the nose, and the mouth-feel becoming softer and more unctuous. Still hot though. Some people loved this ...

Good looking port garottes. Thank you.

But the video is far too slow, and you need a friend to hold the camera and sometimes zoom in.

JDAW has DRT’s set.

Graham’s 1970: decanted 15:40. Opacity 40%ile, but a lovely dark red hue, and very saturated. Nice looking. Bit closed on the nose. Initially heat, sweetness, red fruit (not black!), then strong length. Will improve over the next few hours.

G70 decanted.

In this and the following post it was established that participants are to be credited as follows: Jay $1042; Julian $320; Josh $165. The total cost is therefore $1527, which, split nine ways is $170 each. Therefore payments are as follows: Jay : Receive $875 ; Julian : Receive $150 ; Josh : Pay $5 ...

Graham’s 1985: decanted 14:40. Dark red, no brown, no blue, 50% translucency. At D+0 some astringency in the nose, but also sweet cranberry. To taste likewise, with mouthfilling sweetness and nice length. Tannins too strong: will be fixed by the passage of time. Bodes well.

Placemats printed.

Next: decant the G85.