ThePortForum.com

As much out of curiosity piqued by the reputation this port has as for any other reason, I decided to open a bottle of this port for the weekend.

OMG. It is astonishing. Sweeter and fruitier than the dense and packed 1992, this is stunning stuff.

Deep red in colour, a magnificent shade of magenta; opaque at the centre. Sweet bramble fruits on the nose, fruity and floral. Delicious smelling and inviting. On the palate this has perfect balance, full of rich and sweet fruit with concentration and power. The mid-palate shows more fruit together with perfect acidity and firm tannins. Fabulous aftertaste with plenty of fruit and a long, long chocolate and black cherry finish. It's very hard to imagine a better port than this, but it will mature and develop with more time in the cellar. Magnificent port. 97/100. Drunk 22-Jan-16. Decanted 2 hours.

Great TN Alex, and it sounds like a magnificent glass of port. In terms of aging and future potential... Do you think the T94 is a better bet than the T92? Enjoy the rest of the bottle!

Simon

AHB wrote:OMG. It is astonishing.

Leaving aside the dreadful argot of youth which opens this statement (I moodily anticipate an outbreak of exclamation marks), the most astonishing thing about this wine is the price. I appreciate it is totes amaze but could you truly recommend getting this ahead of the Vesuvio? Or Fonseca? I know, I know, get a few of each, but really.

Doggett wrote:Great TN Alex, and it sounds like a magnificent glass of port. In terms of aging and future potential... Do you think the T94 is a better bet than the T92? Enjoy the rest of the bottle!

Now there's a question which we could spend years, nay decades, debating. I honestly don't know which is a better bet, they are so different. We need to track down someone who tried the 1963 and 1966 vintages side by side when they were about 21 years of age (the ports, not the person). I suspect that we are the lucky beneficiaries who are in the perfect point in time to follow two fabulous but very different ports as they mature side-by-side. This particular port is just so full of fruit, yet there is tannin and acidity to balance the sweet, lush fruit. By contrast the 1992 is like a sulky teenager (or a truculent Somerset-ian) with their bedroom door shut and nothing but darkness in the room. You know that one day they will turn out to be a delight, but you're not sure whether you are going to be able to keep them around for long enough to see that happen.

Is T94 a better bet than T92. Absolutely ... if you want to drink one of them this year or next year. If you're looking further ahead then I have no idea. You're younger than me. Make sure you have some of both so you tell my heirs how much of a dis-service I did them by leaving them the wrong one and offering to buy the one they do have from them for a notional sum.

LGTrotter wrote:

AHB wrote:OMG. It is astonishing.

Leaving aside the dreadful argot of youth which opens this statement (I moodily anticipate an outbreak of exclamation marks), the most astonishing thing about this wine is the price. I appreciate it is totes amaze but could you truly recommend getting this ahead of the Vesuvio? Or Fonseca? I know, I know, get a few of each, but really.

I take it you would have preferred me to open with "Oh my golly gosh" but in these days of urban slang I thought I would stick to a relatively safe description that has few - if any - alternative interpretations. Yes, this is pretty damn good port. And right now I think it is better than the Vesuvio 1994 and on a par with the Fonseca 1994 - but all have many more years of development ahead of them. Which of the three turns out to be the best in the end, I don't know.

All three are fabbo portilicious drinkipops. Buy any of the three and you won't be disappointed (except for the fact that the bottles are too small).

AHB wrote:"Oh my golly gosh"

My oh my!