ThePortForum.com

1890 Unknown Shipper vintage port provided by DRT, and consumed at the Old, Odd & Great Off-line at the Portal Restaurant in London on 11th July 2008.

• Links:
  • Arrangements;
  • Placemats;
  • Review of the evening as a whole.
  Wines:
  • 1830 Ferriera vintage port;
  • 1890 Uknown Shipper vintage port;
  • 1890 Unknown Shipper vintage port;
  • 1927 Croft;
  • 1936 Ukranian Massandra;
  • 1963 Warre;
  • 1964 Krohn colhieta branco;
  • 1987 Prager (Napa USA) port;
  • 1989 Skeffington vintage port.

Wording of above post changed to distinguish the two bottles.

The two 1890 bottles.

The capsule of the 1890 Unknown Shipper vintage port (DRT).

1890 Unknown Shipper vintage port (DRT): sediment.

Translucent orange. Light nose, nice, with alcohol, but not hotly so. Quite acidic, with brown sugar, and somebody suggested quince. Almost a colheita. Too old.

AHB said that he labelling the 1890 vintage “accumulate†.

I was extremely please with this on the night. My expectations were not high but this was very much alive and kicking and much better than I expected it to be. This was the oldest port I have had (up to that point in the evening) that was still very drinkable.

My small home sample went like this:

+24 Hours
Bright amber and slightly darker than the AHB bottle from the same vintage. Again, thick and glupey in the glass with the tears taking 30-40 seconds to begin to form after swirling. Stinky nose - a little cheesy. Smooth entry then quite harsh and spirity. After a few seconds it fades into a long sweet finish. This has not held together as well as the AHB bottle but is still remarkably drinkable once you get past the initial harshness.

Jo said: A very different smell to the last one [the AHB bottle]. Smells spicy. More warming than the last one, not fruity.

Considering the lack of sediment, anyone think this was actually a Colheita or tawny?

ADV wrote:Considering the lack of sediment, anyone think this was actually a Colheita or tawny?

It was all stuck inside the bottle.

Ahh, ok

Of the two 1890s we had that night (how I love saying that!), this was the one I preferred. Since Derek left early, I also took home a miniature bottle of this port to try the following day.

On the night
A clear, lovely amber colour with a good orange centre. Slightly tired on the nose but still very lovely; delicate and flowery. Surprisingly sweet, very smooth but lively acidity and a touch of rosemary. The aftertaste is a reasonable length, dominated by the rosemary. 91/100.

18 hours after decanting
Much darker that last night, a distinct amber / russset colour with some lovely ruby traces. A pronounced nose of plums and figs, with a refreshing streak of lime juice. Much more weight and presence than yesterday when entering the mouth, with sweet raisin fruit initially dominating before the slightly bitter acidity comes to the fore. Perhaps a little simple in the middle, delivering only straightforward raisins and dried strawberries and dried cereal - almost like drinking sweet Alpen. The aftertaste on this wine is amazing and clearly a strong point of this elderly port - black Earl Grey tea with the combination of gentle tannins and citrus flavours that dances over the edges of the tongue and the inside of the lips, teasing and tantalising and taking a long, long time to fade to nothingness; timed at over 2½ minutes. 91/100.

This really is a splendid wine, better today than when we cautiously opened and served it immediately last night. It is splitting hairs, but the bitterness to the acidity is off-putting, like biting into the peel of a ripe orange. Without this bitterness, I would rate this one or two points more.

I've just learned a little more of the history of this bottle. This bottle was recorked by a Chester wine merchant about 20 years ago, who used unbranded corks. It is believed, but there is no evidence available, that this was a Croft vintage port.

AHB wrote:I've just learned a little more of the history of this bottle. This bottle was recorked by a Chester wine merchant about 20 years ago, who used unbranded corks. It is believed, but there is no evidence available, that this was a Croft vintage port.

Interesting. Were you successful?

+24 Days (refridgerated for 23 days)
I left this last sample in the fridge in a small bottle as an experiment. It still has that fabulous amber colour. The nose is extremely woody but not the sort of smell you would associate with a corked wine. More like fresh sawdust. A smooth, thick mouthfeel with bitter oranges and smoke. A little fire preceeds a long mouthwatering finish.

I hate to say this guys but this is probably better now than it was on the night

AHB wrote:It is believed, but there is no evidence available, that this was a Croft vintage port.

DRT wrote:A smooth, thick mouthfeel with bitter oranges and smoke.

These two quotations are consistent.

Orange is a distinctive signature on old Crofts, but I missed it on the '75 and again recently on the '91.

Tom

AHB wrote:I've just learned a little more of the history of this bottle. This bottle was recorked by a Chester wine merchant about 20 years ago, who used unbranded corks. It is believed, but there is no evidence available, that this was a Croft vintage port.

Alex,

On reflection I think there is some considerable doubt about this story. The picture of the capsule below isn't clear but I'm sure you will recall that it was a very old and crusty embossed wax capsule that we all studied for a long time in order to attempt to see remnents the date and shipper's name without success.



This was definately not a capsule that would have been applied 20 years ago. I still have the cork and it is now very shrivelled and quite obviously very, very old. I think you may have been spun a line from the merchant who holds the remaining bottle, or perhaps the remaining bottle is a different wine to the one we had?

Derek

I may well have confused the conversation that I had with the person who sold Derek his bottle. It might have been that he (the person who sold Derek the bottle) acquired the bottle 20 years ago.

What I remember clearly is that he told me that the bottle had been recorked in Chester (he told me who had carried out the recorking exercise, but I forget who it was) and that plain corks had been used since the identity of the wine had been lost - but that it was believed to Croft.

However, I do agree that the appearance of the seal is much older than 20 years ago.

Alex