ThePortForum.com

This was decanted at 7am on 14th February and drink about 9pm the same day. Dark red but translucent. Initially quite spicy on the nose and to taste it opened up in the glass. 12 hours back in the bottle was not enough for it! A medium body port that is very drinkable now.

D+4 days, 16 hours and at least 177.8 miles

A 60ml sample kindly sent to me by Benread. Note taken without reading Ben's just to make things fair.

Strawberry nose. Very thick in the mouth. Anicede, dark chocolate cherry truffle and then quite hot. Mouthwatering finish which seems to go on for a very long time. Very nice juice.

Thanks, Ben.

Derek

Is ‟M. Gonzalez” the same as ‟Gonzalez Byass”?

jdaw1 wrote:Is ‟M. Gonzalez” the same as ‟Gonzalez Byass”?

I don't know.

Please could a picture of the label be posted? (The task of slotting this into the TN index is mine: this will have to be decided.)

jdaw1 wrote:Is ‟M. Gonzalez” the same as ‟Gonzalez Byass”?

I asked the same question here. You were the only respondent!

I now have an answer, albeit "head fuzz" has clouded some of the detail! I asked Dominic Symmington this question at the 1970 horizontal. M(anuel / iguel...) was part of the Gonzalez Byas family. When the firm was sold to (???) in the late 1970's / early 1980's he retained one of the vineyards and started producing port in his own name. He died in the late 1980's so it was a short lived venture. My view is that it should therefore be treated as a seperate firm. Views?

My view is that it should therefore be treated as a seperate firm. Views?

Agree. A nice curiousity. And a pleasant one apparently!

Please post a picture of the label.

Picture below.

‟M. Gonzalez” added to list of known producers, with abbreviation MG (as in ‟MG85”), and alpha-sorted by ‟Gonzalez M”. Does the back label make clear whether it should have an accent as in ‟González Byass”?

No accent apparent on the label.