ThePortForum.com

Sourced recently from WineConsigners.com for a song. Brought to the NYC 1977 take-2 tasting by SushiNorth on Sean's behalf.
(garrotted on second try, decanted 1 hr, then put in a bottle and brought to tasting)

+0 Light red color. Spirity, and a little cardboardy nose, but hiding. It's very smooth in the mouth, but a bit hot and without much fruit. There's a lot of acid, and a metallic taste like brushed steel.

+2.5 (tasting): Cloudy, raspberry colord. Spirity nose with fruit appearing but still faint. Everyone claimed there's mint, but i don't see it. Tastes nice, nothing distinct coming out to me. It improved over the course of the evening and became smoother, but it was a pretty mediocre port.

A pity this didn't show any better. I can be a very nice port.

heh, in debating whether to buy this bargain, the rationale was "well, the roots liked it..."

So you bought one I liked and one I advised against, and both were bad. Conclusion: best avoid every port I ever mentioned.

RonnieRoots wrote:So you bought one I liked and one I advised against, and both were bad. Conclusion: best avoid every port I ever mentioned.

Others liked it, actually. Besides, we had plenty of agreement at the TFW tasting Some of these smaller port houses are like rolling the dice. One of the reasons I'm shifting more toward the major houses is reliability (with two exceptions: Warres and Grahams, which have been rather unreliable of late!)

Links:

• Review of the evening as a whole;
• 1977 Croft;
• 1977 Warre;
• 1977 Delaforce;
• 1977 Guedes;
• 1977 Smith Woodhouse;
• 1977 Ferreira;
• Planning and arrangements;
• Placemats, as made by SushiNorth.

Delaforce: cloudy complexion. Colour not noted. Nosing, and then tasting, of mint. ‟Port and mint: not complicated, but very drinkable. Acceptable basic port.”