This one's getting off to an inauspicious start. Obvious signs of seepage, and half of the cork ended up in the bottle.
Decanted 14:00. Thin and medicinal. No noticeably unpleasant smells, but a noticeably unpleasant, bitter aftertaste. The color is more amber than red and surprisingly transparent.
D+4: Somewhat better. The bitter aftertaste is giving way to heat.
D+6: The heat's gone, leaving little complexity and a taste of overripe fruit.
Drunk 26 March 2010.
1977 Dow
Re: 1977 Dow
Here's the label:
The cork did not cooperate:
Seepage?
Yeah.
The cork did not cooperate:
Seepage?
Yeah.
- Alex Bridgeman
- Graham’s 1948
- Posts: 14915
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: 1977 Dow
Note to self - minimum of a six hour decant required.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Re: 1977 Dow
I wouldn't argue with the 6 hour decant time, but keep in mind that this bottle showed signs of oxidation (it looked more like Madeira than vintage Port) and probably isn't a good guide on what to expect from a bottle in good condition.
- KillerB
- Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: 22:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
- Location: Sky Blue City, England
Re: 1977 Dow
Patently a bad bottle caused by the seepage, the colour of this is indicative of the cork having failed a long time. You did the right thing to open up, it would have been a crying shame to wait another ten years to find it in an even more deteriorated state. Good to see the next one was in good shape.
Port is basically a red drink