Page 2 of 2
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 19:34 Sun 05 Dec 2010
by jdaw1
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 23:40 Sun 05 Dec 2010
by Alex Bridgeman
Perhaps we might be able to try another bottle at the Christmas Offline - under the category of "peculiar"?
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 23:59 Sun 05 Dec 2010
by jdaw1
Of the Ni27? I had better change my plans for this month.
Of the Mk55? OK, please let me know how it goes. Though all of twenty minutes ago I made
this placemat, which might be relevant to the decision.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 00:11 Mon 06 Dec 2010
by Alex Bridgeman
jdaw1 wrote:Of the Ni27? I had better change my plans for this month.
Of the Mk55? OK, please let me know how it goes. Though all of twenty minutes ago I made
this placemat, which might be relevant to the decision.
Hopefully of both, so that we might be able to make the same comparison as you. However, since it was posted in the thread for the 1955 Mackenzie I think it reasonable to admit I was referring to that particular wine.
It will be interesting to see what is made of the Mackenzie at the tasting in Germany - please, attendees who post here, let us know your thoughts.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 11:51 Wed 15 Dec 2010
by Axel P
We just had another 55 from the same lot from Tom last week together with some 13 other 55s, TNs to follow.
This showed exactly the same: very dark and fresh with still some red berry aromas.
Would be very interesting to have another bottle with different storing conditions.
Axel
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 22:55 Fri 31 Dec 2010
by Glenn E.
Color: Easily the darkest of the 16 Ports at the tasting. Dark and purple, very nearly opaque.
Nose: Nice, softly spicy.
Palate: Beautiful. Good tannins. Sweet-ish. A bit one-dimensional.
Finish: no note taken
Score: 90 points. This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however. I had this tied for #2 of the 2nd flight with the Noval and behind the Taylor.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 00:34 Wed 05 Jan 2011
by DRT
Glenn E. wrote:This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however.
Why forge one bottle when you can forge a whole case? - both bottles were from the same source
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 01:42 Wed 05 Jan 2011
by Glenn E.
DRT wrote:Glenn E. wrote:This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however.
Why forge one bottle when you can forge a whole case? - both bottles were from the same source
Ah, I didn't know that. Back to square one!
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 10:11 Tue 20 Sep 2022
by Amphora
Hi all. Newby here. 12 years (!) after the original thread I'm able to add some info. I've just bought a case of Mackenzie's '55. The bottles are unlabelled, and almost certainly ever sported labels. But the back story is that the case was a retirement gift to a gent who was a director of Harvey's and the Chairman of Cockburns. So I have every reason to believe that the bottles are genuine (unless the seller was fibbing of course, but the guy who was gifted the bottles was his stepfather, and the seller seemed like an honest guy)
But just have a look at this....the cork is identical to the earlier one discussed on this thread. Miracle of miracles it still came out in one piece, and is date-stamped 1955, bottled 1957. The port was still remarkably dark and youthful, with quite the whiff of alcohol at opening. But after a couple of hours it settled into something which in my (admittedly limited) experience represented the characteristics of a '55.
So unless our swindler created two cases, it would seem that the earlier bottle discussed here was indeed legit. Whoda thunk it!
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 11:25 Tue 20 Sep 2022
by Alex Bridgeman
What an interesting post.
The more I experience the Mackenzie 1955 and a handful of other very dark Ports, the more convinced I become that they are genuine.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 19:47 Tue 20 Sep 2022
by Glenn E.
I have tasted it at least once more after the above-mentioned 2, and that example was also sublime.
It sounds very strange, but two of my favorite VPs from 1955 are Mackenzie and Adams.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 21:17 Thu 22 Sep 2022
by jdaw1
Amphora wrote: ↑10:11 Tue 20 Sep 2022I've just bought a case of Mackenzie's '55. The bottles are unlabelled, and almost certainly ever sported labels. But the back story is that the case was a retirement gift to a gent who was a director of Harvey's and the Chairman of Cockburns. So I have every reason to believe that the bottles are genuine (unless the seller was fibbing of course, but the guy who was gifted the bottles was his stepfather, and the seller seemed like an honest guy)
Thank you for posting, and for posting so excellently. I agree that it is genuine.
Also, you should be very pleased to have a dozen of them. Good score.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Posted: 20:04 Sun 23 Oct 2022
by nac
jdaw1 wrote: ↑21:17 Thu 22 Sep 2022
Amphora wrote: ↑10:11 Tue 20 Sep 2022I've just bought a case of Mackenzie's '55. The bottles are unlabelled, and almost certainly ever sported labels. But the back story is that the case was a retirement gift to a gent who was a director of Harvey's and the Chairman of Cockburns. So I have every reason to believe that the bottles are genuine (unless the seller was fibbing of course, but the guy who was gifted the bottles was his stepfather, and the seller seemed like an honest guy)
Thank you for posting, and for posting so excellently. I agree that it is genuine.
Also, you should be very pleased to have a dozen of them. Good score.
Amphora no longer has a dozen, as he put six up for sale and I managed to get five of them. One being put aside for 55@70.
Some time ago there was some (limited) discussion about maybe having a Mackenzie vertical. I still have some 1948. What else is available?
Probably sensible to now move this discussion to the Tastings thread...