ThePortForum.com

Fonseca 1920 tasted on 1st September 2007 in St. Helens. Tasted that evening were Fonseca 1920, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1992, and 2000. Also see the review describing the evening as a whole.

From the cellar of Derek T., for the trivial sum of £50. The result of rebottling a leaky magnum into a 750ml some three years earlier.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3469#3469]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:The 1920 has an unusual history. I purchased this wine as a Magnum around 3 years ago. The bottle was leaking badly when it arrived. I drank some, without taking a tasting note, and re-bottled the remaining 750ml in the bottle that can be seen in the picture above.

Derek: how come the 1920 bottle has such a Fonseca-looking label?

One of my many mental disorders is a need to have labels on every bottle in my cellar. If they arrive without one I make one. This is a very early example which used the Fonseca logo from their website.

I now realise this design was a mistake and it should have been a simple white stencil font on a plain black background.

Derek

I understand it has an unusual provenance, and you didn't take TN's. But can you at least confirm it was reasonably drinkable?

It was definately drinkable at the time otherwise I would not have re-bottled it. What it tastes like now is anyone's guess but I suppose we are about to find out.

Derek

Orange tawny, very orange, slightly hazy. Nosing lightly of madeira (nose sensations were weaker because we were outside). To taste very lightly rancid, short, sweet, off Grand Marnier. Very smooth. Later the orange flavour more prominent.

Can't argue with Jdaw's note. Tom, please add some thoughts...

Faded glory - probably a very good wine in the seventies.

Still sound enough to drink, although some products of decay spoil the nose.

Curiously, this wine has evaded the attention of Mayson, Suckling & Broadbent - so its history is a little opaque...

Tom

I have only seen 1 reference to it and that was on the web. The only reason I have not questioned its authenticity is the list of shippers quoted by sickling. All premier league so obviously a major declaration.

I am pleased that this didn't get written off as dishwater. I knew it would be very tired but it seems to have enchanted those who have posted here who have appreciated it for what it is, an old relative who had a dodgy ticker a few years ago but stuck around for a while to make is smile.

Derek

The existence of F20 is not in contention.

In my cellar I have an old unmarked bottle that was originally one of a pair - the other, I was told, proved to be F17

Now, find a reference to the existence of that...!

Tom

As interesting and pleasant as the 20 was, I suspect there's no rush on visiting the 17!

But if I'm in the area, I'll make the effort.

Derek, how was this tasting in comparison to three years ago? Do you think the rebottling had any effect on the taste?

Yes, I think it had an effect. I did not take a note when I first tasted this wine but do not remember it being as oxidised as now.

Derek

The poor state of this rebottled Fonseca 1920 makes me concerned about the state of the Nebuchadnezzar of Dow 1896.

No-one likes to think that a century old wine is rubbish, but it can easily be so.

Realistically, there is an evens chance that the Neb is going to disappoint, and a significant risk that it will be barely drinkable.

Add to that the problem of constructing an occasion when such a volume might be drunk, and the need to have a Plan 'B' on standby should it prove to be undrinkable.

It would be interesting to explore this bottle - but the price is off the radar...

Tom

uncle tom wrote:In my cellar I have an old unmarked bottle that was originally one of a pair - the other, I was told, proved to be F17

Now, find a reference to the existence of that...!

Tom

Hi Tom,

The 1934 book "Port" by Andre Simon doesn't show Fonseca as a shipper in 1917. He lists the following shippers: Croft, Delaforce, Ferreira, Feuerheerd, Graham, Gonzalez (Quinta de Roriz), Kopke, Rebello Valente, Sandeman, Smith Woodhouse, Taylor, and Van Zellers. He also notes that 76,149 piptes were shipped.

All the best,
John

I've checked several vintage lists (but I don't have the book you mention) and Fonseca is never mentioned for 1917.

However, there have been many informal bottlings over the years, and some shippers had rather long (war induced?) gaps between 'official' declarations at that time - eight years in the case of Fonseca (1912-1920) and fifteen years for Cockburn (1912 - 1927).

The likelihood of there having been small interim bottlings from these producers seems quite high.

Tom

uncle tom wrote:The likelihood of there having been small interim bottlings from these producers seems quite high.

I am sure you're quite right, if for no other reason than plain economics due to restrictions during the war.

As an update, Andre Simon's 1945 book "Vintagewise" shows 1917 as only 39,000 pipes shipped. I'm not sure of the disparity.

All the best,
John