NV Churchill Crusted 2000
Posted: 18:56 Sun 09 Sep 2007
From a case bought two years ago.
Light, slightly watery bouquet - on the palate it is relatively dry. Somewhat lacking in body and noticeably tannic. Little fire though.
- A good quaff - sound after dinner booze for those who think they have to eat Stilton at the same time..
However, the fresh approachable nature of crusted port says a lot for the benefits of blending wines from different years.
This being the third bottle I've opened from the case, I sense the wine is a little less raw than a year ago. While perfectly guzzleable now, it will probably improve a little more with time - I sense that 10-15 years is peak drinking age here.
Will I buy more? Not actively. I can't argue that this is in any way better than the Morgan '91, and a bottle typically costs 50% more retail.
In my little notebook for pricing non-vintage port at auction, I have an entry: "Crusted - under 20yrs old - all shippers - £7.00/btl"
However, only Garrafeiras are less frequently under the hammer!
Tom
Light, slightly watery bouquet - on the palate it is relatively dry. Somewhat lacking in body and noticeably tannic. Little fire though.
- A good quaff - sound after dinner booze for those who think they have to eat Stilton at the same time..
However, the fresh approachable nature of crusted port says a lot for the benefits of blending wines from different years.
This being the third bottle I've opened from the case, I sense the wine is a little less raw than a year ago. While perfectly guzzleable now, it will probably improve a little more with time - I sense that 10-15 years is peak drinking age here.
Will I buy more? Not actively. I can't argue that this is in any way better than the Morgan '91, and a bottle typically costs 50% more retail.
In my little notebook for pricing non-vintage port at auction, I have an entry: "Crusted - under 20yrs old - all shippers - £7.00/btl"
However, only Garrafeiras are less frequently under the hammer!
Tom