ThePortForum.com

First bottle out of a case bought last year.

The folly of totally opaque glass comes home when bottles reach this age - how does one spot the bottle that is losing level faster than the others, and should therefore be drunk first?

As it was, I picked this bottle because it had the worst label - the case had quite a lot of fungal activity inside when I opened it..

Looked a little pale as I decanted - small amount of mostly fine sediment.

At first sip I was not impressed - small amount of bottle stink and not a lot else on the nose, on the palate it was weak and very fiery.

Four hours on and the bottle stink has gone, as has most of the fire, drinkable, but somewhat lacking in substance.

Still, it's come a long way since I first opened it, hopefully it will evolve a little more...

Tom

Well, evolve it has - but slowly!

After 24 hours it was more presentable, but still fiery and weak on the nose - at this point I did wonder if it might be very slightly corked.

Now, this evening, after 48 hours, it is finally coming together, with the fire much reduced, and nose much better - not corked - I think..?

This wine is now a mile away from where it was when first decanted.

That said, this was not Taylor's finest hour. The wine has clear signatures both of Taylor and the 83 vintage, but they don't seem to be very happy together.

An acceptable wine, but no star..

To score: For immediate gratification, this wine ranks slightly below the median, so a 4.

Wher's it going? A mature wine, it will probably be still on it's plateau in ten years time -

- so my score is 4-4

Tom

In my limited experience Taylor 1983 is Taylor’s worst declaration since the war (unless they declared 1975?); and Taylor 1983 is the worst 1983 of the major houses. I am not a fan.

Taylor did declare '75 - but along with Graham (and closely followed by Croft) it is a wine that bucks the negative reputation of the '75 vintage - not a superstar, but declaration-worthy..

~~~

Another day and this wine keeps getting better - much better - but who would normally wait this long?

Anyone who tackled this wine soon after decanting would dismiss it as a disaster...

OK - if you've got a case - or just a bottle or three - go get a fat felt pen and write on the case or label:

"Four days decanting time required"

Tom

Out of interest, what does this stuff cost (retail and auction)?

Derek

Derek,

The most recent hammer falls have been in the low £300's - retail price is around £40/bottle

Tom

Tom,

That seems very high for what has been described above. If you were buying it again what would you pay?

Derek

What for the worst producer of the worst vintage since the war? Patently (though I've never had it) this is the Jade Goody Port and should be similarly ostracised by society... well, us.

Worst post-war port? Royal Oporto 1985.

This seems to be the only TN for this port on the Forum. My expereience matched that of Uncle Tom almost exctly. After a few hours, the wine gave nothing. It was tight, almost astringent. After 24 hours it began to reveal a little more, and after 48 was singing.

This, like my hobby horse, Dow 85, is a wine which has been unfairly traduced in tastings in which the wines have breathed for just a few hours. No, it is not of the top flight, but with vintage port, even the average is pretty good.

John

This wine was served with dessert at a dinner I attended last night. It was dissappointing. I agree with Julian that this was not Taylor's best effort in a long run. At best, medium to light ruby in color. There's a little alcohol heat on the palate, but not oppressive. The wine had very little sweetness. This bottle was from a case bought upon release and stored in pristine conditions since then, with no movement. Several bottles were served and all came out looking the same, and some compared notes revealed the same impressions.