Page 1 of 2

1970 Dow

Posted: 16:16 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
Decanted at 3pm to accompany this tasting but being consumed at a different location.

Firstly, an unusual feature. The foil capsule looked normal but when it was removed it revealed a dry broken surface on the top of the cork that was 2mm to 5mm below the top of the bottle.
2013-10-02 16.04.57.jpg
2013-10-02 16.04.57.jpg (56.33 KiB) Viewed 9172 times
When removed the cork proved to be only half a cork. The side walls were dry and of normal appearance and the bottom surface appropriately stained for a VP of this age. Perhaps the top half of the cork broke off whilst being hammered into the bottle? Or was it removed at some point in the past and the bottom half re-inserted? Is it a fake?

This made me look at the label more closely. It turns out to be a convincing laser-printed facsimile of an original that has subsequently been wet and faded. Intentionally? Who knows.

Decanting went well. The wine was the colour I expected it to be and almost all of the well-formed crust stayed in the bottle.
2013-10-02 16.05.31.jpg
2013-10-02 16.05.31.jpg (48.83 KiB) Viewed 9170 times
2013-10-02 16.06.59.jpg
2013-10-02 16.06.59.jpg (23.86 KiB) Viewed 9170 times
2013-10-02 16.07.25.jpg
2013-10-02 16.07.25.jpg (45.65 KiB) Viewed 9170 times

Now for a quality assurance sample.

The nose was muted and rather dull with a small amount of bottle stink. Very thick and viscous in the mouth with sweet black cherry and a lovely dark chocolate bite. There is a strange dry medicinal note on the end of the mid-palate but then a fabulous long and deliciously sweet finish. The strangeness might be the remnants of some unresolved tannins or spirit but are not enough to spoil the enjoyment of the wine.

Quite splendid, but what is it and is it really what I thought it was?

More to follow.

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 17:02 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by jdaw1
On DRT’s behalf I have asked the obvious question in One quiz at a time.

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 17:58 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
Thank you.

D+3 Hours
The nose has opened up and is now of red cherry and vanilla. Very similar mouth-feel and flavours as before, perhaps a bit sweeter and the medicinal flavour is now more pronounced and distracting. There is now strawberry in the finish, which remains long and delicious. The overall profile of this wine is as expected, but some of the flavours are not typical.

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 18:20 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
The medicinal flavour seems to be evolving into mint, perhaps eucalyptus.

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 19:30 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
The nose now has more power, plummy fruit coming through. Bigger and bolder in the mouth with tannin coming to the fore. Dryness on the cheeks with lovely sweet cherry and mint on the palate. Grade A.

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 20:29 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by Alex Bridgeman
I guess this to be Graham 1970

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 20:40 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
AHB wrote:I guess this to be Graham 1970
Guess posted in appropriate place.

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 21:01 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 21:04 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
The capsule, cork and label...
2013-10-02 16.01.51.jpg
2013-10-02 16.01.51.jpg (28.81 KiB) Viewed 9131 times
2013-10-02 16.00.27.jpg
2013-10-02 16.00.27.jpg (28.87 KiB) Viewed 9131 times
2013-10-02 16.02.43.jpg
2013-10-02 16.02.43.jpg (39.38 KiB) Viewed 9131 times

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 21:10 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
Possibly the laser printed label is just a case of a rather nerdy port owner wanting to keep his D70 looking nice?

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 21:11 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:Possibly the laser printed label is just a case of a rather nerdy port owner wanting to keep his D70 looking nice?
Can't imagine anyone would be geeky enough to do that! :roll:

Re: ???? ? Vintage Port

Posted: 21:12 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Possibly the laser printed label is just a case of a rather nerdy port owner wanting to keep his D70 looking nice?
Can't imagine anyone would be geeky enough to do that! :roll:
no, quite..

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:51 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
This bottle is rapidly developing a major problem. :?

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:52 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
Oh no! International crisis, Level II!

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:53 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by LGTrotter
DRT wrote:This bottle is rapidly developing a major problem. :?
Go on.... I fear the worst.

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:55 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:Go on.... I fear the worst.
The worst imaginable outcome is imminent. A crisis of international proportions is upon us.

What to do?

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:56 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:Go on.... I fear the worst.
The worst imaginable outcome is imminent. A crisis of international proportions is upon us.

What to do?
There is only one thing to do - contact your personal trainer for advice.

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:56 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by LGTrotter
Open another?

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:57 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:Open another?
could always crack open a Morgan 91...

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:58 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:contact your personal trainer for advice.
:shock:

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:59 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:Open another?
could always crack open a Morgan 91...
All at Seckfords.

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:59 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by LGTrotter
Morgan 91? Surely the quality of the wines should increase.

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 21:59 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:Open another?
But another what?

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 22:01 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:Morgan 91? Surely the quality of the wines should increase.
Availability is what counts. How good do you think the bottle needs to be when you've already drunk one bottle on your own?

Re: 1970 Dow

Posted: 22:02 Wed 02 Oct 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:Morgan 91? Surely the quality of the wines should increase.
ah. Availability is indeed what counts...