ThePortForum.com

On Tuesday 29th July 2014 a group of us gathered for an informal evening in The Bung Hole, each having brought a bottle to share blind.

1994 Tesco (double dagger, MPM)
1980 Gould Campbell (RPA)
1970 Fonseca (THRA)
1970 Warre (CPR 1)
1970 Taylor (MPM)
1963 Gould Campbell (AHB)
1958 Martinez (MW)
1983 Barca Velha (MW)

Erroneously guessed to be V92 by me. Dark ruby, 70% opaque. Nose of warm, slightly stewed fruit and some caramel. Palate with ripe black fruit, toffee and then a nice warming heat. This is a very pleasant port which should hold up well over the next 10 years at the very least. 89 points with some room for upward movement.

You have inverted date and shipper in the title of this TN - this will cause the TN compilers no end of extra work. Mr B will have to get a form signed in triplicate from Mrs W and T, and then they will have to take it for approval by the Trustees, submitting reasons for their special pleading. Do you really want that to happen?

djewesbury wrote:You have inverted date and shipper in the title of this TN - this will cause the TN compilers no end of extra work. Mr B will have to get a form signed in triplicate from Mrs W and T, and then they will have to take it for approval by the Trustees, submitting reasons for their special pleading. Do you really want that to happen?

Fixed, thanks for spotting. Best to minimise the bureaucratic churning of the TPF millstone.

Can I just point out my own mistake before someone else does; the plural of Mr is not Mrs but Messrs. I know. Sharing the sackcloth.

djewesbury wrote:Can I just point out my own mistake before someone else does; the plural of Mr is not Mrs but Messrs. I know. Sharing the sackcloth.

I noticed this but thought you implied a curious relationship among the moderators...

PopulusTremula wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Can I just point out my own mistake before someone else does; the plural of Mr is not Mrs but Messrs. I know. Sharing the sackcloth.

I noticed this but thought you implied a curious relationship among the moderators...

PopulusTremula wrote:a curious relationship among the moderators...

It is not the first time this has been said.

It has been hypothesised that there are two batches of the Tesco 1994, one excellent, one rubbish. We need a means of distinguishing them.

So, a request. Please could very good photographs of these always be taken.

jdaw1 wrote:It has been hypothesised that there are two batches of the Tesco 1994, one excellent, one rubbish. We need a means of distinguishing them.

So, a request. Please could very good photographs of these always be taken.

Is there anything in particular that might be photographed? The labels? The marks on the bottom of the bottle? Anything that might distinguish the putative batches?

djewesbury wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:It has been hypothesised that there are two batches of the Tesco 1994, one excellent, one rubbish. We need a means of distinguishing them.

So, a request. Please could very good photographs of these always be taken.

Is there anything in particular that might be photographed? The labels? The marks on the bottom of the bottle? Anything that might distinguish the putative batches?

I think the first batch had a white label and was stated to be Quarles Harris. The second batch has a black label with no specific shipper stated. There might have been white labels on early versions of the second batch.

I think we could therefore hypothesise that Tesco 94i was bona Quarles Harris (pardon my palare) and that they just substituted a totally different blend when this was sold through and there was a need for Tesco 94ii. If it had two different labels it's not such a mystery really, is it? To94ii never claimed to be QH.

There are at least 3 labels, a white one and then a black one and then another slightly different black one, with some gold with the 'tesco finest' strip round the bottom of the capsule.

djewesbury wrote:I think we could therefore hypothesise that Tesco 94i was bona Quarles Harris (pardon my palare) and that they just substituted a totally different blend when this was sold through and there was a need for Tesco 94ii. If it had two different labels it's not such a mystery really, is it? To94ii never claimed to be QH.

The second label was merely a result of Tesco changing the branding of their Finest range. It is the absence of the QH description (and perhaps cork branding?) that is the real differentiator.

LGTrotter wrote:There are at least 3 labels, a white one and then a black one and then another slightly different black one, with some gold with the 'tesco finest' strip round the bottom of the capsule.

I think there must have been four because I don't think my white ones say Quarles Harris anywhere so there must have been another label that did have this on.

I am not sure about the corks, I think they all just say "port 1994" but there were some longer and some shorter, the shorter ones being in the earlier bottling.

Mine came in 1 litre polybottles with plastic screwtops. Is this unusual?

djewesbury wrote:Mine came in 1 litre polybottles with plastic screwtops. Is this unusual?

Well I'm finding it quite interesting to talk about the various corks and labels of Tesco 94. And perhaps you'd like to come down the front of the class and explain to everybody what's so funny.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Mine came in 1 litre polybottles with plastic screwtops. Is this unusual?

Well I'm finding it quite interesting to talk about the various corks and labels of Tesco 94. And perhaps you'd like to come down the front of the class and explain to everybody what's so funny.

I'd love nothing more!
I do think it's an interesting discussion. Very erudite.

Deep red, young with a dark rim and and an opaque centre. Sweet and fruity nose, very attractive but just a hint of remaining stink. Sweet and fruity on entry, rich and flavoursome. Very impressive and with tannins still quite firm. Rich finish with a touch of heat but very much a port that is drinking today but is also promising for the future. Served blind this was guessed to be Graham 2000. 90/100. Drunk 29-Jul-14. Decanted 21 hours.

What label and cork did this example have - seems one of the better ones?

Front label

Back label

The cork was simply marked 'Vintage Port'. It looked like it had just been done, so potentially a recork.

Thanks. Encouraging - looks similar to ones I bought recently (I'm not at home so can't immediately check). I wonder: does buying from Tesco Wine Direct improve the odds of getting better bottles?