ThePortForum.com

Decanted 7 hours

About 55% opaque, more red than purple. Slightly spirity, with cherries on the nose. A bit drier than other Graham ports I've sampled, but touching medium-sweet, with strawberries and slightly dusty cherries on the palate. Not massively thick in its mouth feel. A bit of heat on the finish, traces of herbs, combined with the strawberry found earlier, and maybe even a soupçon of tobacco. Lasts quite long.

Good, and with noticeable signs of maturity, but there seems to be something missing somewhere. I'll go back to it tomorrow, with no qualms, but at the moment...

87

D+48

Heat and tannins softened considerably, appears to have loosened its belt in the decanter. Mid palate full of luscious sweet red fruits, but also with a trace of cranberry-like tartness. Finishes sweeter, with a trace of licorice. Still a tad thin in its mouthfeel, but noticeably improved; needs a lot of time and air, I suspect.

Could still probably show a bit more, but it easily gains 2 or 3 points on its original score.

I often think that improvement in the decanter is a sign of development in years to come. Is this your impression, that there may be more to come?

Speaking as someone who has drunk about 1% of the quantity of vintage port which has been drunk by some on here, I reckon it could still develop more.

People more qualified to talk on the subject then myself reckon it could surpass the '85s in time, which gives more weight to my hunch.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

My most recent experiences with this Port have produced TNs similar to Ed's. Using his D+48 adjustment and then applying the "Glenn Factor" to his score puts it right about where I've had it. (Plus the one simply stellar bottle that I had at 95...)

I think it's an excellent Port right now that needs more time to ... well, "finish" I guess. I can sort of see what Ed's saying about there being something missing, but my impression was that the something might just be a few years of additional aging. I also agree that it's a tad drier than a typical Graham, but still roughly medium sweet. I think it has the potential to match or possibly even exceed the 1985, but it's really too early to tell. Right now it can't compete, but there's just something in it that's telling me to wait and check back later.