ThePortForum.com

A vertical of drinkable Graham's Vintage Ports from the past 50 years, held on the ever auspicious Friday the Thirteenth (February 2009) and hosted graciously by jfacciol. Links:

• Review of the evening as a whole;
• Graham 1960;
• Graham 1963;
• Graham 1966;
• Graham 1970;
• Graham 1977;
• Graham 1980;
• Graham 1983;
• Graham 1985;
• Graham 1991;
• Graham 1994;
• Planning notes;
• Placemats

Great night, with lots of port. I think what was most interesting is how divided people were on the Ports. I don't think we quite had the super-star as at some of the tastings, so there was much jostling for top spot.

somehow I actually wound up OK this morning, I attribute it to checking all of the water boxes on jdaw's placemats and the emergency bagel I brought with me for the train-ride home heheh.

A fine night in good company why we do these things.

But disappointing. My internal myth of Graham’s port is a big sweet wine, without the tannic strength of Taylor and Fonseca, but nonetheless large. And these weren’t. Only the 1980 was long viscous and full. The 1963 jolly good, but delicate; 1970 thinner than it should have been; and 1994 likewise. 1977 almost empty.

Anthony and Elys said that the house style of Graham’s was ‟fortified flat coca-cola”. Yikes!

We also had a splendid idea. We should have made some drinking fezzes, probably in a dark red. We should also have embroidered small badges, 2″ wide by ½″ high, labelled with a centred-version of:

Graham’s
13 February 2009

or

1970
30 January 2009

Each person’s Fez could then, over time, accumulate such embroidered decorations. Obviously decorations would be made for tastings since the start of TPF, and would include non-NY located TPF tastings. Such decorations would be restricted to tastings with a clearly-identified theme not just bring-a-bottle.

Enthusiasm?

jdaw1 wrote:Obviously decorations would be made for tastings since the start of TPF, and would include non-NY located TPF tastings.

I suspect there are a couple of you who would look like coneheads when wearing your fully decorated fez!

After reading JDAWs notes on each of these wines I would suggest that the name of this off-line should perhaps be changed to "The Unluckiest Graham Vertical in History".

I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes. I remember 80 being rather weak and have not had the 94.

What a shame. This should have, and could, have been a fabulous line-up. Worth repeating with bottles from different sources?

Derek

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Obviously decorations would be made for tastings since the start of TPF, and would include non-NY located TPF tastings.

I suspect there are a couple of you who would look like coneheads when wearing your fully decorated fez!

This evokes images of Mr Cunningham as Grand Puba of the Leopard Lodge. No thanks.

DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.

Except the ’91, me too.

Gotta agree with Derek here, you guys had the most unluckiest tasting I've seen. With the exception of a few corked bottles, I've had very different and good experiences with those Graham's vintages.

What a pity that many bottles showed that poorly. I'll pass on the fezzes. Reminds me a bit too much of Avondvierdaagse.

Moral of the story: no off-lines on Friday 13th.

Is not the plural of fez "fez"?

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.

Except the ’91, me too.

Is that because this was your first G91? I have had a few bottles, and shared some with others at TCP, and always found it to be a great young wine. If this was you first, find another and try it again. Then buy some

JacobH wrote:Is not the plural of fez "fez"?

Wikipedia wrote:plural fezzes or fezes

DRT wrote:Is that because this was your first G91?

Yes, I believe so.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.

Except the ’91, me too.

Is that because this was your first G91? I have had a few bottles, and shared some with others at TCP, and always found it to be a great young wine. If this was you first, find another and try it again. Then buy some

i've had heavy condensed/evaporated milk smell on the g91, even after blowing it off,

i'll post notes whenever I take that break from studying =)

and yes, I agree no tasting friday nights before I need to wake up at 8am for class.

My favorites were the 66, 60 and 83 in that order.

I thought the 66 and the 60 were both outstanding and gave them both 95 and 94 respectively.

Wine of the night was a tie between the 63 and 66.

Here's the order of the remaining bottles

63,66 tie
85
60,70,80 tie
83
94

which would put the 77 and 91 as dead last.

It was a splendid evening. Thanks to Jay for hosting!

Unfortunately, this was not Grahams night to shine. Most of the port served was off bottles.

One had TCA, two were baked (don’t have my notes), one with VA, the ‘94 was hardly a powerhouse.

The ’83 showed well (WOTN), ’85 was disappointing. ’70 was thinner than it should be.


A take away from this vertical Grahams was the ‟freshness” of each bottle. Even if they were baked, VA, or TCA, the freshness on the nose was still there.

Overall, I'd say Graham's are minty, sweet, have a hint of chocolate, and perhaps that all contributes to the "cola" we saw in the younger ones. 60 vs 66 were very similar, with 66 being stronger in flavor. Color-wise, the 63 and 66 were very similar.

My wines of the night were:
#1 1966 (94)
#2 1960 (93)
#3 1980 (92)
#4 1970 (90) & 1985 (87)
#5 1963 (91) & 1977 (89)
I won't add 83, 91, or 94 to the list. I find it interesting that the top lineup is in scoring order, but the last few mix it up a bit with interesting wines showing up even if their score is low.

Pictures soon.