ThePortForum.com

djewesbury wrote:May I just note that not one person noticed my Bloomsday get-up? Disappointing.

The Bloomsday get-up was in no way inconsistent with a day at Lords, hence I made no comment

Unfortunately I could not make it to the tasting. Since I did several small comparisons lately with 94 and 97 I always found the 97s to have more grip and be the more interesting Port.

It would really surprise me if this is a Vintage for rather the short term.

Axel

I agree with Tom. Dirtiness and grittiness was evident in a number of these.

I am finding it hard to draw any solid conclusions at all about 97 from this exercise. Both N and F had issues and I would not draw conclusions on a single bottle. G and T were really not like themselves and I will wait a few years before reassessing. D and W were nice but not so much to say they will be superstars. Similarly Vesuvio. The Warre was more forward, not unlike the W94 tasted earlier in the year, so it will be interesting to watch where it goes longer term.

In the middle tiers, GC, RP and Offley were all pleasant and about what I would have expected from these houses.

Axel P wrote:I did several small comparisons lately with 94 and 97 I always found the 97s to have more grip and be the more interesting Port.

You were missed Axel, and based on your comments I would have loved to hear your impressions from this tasting, as I am not sure I found grip on any of the wines (the closest was the Graham, but it was disjointed and appeared most on the back-end, where as I personally find grip to be a defining characteristic of the mid-palate).

The most pleasant drinkers from this tasting (Warre, Dow, Gould, and Ramos, in my, and I think in the Group's judgment) were generally on the more perfumed / fruit forward end of the spectrum, as opposed to the tannic/backbone-y side. The Graham and Taylor I think were just too young for the occasion, and my judgment is generally withheld (except to say neither showed tell tale signs of Outstanding character beneath). I have generally liked the 94s (the Graham especially, but many others as well), so I am a bit surprised that you've tended to prefer 97. I actually thought the 97s were drinking younger than I had anticipated, and I believe they will mature first.

If you're not tired of the theme, I'd be happy for a small 'vintage pairs' blind tasting when next we meet.

Hope all is well
chris

Chris Doty wrote:If you're not tired of the theme, I'd be happy for a small 'vintage pairs' blind tasting when next we meet.

What a splendid idea.

DRT wrote:1997 was widely declared and has now reached an age where it would traditionally have been considered old enough to drink. We do not have much experience of this vintage here but I suspect many of us have cases from various shippers and have no idea how they are maturing. Should we do the Port world a service and taste a representative selection from this vintage?

AHB wrote:Depending on when, count me in too - even if only so I can sit in the corner and lecture everyone at the pointlessness of trying to drink Vintage Port at under 21 years of age (new release port excluded). I'm not wholly sure what we'll get out of a 1997 horizontal, but I haven't tried many recently so it's worth a go and the few I have tried this year were surprisingly approachable.

Just saying

Another enjoyable evening with the new and old at TBH although as far as the 97s were concerned I found the going tough and as I was one of those who (shock, horror) Mike has noted, left unemptied glasses at the end of proceedings (a first for me and I promise not to do it again!). As has been stated elsewhere, some of the major players failed to turn up (the F and the N) whilst the G was disappointing (and probably unreflective) and the T closed. There was some salvation in the form of the D and W but may be the second and third flights afforded more encouragement (and probably value) in the shape of the RP (almost accessible now), the GC (one to keep and eye on) and the OBV. In terms of their current drinking window, the SV in single and DM format offered the most pleasure.

flash_uk wrote:Perhaps Alex could update the offline summary for 2014 and we can see where things lie?

I'll do it this weekend if I get the chance

I’ve just entered my TNs, and was surprised to see that I was the first to do so. Come on chaps!

Any what nasty reading they are. TCA in or suspected in F, G, N, V, and even Fr. Oh dear. And a worse problem for the Mz.

Commendation though to D, GC, RP, SW.

Needless to say I have misplaced my notes from this evening, I recall it was a good evening but let down by the port! Overall I was disappointed with 97 with none standing out and saying buy me at all, very different from the 94 tasting earlier in the year.

jdaw1 wrote:I’ve just entered my TNs, and was surprised to see that I was the first to do so. Come on chaps!

Just discovered my notes in the drawer. Will post what I have...