1992 Taylor

Tasting notes for individual Ports, with an index sorted by vintage and alphabetically.
Forum rules
Tasting notes for individual Ports, with an index sorted by vintage and alphabetically.
Post Reply
User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2772
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

1992 Taylor vintage port

Post by uncle tom » 16:56 Wed 23 Apr 2008

Of all the vintages commented on last year, none seems to have had quite as bad a press as 1992 - I don't think I saw a single rave review of a wine from that year.

I only opened one '92 at home last year - a Vesuvio - and was far from impressed.

Despite that, the wines carry a premium in the market, mainly on the back of some excited comments when the wines were first released.

No wine attracted more acclaim than the Taylor - although Broadbent was not impressed.

So, with fifteen bottles in the cellar, I decided to tackle one, and see how it's faring at age sixteen.

Decanted at 4.30pm - very dark and almost black in the decanter - yet only a small amount of soupy sediment.

First sip - rather sullen bouquet - on the palate it seems closed still and very tannic, with the trademark Taylor 'bite'. Much too young still, I think.

More anon.

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2772
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by uncle tom » 23:19 Wed 23 Apr 2008

Six hours on..

This is a brooding wine by any standards, and very young - I feel I'm being told off for opening it too soon.

I have the feeling that it's only half way to mature, if that - 2020 might be way too soon..

However, despite great long term potential, it does not show well for the here and now - I just compared it to a Tesco ruby..

..it won, but not by a landslide.

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2772
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by uncle tom » 19:10 Thu 24 Apr 2008

24 hours on and I have to report that I'm not hugely impressed by this one.

It is far too young, and being somewhat tannin-averse, that does make me mark it down from the point of view of immediate gratification.

But there is also something 'not quite right' here - the wine is extremely dark in appearance, yet seems to lack substance, and is somewhat hollow. The finish is far from satisfying.

I sense there is a risk that this wine will not come right, that it might follow the lead of some 77's and do a Peter Pan act - grow old before it grows up. But only time will tell.

For now I will give it some benefit of the doubt, and score it 3-7

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3341
Joined: 13:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by g-man » 21:33 Thu 24 Apr 2008

Do you feel the same about a fonseca 92?

User avatar
Frederick Blais
Taylor’s LBV
Posts: 170
Joined: 02:53 Wed 11 Jul 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Post by Frederick Blais » 22:16 Thu 24 Apr 2008

Tom, anytime you want to trade some 92 Taylor's for any 91, anytime!!!

For me 92 Taylor is the most perfect young port I have ever tasted with Nacional 2000. That it is showing so young right now is just one proof of its quality to withstand time. The balance and the depth in this wine is huge. I agree on the maturity, I think 2020 is a good time to start popping the bottles if you have only a couple.

92 did not receive so much bad press. It was questionable to release in 92 instead of 91 for a few houses. A few did loby in favor of 91 because they had to sell but a few years later the tasting proved 92 winner. Even those SQVP are getting better rates from today's tasting than 91 from the same producer.

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2772
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by uncle tom » 22:43 Fri 25 Apr 2008

Fred,

As I wrap up this decanter, I have to observe that this wine is not in the same class as, say, a Graham '91

But rather than argue the point, this is the perfect subject for a blind offline - let me know when you're next in this part of the world..

..and choose your weapons!

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19690
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Tom: could the hollowness have been a bottle-specific imperf

Post by jdaw1 » 22:48 Fri 25 Apr 2008

Tom: could the hollowness have been a bottle-specific imperfection?

User avatar
uncle tom
Dow 1980
Posts: 2772
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by uncle tom » 12:48 Sat 26 Apr 2008

could the hollowness have been a bottle-specific imperfection
While there is often some variance between bottles, I did not suspect a duff bottle here.

It filled out a little after my last observation, and was noticeably better at 32 hours. However, at 48 hours the finish was getting very coarse.

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill

User avatar
RonnieRoots
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1966
Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: Middle Earth

Post by RonnieRoots » 12:58 Sat 26 Apr 2008

Frederick Blais wrote:Tom, anytime you want to trade some 92 Taylor's for any 91, anytime!!!
I would be happy to release you of those bottles as well Tom. :)

If a young Taylor's is unpleasant to drink, that's always a good sign IMO. Taylor is one of the few producers that really should be left alone for a long time, and that can act very strange when young.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests