1935 Cockburn

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
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

As we were unable to procure a 750ml bottle of Cockburn 1935, two halves were served. One, this, was given to those on the right side of the table (as seen from the only entrance to the tunnel); the other to those on the left.

Alas I, and perhaps others, failed to record which half went to which side, so we now don’t know which way round the pictures of the halves belong. This error is regretted.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

One of the half bottles of Cockburn 1935.
Image
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

The cork from the above bottle:
Image
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

One of the half bottles of Cockburn 1935.
Image
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

The cork from the above bottle:
Image
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

1935 Cockburn (right side): “another pale red†. Nosing of soft red fruit, including very faint strawberry. Much more fruit, especially cherry, and less spice, than the left-side ’35.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by DRT »

Soft fragrant nose. Thick jammy fruit. Delicious.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

From a half bottle. Deep red in colour with a clear centre. Nose surprisingly closed but revealing fresh raspberries. A good texture in the mouth and great fruit development with an interesting nutmeg spice. An elegant aftertaste , gentle and intriguing. A lovely wine. 88/100.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1935 Cockburn

Post by jdaw1 »

Miguel Côrte-Real sent AHB some of his own notes on the various vintages, some obviously drafted in advance, some from the day itself.
Miguel Côrte-Real wrote:1935

Generic Information
The year of '34 as well as '35 produced excellent vintages. There was some discussions. Some declared '34 (Martinez, Noval, Dow) and others the '35 (Cockburn's, Taylor, Graham). I think the one who did it right was Sandeman because, against the normal rule, they declared both

Year/Viticulture
Production of '35 was smaller than '34 but, as far as we know, the climate conditions were very similar.

A dry winter, the spring frost has prevented many bunches from setting; particularly Touriga grapes (E. Cockburn)

Tasting Notes
1934s are considered to have a better structure; but the '35s are soft, elegant, with lots of finesse and more refined than the '34s. Lots of balance and harmony compensates the lack of structure.

Other
Very fruity and floral, with an obvious fig and pomegranate quality. Soft and elegant, it's quite dry for a vintage port though with a rich, long finish. (L.Murphy)

Last minute notes
Very light and delicate. Less colour than 1912! Very spicy. Lots of finesse.

MC-R notes
8.5/10
Post Reply