1963 Sandeman

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
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3343
Joined: 13:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

1963 Sandeman Vintage Port

Post by g-man » 17:14 Fri 19 Feb 2010

Placeholder
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz

Glenn E.
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3349
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: 1963 Sandeman Vintage Port

Post by Glenn E. » 00:30 Thu 25 Feb 2010

Color: Deep garnet. Darkest (of 5) by a decent amount.
Nose: Really off... dirty socks, musky, some alcohol. Since I'm apparently immune to TCA, this is something else wrong with the bottle.
Palate: Hot, musty, and very dry. Very good tannins for a '63, but only decent acidity. Light body. Fruits seem a bit sour.

General concensus at the table was that the bottle was flawed, so no rating. Interestingly, by the end of the evening (2-3 hours later) my glass was actually fine. The dirty socks and musk odor had blown off, and the fruits mellowed enough to make it a perfectly acceptable drink. It had even sweetened up a bit, but was still dry and hot. Even after the improvement, still last out of 5.
Glenn Elliott

User avatar
SushiNorth
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1245
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: New York, NY

Re: 1963 Sandeman Vintage Port

Post by SushiNorth » 19:01 Fri 02 Apr 2010

Sandeman 1960, Sandeman 1963, Sandeman 1966, Sandeman 1970, Sandeman 1977, Croft 2000, Planning, Review, Placemats

The darkest Sandeman of the night, but the nose is vegetal with some celery: volatile acidity (g-man). In the mouth, it's dry with wood and licorice flavors, and a slick mouthfeel. This wine improved a bit with fat in the mouth, but was generally disappointing.
SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

Post Reply