1977 Fonseca

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
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19811
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

1977 Fonseca Vintage Port

Post by jdaw1 » 17:06 Sun 26 Aug 2007

Fonseca 1977 tasted on 1st September 2007 in St. Helens. Tasted that evening were Fonseca 1920, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1992, and 2000. Also see the review describing the evening as a whole.

From the cellar of Uncle Tom, bargain-basement at a mere £60.

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15020
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 23:59 Sun 26 Aug 2007

Intact lead capsule which shows signs of a slightly swollen or raised cork.

The labels are badly cellar damaged but still mainly intact and legible. Fill level is 1cm into the neck and 3cm below the cork.

Image
Image
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15020
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 12:27 Sat 01 Sep 2007

Decanted at 07:30 on 1 Sep 07. Cork came out intact. A lovely colour to this wine.

Image
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19811
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

F77

Post by jdaw1 » 01:27 Sun 02 Sep 2007

The lightest of the big five (the others being 1963, 1966, 1970, 1985), with blackcurrant on the nose. Thick and gooey, the texture being reminiscent of the 1966, but ready to drink. Less spice than 1963, 66, 70, but just as much fruit. Very fine, but—IMHO—not quite as excellent as the 63, 66, 70.

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15020
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 23:24 Mon 24 Sep 2007

Nice colour and a perfect weight for drinking now. A beautiful port with a long, long finish
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

Conky
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1770
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007

Post by Conky » 23:34 Mon 24 Sep 2007

In my limited way, (Limited because I'm rubbish at notes, and quite forgetful), I would have to concur with the above.

Just to get things in perspective though, this was a beautiful Port. It would be a marvelous companion for 99% of nights or occasions. However, if you throw it in with 10 of its siblings, and the 63,66 and 85 were performing to the highest standard, you amazingly start thinking of its minor defects, rather than its undoubted strengths.

Alan

User avatar
KillerB
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2424
Joined: 22:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Sky Blue City, England

Post by KillerB » 09:05 Tue 25 Sep 2007

Gooey, definitely. Very fruity but less tannic and acidic than the other big vintages leaving it to stand on goo alone. This is no bad thing in itself but when compared with the 1963, 1966 and 1970 it seemed to lack a bit of depth. Great for drinking right now and if drunk on its own you'd probably say "Thish ish great, innit?" and it is.

I'm still waiting for a 100 point bottle of this, it has been blown out by the 1970 on all occasions now.
Port is basically a red drink

Post Reply