1970 Ramos Pinto

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
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: 1970 Ramos Pinto

Post by RAYC »

A well-travelled bottle with plenty of air miles, this showed really well and i'd be more than happy to drink again.

Selected by ADV after scouring TPF tasting notes for gaps in the knowledge. Rare - winesearcher reveals two examples worldwide - at £159 per btl and (gulp) £384 per bottle.
Rob C.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1970 Ramos Pinto

Post by jdaw1 »

ADV’s RP70. Brown and cloudy. Hot, oxidised. Some candy. More heat mid-palate. Not much fruit: ‟basic reasonable old port”.

Guesses included Mz75 (from JDAW), WC78, Ch82, DB78, Ni80. My notes also suggest that somebody guessed an illegible ’74, but that might be my error.
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1970 Ramos Pinto

Post by JacobH »

Many thanks to ADV for bringing such a rarity. You rarely see Ramos Pinto VP in the UK and this was the first old one (and possibly first one) I’ve tried.

Slightly cloudy pink. A bit musty and muddy on the nose. A hit of sherbet-like sugar, with a small amount of fruit which fades quickly. Not great, unfortunately.
Image
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 1970 Ramos Pinto

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Opened 3 April 2011 and decanted for about 36 hours before being tasted. Slightly cloudy appearance, deep orange in colour, opacity difficult to determine because of the cloudiness. Very closed and flat on the nose, a little musty if anything. Perhaps a spoiled bottle? Flat and hollow entry showing little on the palate other than some light sugar. A bit of treacle on the finish, some warmth and grassiness that lasts well. Overall, this shows as a weak and tired wine ”“ but I suspect that this is not a typical bottle. Perhaps this could be a light damaged ’63 from a second tier producer, such as Royal Oporto? 76/100.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Post Reply