1991 Graham

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
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

1991 Graham

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

A bottle bought from and consumed in El Vino, Fleet Street. Deep red with a plummy tone, sfter on the rim; 95% opaque. Stewed strawberries on the nose, a swirl revealing bottle stink. Light entry, with red licorice fruit showing quickly. Sweet and flavoursome on the palate but a lightweight wine for a Graham - more elegance and finesse than power. The bottle stink tones lurk behind the powdery tannins. Sweet aniseed on the aftertaste and a finish of modest length - although this reappears unexpectedly as a nice sage flavour. This is drinking nicely now, and may well be at its peak. Pleasant enough sipping port. 87/100. Drunk 14 Feb 2012 after 5 hours decant.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by DRT »

At first this was quite open and fruity on the nose, but it quickly developed lots of stinky stuff, which is not consistent with my experience of this wine.

Quite evolved colour. Very sweet and approachable with damsons and some stewed fruits. Quite hot in the finish. A bad bottle?

I tasted this 24 hours later and it was rubbish. This was definitely a flawed bottle.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by DRT »

"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by DRT »

+24 hours - the same bottle at a different tasting!

Dull nose very drinkable, but quite short and one dimensional.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by DRT »

"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by jdaw1 »

G91: darkish red, 50% opaque. Nose had bottle stink. Good weight, heat late-palate, but the stinky nose was in the taste.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by jdaw1 »

G91 on the second day, in different company, a ‟bright dark red”, 70% opaque. Nose had vegetables. To taste red cherries, some of the nose vegetation, plus plum. Despite nose, quite nice.

Only JGH did not have prior knowledge of what it was, and he mis-guessed 1985 Warre.

Voting was unanimous (by those present, JGH DRT JDAW): winner GM92; in second place the Rr00; third the G91 on its second day; unplaced SWM88.
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by JacobH »

Reddy-purple middle. Fades to the edge. Odd nose. Ramen noodles perhaps? Moderate red cherries. Some tannins. Short aftertaste. Something odd afterwards. Flawed?
Image
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1991 Graham

Post by JacobH »

JacobH wrote:Reddy-purple middle. Fades to the edge. Odd nose. Ramen noodles perhaps? Moderate red cherries. Some tannins. Short aftertaste. Something odd afterwards. Flawed?
It appears that this note was the 500th I’ve recorded in my port records 88) 88)
Image
Post Reply