1983 Smith Woodhouse

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
AHB
Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
Posts: 11382
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

1983 Smith Woodhouse vintage port

Post by AHB » 21:31 Sun 23 Sep 2012

From half bottle. Deep ruby red in colour, surprisingly dark; 70% opaque. Nosing of fresh raspberries and a touch of mint. Satin texture, lovely sweetness on intial impact, then a wonderful balancing acidity grows up in perfect harmony. Superb palate with huge volumes of fruight, although slightly too light to be perfect. Fabulous aftertaste and fruit driven finish of massive length. This is near-perfect port. 94/100. Drunk 24-Sep-12. Decanted 3½ hours.
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15015
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1983 Smith Woodhouse vintage port

Post by DRT » 21:44 Sun 23 Sep 2012

AHB wrote:This is near-perfect port. 94/100.
:shock:
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
AHB
Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
Posts: 11382
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 1983 Smith Woodhouse vintage port

Post by AHB » 21:54 Sun 23 Sep 2012

I confess, I am absolutely astonished at how good this port is. I fear that I may even have suffered some label bias and. Even too stingy. This is probably worth 95/100 - it really is that good. What a great bottle to open for a Sunday night!
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15015
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1983 Smith Woodhouse vintage port

Post by DRT » 22:12 Sun 23 Sep 2012

DRT wrote:
AHB wrote:This is near-perfect port. 94/100.
:shock:
AHB wrote:This is probably worth 95/100
Still = :shock:

100/100 = Perfect.
99/100 = Near-perfect.
90/100 = Not perfect.

Where is the line?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
AHB
Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
Posts: 11382
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 1983 Smith Woodhouse vintage port

Post by AHB » 22:30 Sun 23 Sep 2012

No, no, no!

I agree that 100 points is perfection - port as good as port can ever get.

However, when you get close to perfection, even minor flaws can cause one or two points to be dropped. Given that you and I have both drunk Nacional '63 and also recently Graham '27, I can illustrate this with an example. Nacional '63 I scored at 99 points (I have had it show just a tiny bit better when it had longer in the decanter) but the Graham had slightly less focus and balance so was scored at 97. Both were near perfect. The difference was probably as much down to personal preference as to anything else.
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15015
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: 1983 Smith Woodhouse vintage port

Post by DRT » 22:40 Sun 23 Sep 2012

AHB wrote:No, no, no!

I agree that 100 points is perfection - port as good as port can ever get.

However, when you get close to perfection, even minor flaws can cause one or two points to be dropped. Given that you and I have both drunk Nacional '63 and also recently Graham '27, I can illustrate this with an example. Nacional '63 I scored at 99 points (I have had it show just a tiny bit better when it had longer in the decanter) but the Graham had slightly less focus and balance so was scored at 97. Both were near perfect. The difference was probably as much down to personal preference as to anything else.
I can feel an "almost exactly" argument coming on here :lol:
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

Post Reply