1985 M Gonzalez

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
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1985 M Gonzalez

Post by jdaw1 »

MG85, decanted 15:00. Red-red-brown, 50% opaque. Nose, and indeed palate, very strongly of pineapple. Palate light. Slightly acidic mid-palate. Not long. Interesting, drinkable, but not much better than that.
User avatar
Doggett
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1188
Joined: 17:40 Sun 20 Sep 2015
Location: Weymouth
Contact:

Re: 1985 M Gonzalez

Post by Doggett »

MG85 Quality checked while setting up and got stong mint, but later on at the tasting I thought it had a very strange taste. Many convinced it was ok, but quite a few agreeing with me that it was not right. JDAW rightly expressed strong pinapple taste. I think it was flawed but many thought it okay. Not what I am looking for in a port... unscored.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 1985 M Gonzalez

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Dark rose red, with a brown tone; 70% opaque. A sharp nose, sour plums or greengage; very fresh. Sour fruit entry, lightweight and unbalanced - perhaps showing early signs of oxidation. The sharpness running through the aftertaste and finish. Very green on the finish. 80/100.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: 1985 M Gonzalez

Post by flash_uk »

30% opacity, dark toffee brown. Nose has an acid sharpness with a faint hint of toffee behind that. In the mouth, watery sugar, or is it sugary water? Possibly oxidised, drinkable, but not enjoyable.
Post Reply