Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

What happened?
Post Reply
User avatar
SushiNorth
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1242
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: New York, NY

Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by SushiNorth » 14:52 Fri 13 Feb 2009

A vertical of drinkable Graham's Vintage Ports from the past 50 years, held on the ever auspicious Friday the Thirteenth (February 2009) and hosted graciously by jfacciol. Links:
SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

User avatar
SushiNorth
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1242
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: New York, NY

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by SushiNorth » 18:18 Sat 14 Feb 2009

Great night, with lots of port. I think what was most interesting is how divided people were on the Ports. I don't think we quite had the super-star as at some of the tastings, so there was much jostling for top spot.

somehow I actually wound up OK this morning, I attribute it to checking all of the water boxes on jdaw's placemats and the emergency bagel I brought with me for the train-ride home heheh.
SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19299
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by jdaw1 » 22:29 Sat 14 Feb 2009

A fine night in good company why we do these things.

But disappointing. My internal myth of Graham’s port is a big sweet wine, without the tannic strength of Taylor and Fonseca, but nonetheless large. And these weren’t. Only the 1980 was long viscous and full. The 1963 jolly good, but delicate; 1970 thinner than it should have been; and 1994 likewise. 1977 almost empty.

Anthony and Elys said that the house style of Graham’s was ‟fortified flat coca-cola”. Yikes!

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19299
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by jdaw1 » 22:37 Sat 14 Feb 2009

We also had a splendid idea. We should have made some :tpf: drinking fezzes, probably in a dark red. We should also have embroidered small badges, 2″ wide by ½″ high, labelled with a centred-version of:

Graham’s
13 February 2009


or

1970
30 January 2009


Each person’s Fez could then, over time, accumulate such embroidered decorations. Obviously decorations would be made for tastings since the start of TPF, and would include non-NY located TPF tastings. Such decorations would be restricted to tastings with a clearly-identified theme not just bring-a-bottle.

Enthusiasm?

Glenn E.
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3248
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by Glenn E. » 00:54 Sun 15 Feb 2009

jdaw1 wrote:Obviously decorations would be made for tastings since the start of TPF, and would include non-NY located TPF tastings.
I suspect there are a couple of you who would look like coneheads when wearing your fully decorated :tpf: fez! :lol:
Glenn Elliott

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14888
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by DRT » 00:57 Sun 15 Feb 2009

After reading JDAWs notes on each of these wines I would suggest that the name of this off-line should perhaps be changed to "The Unluckiest Graham Vertical in History".

I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes. I remember 80 being rather weak and have not had the 94.

What a shame. This should have, and could, have been a fabulous line-up. Worth repeating with bottles from different sources?

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

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14888
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by DRT » 01:09 Sun 15 Feb 2009

Glenn E. wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Obviously decorations would be made for tastings since the start of TPF, and would include non-NY located TPF tastings.
I suspect there are a couple of you who would look like coneheads when wearing your fully decorated :tpf: fez! :lol:
This evokes images of Mr Cunningham as Grand Puba of the Leopard Lodge. No thanks.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19299
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by jdaw1 » 02:08 Sun 15 Feb 2009

DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.
Except the ’91, me too.

Andy Velebil
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2366
Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by Andy Velebil » 04:14 Sun 15 Feb 2009

Gotta agree with Derek here, you guys had the most unluckiest tasting I've seen. With the exception of a few corked bottles, I've had very different and good experiences with those Graham's vintages.

User avatar
RonnieRoots
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1955
Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: Middle Earth

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by RonnieRoots » 07:47 Sun 15 Feb 2009

What a pity that many bottles showed that poorly. I'll pass on the fezzes. Reminds me a bit too much of Avondvierdaagse.

User avatar
JacobH
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2283
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by JacobH » 11:53 Sun 15 Feb 2009

Moral of the story: no off-lines on Friday 13th.

Is not the plural of fez "fez"?
Image

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14888
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by DRT » 12:16 Sun 15 Feb 2009

jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.
Except the ’91, me too.
Is that because this was your first G91? I have had a few bottles, and shared some with others at TCP, and always found it to be a great young wine. If this was you first, find another and try it again. Then buy some :wink:
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19299
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by jdaw1 » 14:23 Sun 15 Feb 2009

JacobH wrote:Is not the plural of fez "fez"?
Wikipedia wrote:plural fezzes or fezes

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19299
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by jdaw1 » 14:24 Sun 15 Feb 2009

DRT wrote:Is that because this was your first G91?
Yes, I believe so.

User avatar
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3326
Joined: 13:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by g-man » 20:49 Sun 15 Feb 2009

DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:I have much better memories of the 63, 66, 70, 77, 85 and 91 than JDAW describes.
Except the ’91, me too.
Is that because this was your first G91? I have had a few bottles, and shared some with others at TCP, and always found it to be a great young wine. If this was you first, find another and try it again. Then buy some :wink:
i've had heavy condensed/evaporated milk smell on the g91, even after blowing it off,

i'll post notes whenever I take that break from studying =)

and yes, I agree no tasting friday nights before I need to wake up at 8am for class. :oops:
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz

User avatar
g-man
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3326
Joined: 13:50 Wed 24 Oct 2007
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by g-man » 00:04 Mon 16 Feb 2009

My favorites were the 66, 60 and 83 in that order.

I thought the 66 and the 60 were both outstanding and gave them both 95 and 94 respectively.

Wine of the night was a tie between the 63 and 66.

Here's the order of the remaining bottles

63,66 tie
85
60,70,80 tie
83
94

which would put the 77 and 91 as dead last.
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz

User avatar
mosesbotbol
Warre’s Otima 10 year old Tawny
Posts: 548
Joined: 19:54 Wed 18 Jul 2007
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by mosesbotbol » 14:44 Tue 17 Feb 2009

It was a splendid evening. Thanks to Jay for hosting!

Unfortunately, this was not Grahams night to shine. Most of the port served was off bottles.

One had TCA, two were baked (don’t have my notes), one with VA, the ‘94 was hardly a powerhouse.

The ’83 showed well (WOTN), ’85 was disappointing. ’70 was thinner than it should be.


A take away from this vertical Grahams was the ‟freshness” of each bottle. Even if they were baked, VA, or TCA, the freshness on the nose was still there.
F1 | Welsh Corgi | Lotus | Did Someone Mention Port?

User avatar
SushiNorth
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1242
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: New York, NY

Re: Graham Vertical, February 13th 2009

Post by SushiNorth » 18:17 Sat 21 Feb 2009

Overall, I'd say Graham's are minty, sweet, have a hint of chocolate, and perhaps that all contributes to the "cola" we saw in the younger ones. 60 vs 66 were very similar, with 66 being stronger in flavor. Color-wise, the 63 and 66 were very similar.

My wines of the night were:
#1 1966 (94)
#2 1960 (93)
#3 1980 (92)
#4 1970 (90) & 1985 (87)
#5 1963 (91) & 1977 (89)
I won't add 83, 91, or 94 to the list. I find it interesting that the top lineup is in scoring order, but the last few mix it up a bit with interesting wines showing up even if their score is low.

Pictures soon.
SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests