ThePortForum.com

I have only very rarely tasted 1991s but, when I have, I have felt that it has perhaps got slightly worse press as a vintage than it deserves. To assess this theory we will taste 1991s on Monday 9th December 2019 in the Red Room at the B&F, 1800 for 1830. At uncle tom's request, I clarify that T...

And like magic I find contemporaneous evidence of 73cl bottle use already noted by JDAW at viewtopic.php?t=3401?

Possibly regional variation in barrel sizes, at least for the period once bottles were machine-made? I've seen, from memory, 68cl and 72 cl as well (not for port but other wines). Vin Jaune is still in 62cl. From 1990 70cl is standard for spirits. I am not sure the explanation proffered elsewhere of...

That latter sounds like a 73cl bottle, not uncommonly used in the 60s and 70s in the wine trade. Does the Offley bottle it say 75cl on the label, or is it silent on volume?

Most interesting. Henekeys Ltd bottled from quite a few different houses in the period 1949-1965. A brief internet image search throws them up as bottling Ck47, T55, W58 & 60, Da Silva 58 & 60 (presumably N), Cr60, G60, S60, O62, & D63; but nothing earlier or later. Tasting notes on this...

I would be delighted and honoured to have the opportunity so to do.

I would be interested to attend if space permits. I can offer Warre, Taylor, Smith Woodhouse, Sandeman, Martinez (alas only a single bottle of each- restocking is called for) but am equally happy to go shopping if needed.

Incidentally, I sat last night for half an hour sipping the leftover glass of SW. It had deepened and opened out remarkably. It was much more congruent and had lost the slightly disjointed spirity quality. I concluded that the better of these 1994s might benefit from a full 24 hours in the decanter ...

It was a most enjoyable and instructive evening. I find horizontals very helpful in helping me understand why I like *this* wine rather than *that* one. I much appreciated the warm welcome I received. My thanks to Christopher for suggesting the tasting. I echo the comments of flash_uk in that I felt...

Very light in colour compared with the other 1994s at the table. I have no note on the nose. In the mouth slightly dry, slightly short and earthy. I don't think this was a good bottle of this port.

A bit cloudy and browning. Very stinky on the nose. Very woody in the mouth. This bottle was not 'right' to me, widely confirmed by others at table.

80% opaque. Paling rim. Possibly slightly funky on the nose. A bit bitter in the mouth. Difficult to enjoy, I doubt this was wholly representative.

80% opaque. A bit unbalanced on the nose. Good solid sweetly fruity port on the palate but with a slightly bitter note on the finish. Quite a fine glass of port, it continued to develop in glass over several hours, and my expectation is that it will be better in a few years.

Dark as anything, 90% opaque glass-staining liquid. Quite dumb at first but opened out to a remarkable passion-fruit scented nose. In the mouth full, rich and VERY sweet and grapey, but with lots of stuffing to hold it together. I really liked this, my #3 WOTN.

75% opaque, paling at the rim. Very 'Taylor' on the nose, with fire and spice, reminding me instantly of the nose on a 1963 Taylor that I had about twenty years ago. In the mouth very long, classic Taylor more-power-less-fruit, but with a very pretty note of fig. I thought early in the tasting that ...

55% opaque, pale in this young company. On the nose, a slightly bitter tang. Really quite bitter in the mouth. Possibly not a representative bottle.

70% opaque. Pale rim. A hint of something odd on the nose, sulphur? Some fruit, but a bit of fire on the palate, and it seemed to deteriorate and take on a somewhat citrus tang over the course of the evening. Possibly not a great example of this wine.

70% opaque. Spirity on the nose. Some nice cherries on the palate, and it grew in the glass over three hours. Very good near-term drinking.

Opened 10pm the previous day, decanted 9am and then into screwcap. 75% opaque. Quite spirity on the nose, hiding such fruit as there may be. In the mouth the spirit does still show but there is some good black fruit. Very pleasant port, probably better in five years, middle-of-the-pack in this horiz...

80% opaque, glass staining dark wine. Strongly spirity nose, much more so than the Warre or Dow tasted alongside, with a nice figgy note. Lively and spicily fruity in the mouth, it flowered in the glass as the evening went on. Very good, but needs more time.

Deep garnet, 70% opaque. Lovely nose of cherries. Lushly sweet red fruit on the palate, with just a hint of spirit on the finish. Really pretty wine. My #2 WOTN.

Nice and dark, 85% opaque. Nose a little dumb, with a hint of liquorice, but promises lots of stuffing. Lots of dark fruit and chocolate in the mouth. Gorgeous, increasingly 'Dow' as the evening went on, but needs much more time. My WOTN.

85% opaque, glass-staining liquid with lovely legs. Nose quite dumb and suggested it was nowhere near ready. Very rich and sweet forest fruits on the front palate and mid-palate, a little heat on the finish and some chocolatey tannins. Full and fine.

The IVDP list is pretty odd in places, not least because it also has 1987 and 1989 on it...

On the reputation of Cockburn: a wonderful old lady of my acquaintance, born 1910, and at the time of this discussion 'rising ninety-five' told me (over an extremely good claret) how her grandfather had offered her as a child a small glass of each of Cockburn and Taylor, saying that she should decid...