2021 Virtual Tasting #3 - Thursday 11th February

[nac]

Proposed theme for Tasting #3 is SQVPs, with a focus on the produce of Taylor and Fonseca.

Staying in are:

NAC
Justin K
GEAG
SCD
Zak
Glenn E
JDAW
Rich N
AHB
Will W
CPR

[Justin K]

Yup

[winesecretary]

Yes please

[Doggett]

Yes please

[akzy]

Count me in.

[Glenn E.]

Yes please!

[jdaw1]

Yes please.

What is meant by a Fonseca SQVP?

[Glenn E.]

What is meant by a Fonseca SQVP?

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal, which has been released at least a dozen known times since 1984 and possibly more?

[jdaw1]

What is meant by a Fonseca SQVP?

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal, which has been released at least a dozen known times since 1984 and possibly more?

May I infer the exclusion of Fonseca Guimaraens?

[PhilW]

What is meant by a Fonseca SQVP?

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal, which has been released at least a dozen known times since 1984 and possibly more?

May I infer the exclusion of Fonseca Guimaraens?

A gentleman would never exclude Fonseca Guimaraens.

[nac]

Would suggest that Vargellas, Terra Feita, Panascal and Guimaraens are all acceptable.

[nac]

Think I’m going to go with Vargellas 1991.

[winesecretary]

Possibly Panascal 2001 in half, but may not be able to resist the siren call of the Vargellas 91. It's so lovely at the moment with a decent decant.

[Justin K]

I'll go with Guimaraens '86.

[jdaw1]

I have in the house TV04 and TV05. Trying to resist choosing both.

[Glenn E.]

What is meant by a Fonseca SQVP?

Fonseca Quinta do Panascal, which has been released at least a dozen known times since 1984 and possibly more?

May I infer the exclusion of Fonseca Guimaraens?

I carefully only offered a correct option so as to avoid needing to imply anything about Guimaraens. I endeavor to be a gentleman.

Sadly I have only one appropriate option in my cellar, which is dear and reserved for a future anniversary (which should also give it away), so I will have to make do with a double imposter. Likely a 1990 Graham's Malvedos Centenary Edition, if I can find it.

[Glenn E.]

I have in the house TV04 and TV05. Trying to resist choosing both.

Resistance is futile.

[jdaw1]

I have in the house TV04 and TV05. Trying to resist choosing both.

Resistance is futile.

If I had to choose only one, would it be the year I met my wife, ’04, or the year I married her, ’05?

[Doggett]

If I had to choose only one, would it be the year I met my wife, ’04, or the year I married her, ’05?

If you want the most significant of the two years, 04... the year you met. The wedding was just a confirmation, a public confirmation of a relationship that was already there from 04. So 04 is much more important or significant. Also, if there was no meeting in 04 then most likely there would have been no wedding in 05.

[rich_n]

I thought I'd responded to this but it looks like I haven't. Yes please, I will have to see what the "oldest" SQVP I have is, possibly late 90s but more likely 05.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Yes please

[Will W.]

Yes, please.

[CPR 1]

yes please - I might not be able to stay too long but look forward to seeing you all on Thursday

[nac]

Have updated list of attendees. Hopefully Mr Meehan can do his Zoom magic?

[rich_n]

Gentlemen, given the youth of my selection (2005), would it be a good idea to decant 24 hours in advance of the tasting?

[winesecretary]

@rich_n - I would say definitely decant a 2005 a day ahead. I'll be decanting the 1991 TV this evening.

Looking forward to it.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Looking at my drinking list for the year I don't have much to choose from. On the list and meeting the preferred qualifications for this tasting I have:

• Fonseca Panascal 2001
• Fonseca Guimaraens 1976
• Taylor Vargells 1967

Anyone got a particular preference to hear my thoughts on one of these? If not, I'll open the Panascal after dinner tonight and let it sit in the decanter for a day before we meet up tomorrow night.

[nac]

I'll be decanting the 1991 TV this evening.

Good call - will do likewise.

[nac]

Looking at my drinking list for the year I don't have much to choose from. On the list and meeting the preferred qualifications for this tasting I have:

• Fonseca Panascal 2001
• Fonseca Guimaraens 1976
• Taylor Vargells 1967

Anyone got a particular preference to hear my thoughts on one of these? If not, I'll open the Panascal after dinner tonight and let it sit in the decanter for a day before we meet up tomorrow night.

Or maybe all of them?

[rich_n]

@rich_n - I would say definitely decant a 2005 a day ahead. I'll be decanting the 1991 TV this evening.

Looking forward to it.

Thanks for confirming that, I'll decant shortly.

[Doggett]

Looking at my drinking list for the year I don't have much to choose from. On the list and meeting the preferred qualifications for this tasting I have:

• Fonseca Panascal 2001
• Fonseca Guimaraens 1976
• Taylor Vargells 1967

Anyone got a particular preference to hear my thoughts on one of these? If not, I'll open the Panascal after dinner tonight and let it sit in the decanter for a day before we meet up tomorrow night.

As I am lucky enough to have just one of the FG76 bottles, I would love to hear your thoughts on its current drinking window.

[jdaw1]

Oops. I decanted today. Oh well.

[Doggett]

Oops. I decanted today. Oh well.

Luckily for you there is two bottles to hand...

[Glenn E.]

I opened a 1994 Vesuvio last night and will hopefully still have some available for tomorrow's event.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Looking at my drinking list for the year I don't have much to choose from. On the list and meeting the preferred qualifications for this tasting I have:

• Fonseca Panascal 2001
• Fonseca Guimaraens 1976
• Taylor Vargells 1967

Anyone got a particular preference to hear my thoughts on one of these? If not, I'll open the Panascal after dinner tonight and let it sit in the decanter for a day before we meet up tomorrow night.

As I am lucky enough to have just one of the FG76 bottles, I would love to hear your thoughts on its current drinking window.

sorry Simon. I was in the process of getting the bottle out and realised I didn’t have it at home! Panascal 2001 opened and decanted.

[akzy]

Just decanted Terra Feita 2001 which was given to me in error (it should have been a noval black).

[jdaw1]

Oops. I decanted today. Oh well.

One was opened. Of this name, the youngest in my immediate possession.

Dark dark red, 100%, opaque. Palate and nose full of red grapes, late grip and tannin. Still full of that flush of teenage youth, freshness still, but showing glimpse of mature respectability. Fuller than mid-weight, longer than mid-length; some, even if not enough, will be saved for the morrow.

[nac]

Vargellas 91 decanted at 1800, so should get 24 hours prior to “proper” sampling.
Quick QA check and all well.

[flash_uk]

Invites should be with you all now

[Alex Bridgeman]

Got my invite. Hurry up 7pm!

I couldn’t wait any longer so I’ve just had a quality test sip - my FP01 is pretty big and punchy! I’m going to enjoy drinking this tonight.

[rich_n]

I may be on later than usual. Will aim to be in by 8-8.30pm at the latest.

[jdaw1]

Oops. I decanted today. Oh well.

One was opened. Of this name, the youngest in my immediate possession.

Dark dark red, 100%, opaque. Palate and nose full of red grapes, late grip and tannin. Still full of that flush of teenage youth, freshness still, but showing glimpse of mature respectability. Fuller than mid-weight, longer than mid-length; some, even if not enough, will be saved for the morrow.

Day 2: drier; a hint of leather; mouth-cloying. Yesterday’s decant was good; today it feels under-decanted.

[PhilW]

Dark dark red, 100% opaque.

I know we know what we mean colloquially, but I wish we could find a more pragmatic method to be more precise.
While almost nothing is 100% opaque if you use a thin enough sample, I accept that if we're only interested in a measure to an accuracy of say 5%, we still at least have to use a repeatable distance through the wine to make a fair comparison; double the depth of wine through which the light is passing and I suspect the light loss squares (though I don't know how non-linear our perception may be, even if we accept a fixed level of general illumination with the effect of any difference in wine opacity not deemed to have affected pupil size dependent on viewing method).
I think we've talked before about methods such as using a square test tube with fixed light source and sensor, though given the potentially acceptable wide margin of accuracy there should be a simpler solution; ideally using a 50ml sample in an ISO tasting glass, for example. I recall the last attempt to print sheets with varying density patterns did not solve the issue, but perhaps it is time for a revisit in a spare moment, or fresh ideas from people present who were not here last time it was discussed.

[rich_n]

Really enjoyable evening gents, thanks to those involved in organising. I enjoyed my first proper tasting of a SQVP - it's a style I've tried a long time ago with no real appreciation for it's nuances so this feels like a bit of a first. Fortunately I have a fair amount more of it to look forward to in the future!

[Glenn E.]

Dark dark red, 100% opaque.

I know we know what we mean colloquially, but I wish we could find a more pragmatic method to be more precise.

I do not use this method, as I feel that attempting to estimate a %opacity is not in my skill set.

Instead, I use a standard pour in a standard INAO/ISO 7 oz Port wine glass (Riedel Vinum, the Schott Zwiesel Alvaro Siza glasses, et al). Tip the glass away from you at approximately 45 degrees above a white paper such as a placemat. Hold a #2 pencil or similarly sized instrument behind the glass and look through the wine at the pencil. Count how many multiple widths of the pencil you could theoretically see through the wine at the rim.

I.e. "2 pens wide rim" means that the wine is opaque enough that you cannot see the pencil behind it once it is more than 2 widths from the rim.

I find this test quick to perform and easily/consistently reproducible. When I'm using this method, I'm usually only interested in units of 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2. A wider rim than that is typically noted simply as "opaque center" if that is true, or as a dark or very dark color if it is not.