jdaw1, in a review of [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=38974#p38974]1927 Niepoort[/url], wrote:1927 Niepoort, ! This port also bothered my views on 1955 Mackenzie: if Ni27 can taste this young, maybe Mk55 can as well?
1955 Mackenzie
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
- Alex Bridgeman
- Graham’s 1948
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Perhaps we might be able to try another bottle at the Christmas Offline - under the category of "peculiar"?
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Of the Ni27? I had better change my plans for this month.
Of the Mk55? OK, please let me know how it goes. Though all of twenty minutes ago I made this placemat, which might be relevant to the decision.
Of the Mk55? OK, please let me know how it goes. Though all of twenty minutes ago I made this placemat, which might be relevant to the decision.
- Alex Bridgeman
- Graham’s 1948
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Hopefully of both, so that we might be able to make the same comparison as you. However, since it was posted in the thread for the 1955 Mackenzie I think it reasonable to admit I was referring to that particular wine.jdaw1 wrote:Of the Ni27? I had better change my plans for this month.
Of the Mk55? OK, please let me know how it goes. Though all of twenty minutes ago I made this placemat, which might be relevant to the decision.
It will be interesting to see what is made of the Mackenzie at the tasting in Germany - please, attendees who post here, let us know your thoughts.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
- Axel P
- Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
- Posts: 2027
- Joined: 08:09 Wed 12 Sep 2007
- Location: Langenfeld, near Cologne, Germany
- Contact:
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
We just had another 55 from the same lot from Tom last week together with some 13 other 55s, TNs to follow.
This showed exactly the same: very dark and fresh with still some red berry aromas.
Would be very interesting to have another bottle with different storing conditions.
Axel
This showed exactly the same: very dark and fresh with still some red berry aromas.
Would be very interesting to have another bottle with different storing conditions.
Axel
worldofport.com
o-port-unidade.com
o-port-unidade.com
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Color: Easily the darkest of the 16 Ports at the tasting. Dark and purple, very nearly opaque.
Nose: Nice, softly spicy.
Palate: Beautiful. Good tannins. Sweet-ish. A bit one-dimensional.
Finish: no note taken
Score: 90 points. This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however. I had this tied for #2 of the 2nd flight with the Noval and behind the Taylor.
Nose: Nice, softly spicy.
Palate: Beautiful. Good tannins. Sweet-ish. A bit one-dimensional.
Finish: no note taken
Score: 90 points. This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however. I had this tied for #2 of the 2nd flight with the Noval and behind the Taylor.
Glenn Elliott
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Why forge one bottle when you can forge a whole case? - both bottles were from the same sourceGlenn E. wrote:This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Ah, I didn't know that. Back to square one!DRT wrote:Why forge one bottle when you can forge a whole case? - both bottles were from the same sourceGlenn E. wrote:This Port was so dark that it prompted significant discussion that it might be a forgery. Another bottle later at a different tasting showed similarly, however.
Glenn Elliott
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Hi all. Newby here. 12 years (!) after the original thread I'm able to add some info. I've just bought a case of Mackenzie's '55. The bottles are unlabelled, and almost certainly ever sported labels. But the back story is that the case was a retirement gift to a gent who was a director of Harvey's and the Chairman of Cockburns. So I have every reason to believe that the bottles are genuine (unless the seller was fibbing of course, but the guy who was gifted the bottles was his stepfather, and the seller seemed like an honest guy)
But just have a look at this....the cork is identical to the earlier one discussed on this thread. Miracle of miracles it still came out in one piece, and is date-stamped 1955, bottled 1957. The port was still remarkably dark and youthful, with quite the whiff of alcohol at opening. But after a couple of hours it settled into something which in my (admittedly limited) experience represented the characteristics of a '55.
So unless our swindler created two cases, it would seem that the earlier bottle discussed here was indeed legit. Whoda thunk it!
But just have a look at this....the cork is identical to the earlier one discussed on this thread. Miracle of miracles it still came out in one piece, and is date-stamped 1955, bottled 1957. The port was still remarkably dark and youthful, with quite the whiff of alcohol at opening. But after a couple of hours it settled into something which in my (admittedly limited) experience represented the characteristics of a '55.
So unless our swindler created two cases, it would seem that the earlier bottle discussed here was indeed legit. Whoda thunk it!
- Attachments
-
- mac55.jpg (133.27 KiB) Viewed 758 times
- Alex Bridgeman
- Graham’s 1948
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
What an interesting post.
The more I experience the Mackenzie 1955 and a handful of other very dark Ports, the more convinced I become that they are genuine.
The more I experience the Mackenzie 1955 and a handful of other very dark Ports, the more convinced I become that they are genuine.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
I have tasted it at least once more after the above-mentioned 2, and that example was also sublime.
It sounds very strange, but two of my favorite VPs from 1955 are Mackenzie and Adams.
It sounds very strange, but two of my favorite VPs from 1955 are Mackenzie and Adams.
Glenn Elliott
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Thank you for posting, and for posting so excellently. I agree that it is genuine.Amphora wrote: ↑10:11 Tue 20 Sep 2022I've just bought a case of Mackenzie's '55. The bottles are unlabelled, and almost certainly ever sported labels. But the back story is that the case was a retirement gift to a gent who was a director of Harvey's and the Chairman of Cockburns. So I have every reason to believe that the bottles are genuine (unless the seller was fibbing of course, but the guy who was gifted the bottles was his stepfather, and the seller seemed like an honest guy)
Also, you should be very pleased to have a dozen of them. Good score.
Re: 1955 Mackenzie
Amphora no longer has a dozen, as he put six up for sale and I managed to get five of them. One being put aside for 55@70.jdaw1 wrote: ↑21:17 Thu 22 Sep 2022Thank you for posting, and for posting so excellently. I agree that it is genuine.Amphora wrote: ↑10:11 Tue 20 Sep 2022I've just bought a case of Mackenzie's '55. The bottles are unlabelled, and almost certainly ever sported labels. But the back story is that the case was a retirement gift to a gent who was a director of Harvey's and the Chairman of Cockburns. So I have every reason to believe that the bottles are genuine (unless the seller was fibbing of course, but the guy who was gifted the bottles was his stepfather, and the seller seemed like an honest guy)
Also, you should be very pleased to have a dozen of them. Good score.
Some time ago there was some (limited) discussion about maybe having a Mackenzie vertical. I still have some 1948. What else is available?
Probably sensible to now move this discussion to the Tastings thread...