2025: 1985s at Forty, Tue 27 May 2025, B&F

[jdaw1]

As organised by Neil C., some regulars and at least one first-timer gathered at the Boot and Flogger to taste 1985s at Forty.

Links:

• Review thread;
• Tasting notes:
  • Fonseca 1985;
  • Taylor 1985;
  • Croft 1985;
  • Quinta do Noval 1985;
  • Sandeman 1985;
  • Graham 1985;
  • Dow 1985;
  • Warre 1985;
  • Martinez 1985;
  • Smith Woodhouse 1985;
  • Niepoort 1985;
  • Churchill 1985;
  • † = Fonseca 1985 number two;
• The placemats;
• Planning and arrangements.

[jdaw1]

[jdaw1]

1985s have, maybe, a general lesson about vintages. Let us call this the ‘measure of thirds’.

The best third of 1985s are jolly good. I for voted Tom’s secret † Fonseca (whilst believing it to be Taylor), my Fonseca, and Smith W. But the middle third were mumble-swerve OK and not better than that, and the worst third were, well, let’s not give my opinion of the votes they received. Whereas a good vintage has a good middle third.

[flash_uk]

Julian has summed things up very well. I don't think I will bother with any '85s outside of F, T, W, G. And even G is on the cusp - can be great, but also meh. GC and O not on parade this time but are also worthy of ownership.

Fonseca got 4 of my 6 points.

[nac]

That was quite enjoyable but not intending to rush out and buy any more.

[winesecretary]

A well stored bottle of Martinez 1985 is a lovely port for current drinking (Julian and I had an absolute belter a few months back) so I think you were unlucky there. But I agree that T,F,W,SW,O,GC, plus Mz and G on a good day, are about the beginning and end of it.

[Glenn E.]

The only surprise that I find while reading the results is that, at least in our experience here in the US, the Dow and Taylor are reversed.

2 bottles of Fonseca taking 1st and 2nd is not surprising; it is expected.

Graham finishing 3rd (only because there are 2 bottles of Fonseca present) is also expected. Because of my love of Graham I sometimes have it on par with Fonseca, but I do not expect that from a group that consists of more than me plus people who are easily influenced by my enthusiasm.

I would have expected the Dow to follow Fonseca and Graham, neck-and-neck with a Gould Campbell had there been one.

Taylor, Warre, Smith Woodhouse, and Churchill to follow. Occasionally, Croft can be good but it's very bottle dependent.

Julian's summary of the vintage is very close to what I've been saying for some time. 1985 has a small handful of outstanding Ports. It then also has a small handful of pretty nice Ports. And then the rest are, in a word, meh. They're... fine. I believe that most people over-rate 1985 because of that small handful of outstanding Ports because the bulk of the vintage is very unremarkable.

[idj123]

This tasting went pretty much according to expectation eg the F and G are good and the N and Ni are not. Both the T and D were down on what they can be (although the D did improve over the course of the evening). Of the good that I don’t already own, would only consider adding the W, although the S got a HM from me and I wouldn’t be unhappy to try that again.

All in all, a very enjoyable evening.

[flash_uk]

A well stored bottle of Martinez 1985 is a lovely port for current drinking (Julian and I had an absolute belter a few months back) so I think you were unlucky there. But I agree that T,F,W,SW,O,GC, plus Mz and G on a good day, are about the beginning and end of it.

Ah yes, I should have noted that Mz would be in the "worthy of ownership" bracket.

[jdaw1]

The excellent Mz85 shared with George comes from a stash not yet exhausted.