1960 Delaforce

[uncle tom]

From a case bought last December.

Decanted 5.30 pm. Decanted very cleanly, hardly anything left before first sediment appeared, but fair amount of sludge left in bottle.

First sip, lovely fruity nose, no stink, but fiery finish..

D + 4 hours

Wine has darkened very noticeably in the decanter, nose a little more subdued now, but still good, mature fruity palate. Fire is much less obvious now, but seems to come back and haunt you a few seconds after swallowing..

A good wine, probably on the tail end of its plateau, but holding firm. While I'm not one to list specific flavours, one is very prominant - this is a very minty wine!

More anon..

Tom

[uncle tom]

By way of a small experiment, I have been keeping this decanter at a temperature of approximately 10c - a fair bit cooler than normal.

After 24 hours it was showing beautifully, with good integration and a little fire on the finish that seems to be a bit of a signature on the older Delaforces. Another 24hrs and there is a slight sign of deterioration, but nothing serious. Obviously if my little experiment was to be scientific, I should have two identical decanters with the same juice, but kept at different temperatures.

I have long suspected that much of the lore surrounding the deterioration of decanted ports arose from them getting much too warm, so the possibility that keeping them below cellar temperature might be beneficial is not entirely irrational. At some point i must conduct a more scientific study.

For now, I can say that this is good juice that is beginning to reach its twilight years, but with enough stamina not to fall apart too quickly.

Score 7-6

Tom

[jdaw1]

Tom, you need a too-rarely-seen piece of technical drinkers’ equipment. They go by the name ‟magnum”, and are jolly splendid.

[uncle tom]

I have a pair of near identical decanters, so when an older magnum looks prime for the chop, we must conduct a little experiment..

Tom

[DRT]

I'm not sure why a magnum is necessary, although can understand the attraction to the idea. Surely a 750ml between 2 identical decanters would provide the same result?

[jdaw1]

But what if warmth only affects wine if there is a large area of air-liquid boundary? Then temperature won’t matter for full decanters; would for nearly-empty decanters.

Refusing a magnum silly man.

[DRT]

But what if warmth only affects wine if there is a large area of air-liquid boundary? Then temperature won’t matter for full decanters; would for nearly-empty decanters.

Use a whisky decanter. Same air-liquid boundary from top to bottom so volume irrelevant.

Refusing a magnum silly man.

Not refusing - just questioning the necessity. Given the choice a Magnum is obviously better, even if the science is unaffected.

[jdaw1]

Use a whisky decanter. Same air-liquid boundary from top to bottom so volume irrelevant.

But different average depth = volume ÷ surface area. Can’t be too careful.

[DRT]

Use a whisky decanter. Same air-liquid boundary from top to bottom so volume irrelevant.

But different average depth = volume ÷ surface area. Can’t be too careful.

Given this new information I think a double magnum should be a minimum requirement in order to provide an acceptable outcome. I would venture to suggest that a double magnum of Taylor 1948 could well be the optimal specimin.