This one's getting off to an inauspicious start. Obvious signs of seepage, and half of the cork ended up in the bottle.
Decanted 14:00. Thin and medicinal. No noticeably unpleasant smells, but a noticeably unpleasant, bitter aftertaste. The color is more amber than red and surprisingly transparent.
D+4: Somewhat better. The bitter aftertaste is giving way to heat.
D+6: The heat's gone, leaving little complexity and a taste of overripe fruit.
Drunk 26 March 2010.
1977 Dow
Re: 1977 Dow
Here's the label:

The cork did not cooperate:

Seepage?

Yeah.


The cork did not cooperate:

Seepage?

Yeah.

- Alex Bridgeman
- Fonseca 1966
- Posts: 15670
- Joined: 12:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: 1977 Dow
Note to self - minimum of a six hour decant required.
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
Re: 1977 Dow
I wouldn't argue with the 6 hour decant time, but keep in mind that this bottle showed signs of oxidation (it looked more like Madeira than vintage Port) and probably isn't a good guide on what to expect from a bottle in good condition.
- KillerB
- Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: 21:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
- Location: Sky Blue City, England
Re: 1977 Dow
Patently a bad bottle caused by the seepage, the colour of this is indicative of the cork having failed a long time. You did the right thing to open up, it would have been a crying shame to wait another ten years to find it in an even more deteriorated state. Good to see the next one was in good shape.
Port is basically a red drink