Question about 1994 and 1997 Passadouro

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
John Danza
Fonseca Bin 27
Posts: 65
Joined: 22:37 Sun 02 Sep 2007
Location: Naperville, IL.

Question about 1994 and 1997 Passadouro

Post by John Danza »

Hello all,

I saw some discussion about Passadouro in the '92 Fonseca thread, so I thought I would ask a question. I've got a bottle of both the 1994 and 1997 Passadouro. Does anyone have any thoughts on when they should be opened? I have no experience with these bottlings.

Thanks much.
John
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15026
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

John,

I haven't tried either of these wines, so can't give you any suggestions based on personal experience but, in general, I enjoy the '94s at the moment but accept that they are likely to be better in 10 years and I also avoid the '97s as they seem very closed at the moment and will not be worth drinking for another 5-10 years.

But that is a pure generalisation and based hugely on my personal preferences.

Alex
Last edited by Alex Bridgeman on 07:13 Sat 08 Sep 2007, edited 1 time in total.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
Michael M.
Quinta do Noval LBV
Posts: 244
Joined: 12:50 Wed 08 Aug 2007
Location: Germany

Post by Michael M. »

AHB wrote:John,

... I also avoid the '97s as they seem very closed at the moment and will not be worth drinking for another 5-10 years.

Alex
Hi,

I can report the following exceptions. Porto Pocas Vintage Port 1997 is astonishingly open and can be drunken with a lot of pleasure. Dito for the Rozès Vintage Port 1997, a few months ago.

Cheers
Michael
Shut Up 'N Drink Yer Port
User avatar
RonnieRoots
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1981
Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: Middle Earth

Post by RonnieRoots »

It took me a while to respond, because I had the impression that I have tasted at least the 1994, but I can't find any notes anywhere. I recall it being pleasant. I don't think I've ever tasted the 1997. From the vintages that I've tasted, I can say that Passadouro is usually good for the short- to mid-term. They are not massive wines, but give lots of pleasure when you drink them. I would open the 1994 and see what it does.
User avatar
Axel P
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2028
Joined: 08:09 Wed 12 Sep 2007
Location: Langenfeld, near Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Passadouro is normally fairly early drinkable

Post by Axel P »

I just been to Passadouro and have (always had) the impression that the Passadouros are fairly early drinkable. I had the 94 once, forgot to make notes, but from memory I can tell that it wasnt as concentrated as the other 94s I had so far.

I would wait another 5 years with both bottles. If you must, I would go for the 94 first.

They are good wines, but neither pricingwise nor qualitywise comparatable to the "big" 94s.

Axel
John Danza
Fonseca Bin 27
Posts: 65
Joined: 22:37 Sun 02 Sep 2007
Location: Naperville, IL.

Post by John Danza »

Thanks everyone for the updates. I'll sit on these bottles for a few years and then give them a go. I'll post notes when I finally open them.

John
User avatar
Frederick Blais
Taylor’s LBV
Posts: 170
Joined: 02:53 Wed 11 Jul 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Post by Frederick Blais »

I've tasted both in the last year.

94 is open, tannins are solved. Not very complex, but enjoyable, full of plums and licorice.

97 is also maturing fast for a VP, bigger than 94 atm, flavours are similar, some tannins left, very enjoyable and balanced.

Drink the 94 and keep the 97 for another 5 years I'd say.
Post Reply