ThePortForum.com

I think now is a good time to ask when was the last time the participants in this discussion tasted a bottle of T85 that, in the general view of the company it was shared with, was showing at its best.

I think I have had it at least six times in the past eighteen months, almost all of those experiences being very pleasurable indeed.

Those who have not tasted it in the past five years or so are welcome to admit that they might be judging it incorrectly in comparison to those who have.

So who has had it when and what was your experience?

DRT wrote:So who has had it when and what was your experience?

This T85 was shown blind, and correctly guessed by me. It was excellent — both bottle and guessing.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:So who has had it when and what was your experience?

This T85 was shown blind, and correctly guessed by me. It was excellent — both bottle and guessing.

Well done. You have convinced the jury that you are correct in assessing that T85 is currently a very fine Port.

I wonder whether or not others might admit they are or might be wrong?

DRT wrote:I think now is a good time to ask when was the last time the participants in this discussion tasted a bottle of T85 that, in the general view of the company it was shared with, was showing at its best.

I will have to check. I have not had it 6 times in the last 18 months, but I believe I have had it once or possibly twice in that time.

Unfortunately I'm about to disappear for the weekend, as my parents are due to arrive from Kansas City within the hour and I'll likely be distracted by other activities for the rest of the week.

DRT wrote:I wonder whether or not others might admit they are or might be wrong?

Busted. I thought I had drunk this twice, but I can only find one note. It speaks of vegetables, making unfavourable comparison with the reek of cabbage soup which is said to rise from the pages on opening a Dostoyevsky novel. But it was more than three years ago. And I don't find being wrong about port a troubling or unusual predicament.

I feel I owe an apology to Alex, let me metaphorically unshackle him and return him to his loved ones, without stain on his character. Drinking sparkling wine before dinner and then writing a post often does not produce the best results. And if Alex likes his port a bit browner than me then I am content.

LGTrotter wrote:Drinking sparkling wine before dinner...

But alack (or forsooth, if preferred), where is the tasting note. I am now on tenterhooks to learn which country produced this mere sparkling wine aperitif and what you thought of it.

LGTrotter wrote:...let me metaphorically unshackle him and return him to his loved ones, without stain on his character.

You are most kind and I graciously accept. I remain, sir, your most humble and obedient servant. (Does that come across as sarcastic? It's not meant to be, only meant to be humourous yet archaic.)

I am dragging this old charabanc from the shed on account of my interest in the thoughts of those who attended the 85 horizontal.

I was looking at the scores and was surprised at how high they were. I think it may be time to reevaluate this vintage. At thirty it seems to be in better shape than it did at twenty.

I haven't posted my TNs yet but hope to do so soon. Then I need to compare my notes from the 1983 and 1985 horizontals.

I had T85 tied for 7th (with Ch85) at the horizontal. F85(bottle 2), G85, W85, F85(bottle 1), K85, Cr85 were the top 6 in order for me. RP85, S85, Kr85, and Borges & Irmao '85 immediately followed the Taylor and Churchill.

The best bottle of this I've had. Iirc I gave it 91 points. Mature but on a plateau. Won't get better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And how about your sense of the vintage overall? A gut reaction of how you felt about it as you left the room?

LGTrotter wrote:And how about your sense of the vintage overall? A gut reaction of how you felt about it as you left the room?

A slight revision to my original concise summary:

1985: some great, some very good, most fairly average.

But to put that in context, I think that an "average" Port is actually pretty good. The more Port I drink, and the wider variety of Port that I drink, the more I realize that across the board Port is (in general) a very well-made wine. I have had far worse "bad wine" experiences with dry wine that I have ever had with Port. That said, I don't drink much (read: any) standard ruby and standard tawny. My Port drinking experience starts at reserves and goes up from there. So it's entirely possible that I've simply avoided all of the "bad" Port that's out there.

LGTrotter wrote:And how about your sense of the vintage overall? A gut reaction of how you felt about it as you left the room?

Tried to post earlier...A few standouts still on the upswing. Lots of VA issues. Most on a plateau or in decline, start drinking up the lesser houses and the middle tier and a couple upper tier. A few upper tier leave alone. My view of this vintage has not changed, if anything it has taken a bit more of a dim view of it overall. I'd be very careful what one buys from this vintage.

A lot of people talked about VA at the tasting, but I really didn't notice it except for a couple of bottles. I'm not insensitive to VA (as I am with TCA), but unless it's really strong I don't perceive it as a fault. So on some of the milder bottles, I simply noted it as a semi-sour note that added complexity to the nose and/or palate.

We also saw quite a range to the style of VA that was presenting. Some vinegar, some nail polish remover, some almost fragrant high-toned alcohol, and even some paint thinner/turpentine.

OK, so it sounds like neither of you have changed your opinion on the 85, certainly not for the better. Interesting that Glenn has like me heard more talk about problems with VA in the 85s than found it, maybe he just has a similar palate to me. But I realise the 85 VA thing is not just a few tasters but a loud rumble of discontent.

Glenn E. wrote:We also saw quite a range to the style of VA that was presenting. Some vinegar, some nail polish remover, some almost fragrant high-toned alcohol, and even some paint thinner/turpentine.

turpentine is not acidic to my nose.

DRT wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:We also saw quite a range to the style of VA that was presenting. Some vinegar, some nail polish remover, some almost fragrant high-toned alcohol, and even some paint thinner/turpentine.

turpentine is not acidic to my nose.

Generally not to mine, either - I'd think that smell was indicative of spoilage of some sort. But in this case something that seemed to clearly be a form of VA smelled a bit like turpentine or kerosene.

My Day 1 notes have been posted over on FTLOP. I've accidentally left my TN book at work, though, so Day 2 will have to wait until next week.

Just had a look at some of the notes available, I want to get some of that Quarrels Harris mentioned to share with Andy next time he's over .

But there was an awful lot of 'B' side ports, including the corked Feist mentioned in a previous note. Whilst I applaud your thoroughness I can't help thinking it would obscure the view of the vintage. The reputable shippers have done well, despite a bit of twitting here and there. It sounds like a bit of a marathon and I can't help wondering if palates and nerves were a bit shredded come the finish. And two days drinking Feist, Calem et al would leave me feeling a bit jaded with the 85s.

LGTrotter wrote: ...But there was an awful lot of 'B' side ports..... And two days drinking Feist, Calem et al would leave me feeling a bit jaded with the 85s.

But in the 1980's there was a whole lot of "B" side Port companies. This was the dark days of the Port industry. A lot of consolidation, large corporations buying Port companies and running them into the ground, technological changes, large scale replanting and a move toward block planting, etc.

While I have no doubt some of the bottles in this tasting were damaged at some point after being bottled, the fact remains there was a lot of VA, more than I've ever seen in large scale horizontal tastings of other vintages. VA is 100% a flaw in Port. That means a lot of bad things were happening around the time these were made.

Andy Velebil wrote:

LGTrotter wrote: ...But there was an awful lot of 'B' side ports..... And two days drinking Feist, Calem et al would leave me feeling a bit jaded with the 85s.

But in the 1980's there was a whole lot of "B" side Port companies. This was the dark days of the Port industry. A lot of consolidation, large corporations buying Port companies and running them into the ground, technological changes, large scale replanting and a move toward block planting, etc.

While I have no doubt some of the bottles in this tasting were damaged at some point after being bottled, the fact remains there was a lot of VA, more than I've ever seen in large scale horizontal tastings of other vintages. VA is 100% a flaw in Port. That means a lot of bad things were happening around the time these were made.

To further your point, in both the '83 and '85 horizontals showed a lot of flawed wines, separate from the wines that just showed overly mature and could be chalked up to poor storage. Things like VA, cork taint, and all manner of other bacterially related offensive aromas and tastes seem to indicate poor winemaking and cleanliness at the time. IIRC there was about a 20% corked rate with the '85s alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U