ThePortForum.com

A glass at the end of a dinner of which the stars were Dom Perignon 2000 and Ducru-Beaucaillou 1998.

50% opaque, red rim. A bit of burnt rubber on the nose and not much else, a bit of summer fruit compote. A bit hard to find things to say about the palate. Some red fruits but not many and then a sightly odd later palate - hints of baked apple with dark muscovado? Pleasant but fairly short finish with some aniseed.

Drinkable but slightly underwhelming. Perhaps not in a good place right now? Perhaps it either needs more time or is slightly over the hill; I am not quite sure which.

If it's the latter that would be very disappointing.

I think it is a fairly modern assumption that all VP is to improve, or even last, for ever. The father of wine criticism, George Saintsbury, spoke of the famed 1847 being 'about in perfection' in 1870 and 'little but a memory' at the age of sixty.

He said further that 'no red [port] wine will keep much more than fifty years without 'going off'.'; and that 'the best and most robustly and skilfully prepared [port] wines... probably arrive at their best between twenty and thirty. But it is sometimes difficult to foresee how long they will keep at it.'

This is a [at the time] fairly minor wine from a generally poor vintage; surely it is not surprising if it is fading?

Fading, maybe. But I got the impression that you found it thoroughly unimpressive.

Any Vesuvio before 1992 has to be at least somewhat suspect because they were stored in the Douro. I believe that 1992 was stored in Gaia, and for sure 1994 on has been.

So to me, your note sounds fairly typical. The Douro bake isn't overt, but it's there. And those wines also age faster than the ones stored in Gaia.

@Glenn E. - I had forgotten about the early vintages being stored up-river. My anecdotal experience supports your conclusion re 92 and 94. They are both brilliant wines and the 92 is my favourite port for current drinking.

@MigSu - I did find it unimpressive. But, I did drink it.