ThePortForum.com

This was a serious vertical of seriously mature Taylor’s Port, 1878 to 1948, on Monday 13^th October 2025 at Noble Rot, Mayfair, as arranged by Alex Bridgeman of BFT fame.

Links:

• Review of the event as a whole;
• 1878 Taylor (AHB);
• 1884 Taylor (MSC+TC);
• 1890 Taylor (AHB);
• 1896 Taylor (MJRM);
• 1900 Taylor (AHB);
• 1908 Taylor (CEM);
• 1912 Taylor (CEM);
• 1917 Taylor (AHB);
• 1920 Taylor (AHB);
• 1924 Taylor (MJRM);
• 1927 Taylor (TC);
• 1935 Taylor (CPR);
• 1942 Taylor (MSC);
• 1945 Taylor (HTWH);
• 1948 Taylor (NAC);
• Planning and arangements;
• Placemats.

Wow, that's really close!

13-12-11-10.5-9.5 might just be the closest spread for the top 5 that I've ever seen.

There may need to be a recount though. The 1945 totals 9.5 not 10.5, which creates a tie with the 1900.
But also, Charles has only scored 5, while Michael M has scored 7. I think I know why - Charles initially scored 5 points and then said "come back in a moment for the final point", and then he gave an extra half to a couple of wines. Those extra halves have been added to Michael M's wines...

So I think Michael M should show 1 each for the 1945 and 1948, and Charles should show 1.5 for the 1948 and 1.5 for the 1935. Which if correct means the 1948 still ends up with 11, the 1945 scores 9, and the 1935 scores 12.5. Which results in 1912, 1935, 1948, 1900, 1945.

I have the voting sheet with me and will examine the evidence a little later today.

Fab pictures
I think these type of tastings require a menu card signed by all and framed!

flash_uk wrote: ↑06:28 Tue 14 Oct 2025 There may need to be a recount though. The 1945 totals 9.5 not 10.5, which creates a tie with the 1900.
But also, Charles has only scored 5, while Michael M has scored 7. I think I know why - Charles initially scored 5 points and then said "come back in a moment for the final point", and then he gave an extra half to a couple of wines. Those extra halves have been added to Michael M's wines...

So I think Michael M should show 1 each for the 1945 and 1948, and Charles should show 1.5 for the 1948 and 1.5 for the 1935. Which if correct means the 1948 still ends up with 11, the 1945 scores 9, and the 1935 scores 12.5. Which results in 1912, 1935, 1948, 1900, 1945.

I've held a quick recount.

Mike is correct in that Charles's late allocation of two half points was credited to Michael's column. These were half points allocated to 1935 and 1945. With this correction, everyone cast votes for 6 points.

There were 11 voters in the end, so 66 points should be expected from the wines. My initial maths on the night adds up to 67 points.

The final result after a recount, in reverse points order, is as follows:
1942 - flawed
1884 - 0
1890 - 0
1896 - 0
1917 - 0
1927 - ½ point
1878 - ½ point and 4 honourable mentions
1924 - 1½ points
1920 - 3½ point and 1 honourable mention
1908 - 5 points
1945 - 9½ points
1900 - 9½ points and 1 honourable mention
1948 - 11 points
1935 - 12 points
1912 - 13 points

In vintage order the results were:
1878 - ½ point and 4 honourable mentions
1884 - 0
1890 - 0
1896 - 0
1900 - 9½ points and 1 honourable mention
1908 - 5 points
1912 - 13 points
1917 - 0
1920 - 3½ point and 1 honourable mention
1924 - 1½ points
1927 - ½ point
1935 - 12 points
1942 - flawed
1945 - 9½ points
1948 - 11 points

If anyone has any pictures they are willing and able to share with me from Monday night, please let me know.

Good to know that Taylor Port from the 1800s is mostly rubbish. I shall strike it from my shopping list.