ThePortForum.com

I've a number of wines that are clearly due for drinking, SW77's in particular, but what of the "lesser" houses of the 90's? That collection gap discussion got me reviewing the inventory, and I'm giving a hard look at 94's like Rozes, Ferreira, Calem, and Cockburn -- others might ask the same about a Churchill or Delaforce.
At a spry 15 years of age, are they better drunk sooner than later?

Probably not the answer you want to hear, but: they can all do with some more time.
I guess the Rozes and Calem will be enjoyable now, but especially Cockburn and Churchill will be a bit harder still. BTW: At our 1977 tasting last summer, the SW showed as one of the youngest... you can still keep it a bit longer.

I'm still learning as I go, but recent experiences have me thinking that the big names need at least 40-50 years to really reach their prime drinking window, while the lesser names can "make do" with 25-30.

So I'd say no, Ports from the 90's are not really ready to drink yet. (Drinkable? Yes. In their prime? No.) Very low end producers might start reaching their drinking window in another 5 years, but I'd say that even houses like Rozes and Calem are going to need another 10.

Churchill is greatly under-rated. Having started as recently as 1982, we just don’t know how big vintages will mature. But the Ch85 is lovely.

the 94 churchills looked pretty bad at our tasting.

but speaking of churchills, shall we try and line up a tasting?

that seems to be a house that not many have posted notes on and I NEVER see it come up on the auction blocks.

g-man wrote:but speaking of churchills, shall we try and line up a tasting?

I have some Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta 1995, but that's about it. given that they don't go back before 82, are there enough of these in a drinkable phase?

My Ch85s are in the UK.

Here's a thought,

Vesuvio vs. Churchills.

the 90s. I believe churchills has 85, 87, 91,92, 94 - 00
Vesuvio has produced every year since 89 except the 93.

both are relatively affordable and we could basically do the entire line... Esp if Alex decides to visit NY again.

My (unvalidated) list of vintage declarations says:

Churchill - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000 & 2003

Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta - 1983, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1997 & 1998

Churchill Quinta da Gricha - 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006

g-man wrote:Vesuvio has produced every year since 89 except the 93.

No Vesuvio in 2002

DRT wrote:My (unvalidated) list of vintage declarations says:

Churchill - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000 & 2003

Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta - 1983, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1997 & 1998

Churchill Quinta da Gricha - 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006

http://www.frederickwildman.com/wildman ... ubmit.y=15
from their US distributor.

- Thanks!

DRT wrote: - Thanks!

i think the 92 churchills is a mystery bottle.

I can't find it on google anywhere

nevermind http://www.churchills-port.com/awards.html#i

1992 QUINTA DA AGUA ALTA Vintage Port
from churchil''s website

DRT wrote:Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta - 1983, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1997 & 1998
Churchill Quinta da Gricha - 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006

So that's kinda interesting: In 1999 did they stop Agua Alta and switch to Gricha? Same vineyard, new name? Or did they switch vineyards altogether?

Explained here.

Wines from Agua Alta were bought in prior to switching to Gricha, Rio and Perdriz, all of which are now owned by Churchill Graham.

This probably means there is a marked difference between pre and post 1992 blended Churchill vintages.

I'm trying to figure out how to pick up teh entire line of churchill's for a tasting.

sounds like a good tasting for comparison of pre and post 1992 blended Churchill vintages

g-man wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to pick up teh entire line of churchill's for a tasting.

Why not send them an email through the website? I think the US is their target market so they might appreciate the exposure that a structured tasting would give them. You might even persuade Johnny to come along

and how would such letter look like? =)

First draft. In the morning I won’t like it I never do.

Dear Johnny Graham,

I’m writing on behalf of a small port-tasting group in New York you might perhaps have encountered our website ThePortForum.com. The few of us who have tried Churchill vintage ports speak well of them, especially the 1985, so we’re considering a vertical. We have, or can easily buy, your 19!, 19!, 1994, 19!, 20!, 20!, and 20!. But we’re missing two things.

First, we also need 1982, 19!, and 19!. Please, would you sell us a bottle of Churchill vintage port from each of these years.

Second, we are missing an honoured guest. Are you ever in New York? Would you be willing to join us? Do you have any dates on which you know you’ll be here?

Many thanks for your assistance,

Jeff Ghi.

Have somebody else read your letter before sending it always helps.

I am waiting for the 20 year mark. Only 94's I have had were Graham and Sandeman, and both were "thin" at first, and the Sandeman was something after 30 hour decanting. I was told the same held true for the Graham. The 95 Dow and Taylor are quite young too, so I can't say I am in any rush to open 90's ports; even lesser houses.

mosesbotbol wrote:I am waiting for the 20 year mark. Only 94's I have had were Graham and Sandeman, and both were "thin" at first, and the Sandeman was something after 30 hour decanting. I was told the same held true for the Graham. The 95 Dow and Taylor are quite young too, so I can't say I am in any rush to open 90's ports; even lesser houses.

Would make a good test for the vinturi device I just got =)