1992 Taylor & Fonseca (WA)

[Roy Hersh]

A friend sent me this, from the guy who reviews wines and Port for the Wine Advocate. It was posted on one of the wine bulletin boards, I can only assume on Squires' but don't know for sure. Your thoughts on the ratings?



TNs: 1992 Fonseca and 1992 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Ports

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I decided it was time to check these out (first bottles from the cases). The occasion was a dinner with friends at The Black Olive in Baltimore.

Both the 1992 Fonseca and 1992 Taylor Fladgate are astounding wines. Both remain deep purple in color but the aromatics are beginning to become expressive and the tannins are softening. Both are dense and rich, with layers of fruit, succulence, and a finish that won't quit. The Taylor gets a slight edge for its extra complexity and rich chocolate character. Both wines matched splendidly with a pair of chocolate desserts, one an ice cream and other a cake. Both wines are just at the beginning of their peak drinking periods and should easily evolve for another 15-20 years and drink well through 2040. My scores: Fonseca 98 points, Taylor 99 points.

Check out Bob's notes in the archives for additional perspective.

MrBigJ
__________________
Jay Stuart Miller

[g-man]

I'm surprised that he could even taste the port with a mouth full of cake and ice cream.

Having the 92 fonseca last week, while a good port, is certainly no 85 or 94.

I'd be curious to see how the 92 does in 10 years. I'm thinking more like hte 83.

[Glenn E.]

I don't recall ever seeing a rating that high for the '92 Fonseca before, but the '94 Fonseca, '92 Taylor, and '94 Taylor all received 100 points from one critic or another ( , Parker, and as I recall).

I haven't had either of the '92s before, so can't really judge them. I have had both of the '94s, though, and can't see rating either of them 100 points. Upper-mid 90s seems legitimate for them, but 98-99 would be pushing it a bit to me.

[Andy Velebil]

I will simply say that as a consumer I've not been impressed with his ability to accurately review Ports so far.

[Axel P]

I had both ports some times last year, once side by side, once in a Fonseca vertical and once in a special 92-94 tasting and must agree on Glenn's notes. These wines are good, but not anywhere close to the 94s or in the Fonseca case close to the 85.

Axel

[Alex Bridgeman]

I've never had the '92 (or the '94) from either house, so I can't really comment. Tasting the best '91, '92 and '94 ports side by side is something that I want to do - but not until 2015 when the youngest of these will be 21!

[JacobH]

I’ve never quite understood with these ratings for very young Ports whether they are trying to give an indication of how the wine tastes now or how it will mature in the future.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I’ve never quite understood with these ratings for very young Ports whether they are trying to give an indication of how the wine tastes now or how it will mature in the future.

It's very much an estimate of what the wine will be like at its peak, tempered slightly by a reduction in score for the fact that it's not there yet.

Which makese scratch my head over the rating given the Dow 2007. Hey ho! I rate on the way the wine tastes at the time I drink it, but may comment on what I perceive to be the the future potential. The only exception is when I taste newly declared vintages, when my rating is am estimate of where I think the port will end up when it reaches its peak.

[g-man]

I’ve never quite understood with these ratings for very young Ports whether they are trying to give an indication of how the wine tastes now or how it will mature in the future.

It's very much an estimate of what the wine will be like at its peak, tempered slightly by a reduction in score for the fact that it's not there yet.

Which makese scratch my head over the rating given the Dow 2007. Hey ho! I rate on the way the wine tastes at the time I drink it, but may comment on what I perceive to be the the future potential. The only exception is when I taste newly declared vintages, when my rating is am estimate of where I think the port will end up when it reaches its peak.

I actually quite enjoy uncle tom's two point rating. It's much more logical.

[Alex Bridgeman]

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I tried using tom's scale alongside a 100 point scale for a year and then analysed my results. The conclusion I came to was that I was totally incapable of working to a linear scale - so I gave up and just went back to the 100 point scale. Pity, as I really like the intuitive approach of scoring a wine now and at its peak.

[g-man]

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I tried using tom's scale alongside a 100 point scale for a year and then analysed my results. The conclusion I came to was that I was totally incapable of working to a linear scale - so I gave up and just went back to the 100 point scale. Pity, as I really like the intuitive approach of scoring a wine now and at its peak.

oh, couldn't you just add an extra column in the spreadsheet