ThePortForum.com

Port Houses: Fonseca and Warre
Port Years: 55, 60, 63, 66, 70, 77, 85
Location: The Bunghole Cellars (Davy's Bar and Grill, Holborn)
Date: Sep 24th
Time: 18:30

Attending:

1. PW
2. RAYC
3. JDAW1
4. DRT
5. WS1
6. CRS (griff)
7. CMAG
8. THRA
9. AHB
10. MW (PopulusTremulo)
11. BMHR
12. --spare
13. --spare
14. --spare

Ports are being supplied as follows:
AHB: F55
Carl: W66, F85
DRT: W63
JDAW: W70
THRA: W55, F60, F63
PW: W77, W85
RAYC: F66, F77
WS: W60, F70


Original Post:

I'd like to propose a tasting which I would be happy to organise for mid-late september.
TPF has held verticals for both of my favourite houses within the last few years prior to my participation, so rather than my first thought of suggesting a "full-on" Warres vertical, I wondered if people might be up for a Fonseca vs Warres head to head (or "double mini-vertical" if you prefer), featuring the best years of both. Dependent on interest, we could vary the number of years involved.

I would estimate that the above ports, split amongst 12 people would be likely £100-120/head as a first estimate, total cost to include any location/glasses/food costs etc as usual. Additional years could be added (66,83,91, or earlier - 45?), though at extra expense of course.

Would people be interested in such an event?

I rather like the idea of a good vertical range of two ports against each other. The matrix and the GC/SW/QH tastings were all good fun.

I'd certainly be interested in a Fonseca / Warre double vertical.

I like the idea of this, but think 66 should definitely be included - as should 1960!

Conveniently, i won an F66 at Strakers on the weekend at (relatively) modest expense...

In line with our quinta styles discussions and tying in sweetness levels, why Fonseca vs Warres?

Why not Fonseca vs Grahams
Warres vs Croft
Dow vs Taylor
?

We might get a better comparison instead of one camp who likes sweeter fuller port vs another camp who don't

g-man wrote:In line with our quinta styles discussions and tying in sweetness levels, why Fonseca vs Warres?

PhilW wrote:TPF has held verticals for both of my favourite houses within the last few years prior to my participation

Phil's favourite houses are Warre and Fonseca. I would be more than happy to follow this tasting the following year with a similar Graham-Taylor head to head!

For the sake of port science, I would suggest a more intellectual tasting consisting of the best years of

Fonseca, grahams, warres and taylors

that way you can do a sweet for sweet, TFP vs SFE tasting

g-man wrote:For the sake of port science, I would suggest a more intellectual tasting consisting of the best years of

Fonseca, grahams, warres and taylors

that way you can do a sweet for sweet, TFP vs SFE tasting

We did a similar tasting in October last year (with Dow instead of Warre - review here)

I like Phil's idea of the double vertical over a broader range of vintages - the Graham-Taylor tasting at Bonhams a couple of years ago was great. I don't think there would be a VP in a Fonseca-Warre line-up along the lines proposed that i would not be very excited about drinking again! (94s, perhaps, excepted)

Splendid idea. And Monday 24th September 2012 works for me.

Perhaps others could comment on the proposed date.

I'm in!!

However, I rather suspect that the elegant Warre vintages will be somewhat overshadowed by their Fonseca counterparts.

DRT wrote:I'm in!!

However, I rather suspect that the elegant Warre vintages will be somewhat overshadowed by their Fonseca counterparts.

Often predicted whenever someone reveals they are bringing a Fonseca to a tasting, but rarely in my experience does it turn out that way.

I'll take that as sufficient positivity and will therefore modify the first post to change this to an organisation thread.

RAYC wrote:I like the idea of this, but think 66 should definitely be included - as should 1960!

Conveniently, i won an F66 at Strakers on the weekend at (relatively) modest expense...

I admit I almost included 66 in from the start, but didn't want to make things too expensive, especially depending whether we have a full 14 (including any guests) interested. Of course if you add 60 as well, then you may have to add 91 and 83, at which point rude to just be missing 80 and 75... slippery slope, so I stuck to the nominal best years, but would be happy to add more if we get a full team and people are ok with it.
p.s. I have a good-provenance W66 as well if needed

PhilW wrote:slippery slope

Your approval of such a polished slide is much shared. Alas we will have some difficulty finding the 1927 and 1912, but we thrive on a challenge.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:slippery slope

Your approval of such a polished slide is much shared. Alas we will have some difficulty finding the 1927 and 1912, but we thrive on a challenge.

1945 and 1955 would build a nice bridge between the 1927 and the 1960. 1863, 1878, 1887 and 1896 might prove to be a bridge too far.

PhilW wrote:

RAYC wrote:I like the idea of this, but think 66 should definitely be included - as should 1960!

Conveniently, i won an F66 at Strakers on the weekend at (relatively) modest expense...

I admit I almost included 66 in from the start, but didn't want to make things too expensive, especially depending whether we have a full 14 (including any guests) interested. Of course if you add 60 as well, then you may have to add 91 and 83, at which point rude to just be missing 80 and 75... slippery slope, so I stuck to the nominal best years, but would be happy to add more if we get a full team and people are ok with it.
p.s. I have a good-provenance W66 as well if needed

You are organising, and i am in whatever you decide, and of course cost is a concern and should be kept under reasonable control!

I will, however, put forward my arguments for inclusion of 60 and 66.

My case for the inclusion of 66s is that this vintage is (in my opinion, which may not be shared by all) drinking perfectly at the moment - arguably at their very peak (though i know WS1 disagrees!) and in many instances comparing favourably with 70 and 63s.

My case for the inclusion of 60s is that: a) i simply have not drunk many 1960s (so from a personal perspective would be interested to try these two); and b) the few 1960s that have been drunk recently at TPF tastings have been fantastic (eg: Delaforce 1960 this week, Dow 1960 in March, Cockburn 1960 last December, Fonseca 1960 last April).

By comparison, i do not get a lot of joy out of 94s these days (though am always happy to try for academic purposes!) and recent experiences of F85 and W85 have not been overly-impressive in terms of current drinking pleasure. A best of "drink now" vintages (excluding those that get ridiculously expensive, and limited to 12 bottles) would therefore in my opinion be 55, 60, 63, 66, 70 and 77 (though i don't know how much the 55s go for these days...)

RAYC wrote:A best of "drink now" vintages (excluding those that get ridiculously expensive, and limited to 12 bottles) would therefore in my opinion be 55, 60, 63, 66, 70 and 77

I really like this idea.

DRT wrote:

RAYC wrote:A best of "drink now" vintages (excluding those that get ridiculously expensive, and limited to 12 bottles) would therefore in my opinion be 55, 60, 63, 66, 70 and 77

I really like this idea.

I like this idea too, and am more than happy to update to this range if people are happy with the increased cost. If we have a full house of participants I would like to add the 85 as well.

There could be a tentative list of vintages, from which a final selection will be made depending on availability, cost, and the number of attendees.

Hi,

if still possible I would like to join as well. With regards to the tasting I am clearly against including anything younger than 1983.

DRT wrote:

RAYC wrote:A best of "drink now" vintages (excluding those that get ridiculously expensive, and limited to 12 bottles) would therefore in my opinion be 55, 60, 63, 66, 70 and 77

I really like this idea.

agreed this is the best common ground of wines which showed very well and are not in a bad phase based on my experiences. Since I am a fan of 58 Warre which is also currently drinking well and a Fonseca 58 Guimarens can be found this could be also included.

RAYC wrote:

DRT wrote:I'm in!!

However, I rather suspect that the elegant Warre vintages will be somewhat overshadowed by their Fonseca counterparts.

Often predicted whenever someone reveals they are bringing a Fonseca to a tasting, but rarely in my experience does it turn out that way.

I think the biggest factors are if english bottled or not, the preparation and quality of the bts (provenance). It is very important to avoid any major transportantion before the tasting and stand up the bts at least a couple of days before the tasting (the 77s probably longer because of fine sediment). Also again I am adamant that the corks should be pulled well in advance (~3 hours) before decanting. Some ports need a very long time e.g. Warre and Fonseca 1970.
Due to the sweeter Fonseca style there will be a preferance towards it of all port drinkers who like full bodied meaty ports. However I can see even those change their minds if we have a perfect bt of Warre 55 (excellent port ).

regards

WS1

Hi,

I am likely to be down in London that weekend to celebrate a wedding anniversary. I have a real soft spot for Warres so this looks interesting. Would there be room for Rebecca and me? As for something from the 80's, 1980 might suit? Fonseca should be ready I would have thought and Warres made an impressive port that year.

Carl

WS1 wrote:if still possible I would like to join as well.

griff wrote:I am likely to be down in London that weekend to celebrate a wedding anniversary. I have a real soft spot for Warres so this looks interesting. Would there be room for Rebecca and me?

Have added you all to the list of attendees. More than happy to include you both Carl, sounds like an ideal way to spend a wedding anniversary to me Just to confirm, I'm assuming Rebecca would be drinking (port)?

WS1 wrote:With regards to the tasting I am clearly against including anything younger than 1983.

WS1 wrote:agreed this is the best common ground of wines which showed very well and are not in a bad phase based on my experiences. Since I am a fan of 58 Warre which is also currently drinking well and a Fonseca 58 Guimarens can be found this could be also included.

griff wrote:As for something from the 80's, 1980 might suit? Fonseca should be ready I would have thought and Warres made an impressive port that year.

My intention was to span the years while limiting the overall cost by only including the best wine from each decade (ish - I know I included 63-70-77). I'm happy to be flexible on this especially where there is a common group preference, keeping the overall objectives and cost in mind. I'd personally like to keep the 85s in if we have sufficient numbers, to keep the span of years (unless we want to span back to 45 instead, which I'd love but would have significant cost, probably too high for double-mini-vertical). I'll remove the 94 and add in the 66 in its place for now since that seems to be a common consensus and then save any further decisions to nearer the time when we know how many people we expect to be, what wines we have access to and at what costs.

'55 to '85 has the added attraction that the title of the tasting could be "Almost Exactly Three Decades of Fonseca v Warre"

As much as I like the idea of the Fonseca / Warre double mini-vertical, I am unlikely to be in the UK the week commencing 24th September so better move me off the list of attendees please.

Thanks.

I’m fairly confident that both Warre and Fonseca declared all of 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1920, 1922, 1924, 1927, 1934, 1945, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2009.

(To keep costs down I have restricted the list to ≥1900. I’m not mentioning 1868, 1870, 1872, 1873, 1878, 1881, 1884, 1887, 1890, and 1896.)

Thanks. I confirm the better half will be drinking

Unfortunately I am in Australia that date.

Axel

Would love to come to this, will have a look through what I have and wear the holes are and will revert.

Any further thoughts on vintages? I could bring a 66 Wares if we go ahead with 66 to pair with the Fonseca?

griff wrote:Any further thoughts on vintages? I could bring a 66 Wares if we go ahead with 66 to pair with the Fonseca?

As we've still got a fair amount of time to go, I'm planning on re-checking attendees at the same time as asking people which vintages they may be able to provide; I'll then make a final judgement on vintages, depending on numbers, in order to keep cost reasonable but hopefully keep a broad spectrum. (updated) First post correctly reflects intentions depending on this.

Unfortunately I am in Australia on this date.

Axel

I should be able to make this - will know for certain fairly soon.

Within the date range of '55 to '85, I can supply all the vintages, with the exception of F55 which I've rather carelessly drunk myself to extinction on..

Could people please let me know by email/PM what bottles they would be able to make available for this tasting (together with cost)? I can then sort purchase of any additional bottles required, and sort any payments/credits needed. (I would prefer the more informal "select something to bring" approach, but given our span from F55 to W85 felt that this would be unfair on some people).

Thanks.

Have sent you an email

An update on status. Regarding budget, the goal is to beat £125/head for port budget (ideally to beat £100/head port-budget), assuming 12 people and assuming the full 14-bottles (55,60,63,66,70,77,85) with good provenance where possible; this is looking viable.

Regarding bottle-sourcing, am currently still looking for the following, if anyone attending is able to offer to supply:
Warre 55,60,70
Fonseca 55,60,63,70
Tom has offered to help filling remaning gaps aside from the F55 which we will need to obtain retail, but if others can assist with the above so that we don't have any one person supplying too many bottles, that would be preferable; if you are therefore able to offer any of the above towards this tasting please PM/email me.

Phil.

I can now confirm my attendance and I would like to bring an industry guest if this is acceptable.

Cookie wrote:I would like to bring an industry guest if this is acceptable.

Let Phil know who it is (by PM, if sensitive) and he can decide!

Cookie wrote:I can now confirm my attendance and I would like to bring an industry guest if this is acceptable.

Cookie added to attendees. Industry guest would be fine, though I might be hesitant at suggestion of a TFP or Symington guest on this occaison since I would not want them to feel awkward or us constrained in considering the comparisons. Will PM you.

PhilW wrote:

Cookie wrote:I can now confirm my attendance and I would like to bring an industry guest if this is acceptable.

Cookie added to attendees. Industry guest would be fine, though I might be hesitant at suggestion of a TFP or Symington guest on this occaison since I would not want them to feel awkward or us constrained in considering the comparisons. Will PM you.

No need to worry...my guest is not from either camp.

PhilW wrote:Attending:

1. (guest)

Cookie wrote:I can now confirm my attendance and I would like to bring an industry guest if this is acceptable.

Is Phil's "guest" and Cookie's "guest" the same person? If not, do we know they happy to both attend the same tasting?

DRT wrote:

PhilW wrote:Attending:

1. (guest)

Cookie wrote:I can now confirm my attendance and I would like to bring an industry guest if this is acceptable.

Is Phil's "guest" and Cookie's "guest" the same person? If not, do we know they happy to both attend the same tasting?

The guest listed in attendees is Cookie's; my planned surprise guest was the Bishop of Norwich who we have now invited to the Olympic tasting, so there is no clash.

PhilW wrote:Location: TBC (The Bunghole Cellars)

Less convenient than it once was. But I’m in.

My trip to Germany in late September has now been cancelled. If there is still space at the table, please could I attend?

AHB wrote:My trip to Germany in late September has now been cancelled. If there is still space at the table, please could I attend?

Of course we have a couple of spots remaining if we do have any additional interest.

Draft placements here. Currently configured as one sheet of Warre, one sheet of Fonseca; considered alternative of keeping years side by side instead.

Jolly good, though ‟Warre” needs some kerning: [(W) {-0.09 Kern} (arre)], though I haven’t tested whether -0.09 is optimal.

And pre-pour and cork-display sheets might, or might not, be wanted.

Having received confirmation I can now declare my guest as the eminent wine writer and broadcaster
Jancis Robinson MW.

Cookie wrote:Having received confirmation I can now declare my guest as the eminent wine writer and broadcaster
Jancis Robinson MW.

Ooer! Looking forward to meeting HRH

jdaw1 wrote:Jolly good, though ‟Warre” needs some kerning: [(W) {-0.09 Kern} (arre)], though I haven’t tested whether -0.09 is optimal.

agree, will experiment; Also the inner W seems too close to the outer circles, though fine for the F; could add a gap inside the outer ring text, but really would only need it for the Warre, which might not be possible with current parameter set? I'll experiment with this also.

And pre-pour and cork-display sheets might, or might not, be wanted.

deliberately omitted on both counts since the majority of people will be supplying 1 bottle to the event, so I was considering asking people to bring their pre-decanted bottles (as per normal informal) rather then pre-collecting; on reflection though it's probably better to have the extra sheets and not need them than to find they would be useful on the night and not have them... I'll enable them in next draft.

PhilW wrote:Also the inner W seems too close to the outer circles, though fine for the F; could add a gap inside the outer ring text, but really would only need it for the Warre, which might not be possible with current parameter set? I'll experiment with this also.

Try something like /ExclusionAnnulusProportionInnerRadiusTitlesAboveBelow 0.02 def, which won’t affect the F but will affect the W.

If preferred this could be code: /ExclusionAnnulusProportionInnerRadiusTitlesAboveBelow {Titles WithinTitles get 0 1 getinterval (W) eq {0.02} {0} ifelse} def.

I would very much like to attend, provided there's availability of course. Having never attended one before, it seems like a great way to get my port tasting feet wet. I can sponsor a bottle purchased retail if gaps still exist and of course top up to the overall cost per head of £125, should that be required.

Please let me know.

Thanks
Magnus