We haven’t been drinking vast quantities over the festive period, so what better way to get really newscasted on New Year’s Day than a bottle of Port? Taylor’s 1975 may have seen better days, but provided pleasure.

Drinking this on 1st January 2012 allowed us to toast the good health of all 36 (and a small number of 37) year olds. I know a good number of 75-kids and I’m pleased they all seem more sprightly with longer futures ahead of them than this wine. A much better vintage for people than for Port.

Taylor’s vintage Port 1975

This has a very subtle, delicate nose of softly scented fruit. It smells like it has had a lot of oxygen influence, more tawny than vintage Port, really. But not quite over-the-hill; there is enough life to the nose to make you want to try it. That being said, I bet this will fall apart within 15-20 minutes of opening^[1]. Hell’s fiery bell’s, the palate is amazingly spirity. There is a real burn to it. If you can get over that, the subtle fruitcake richness and lovely, delicate spicy flavours are very pleasing. It is complex enough, too, but that spirit burn is very intense and upsets the harmony. I’ve had this wine a tremendously large number of times (because my old college used to consider me worthy of buying it for almost no money) and I’d suggest it was best 10-15 years ago. I know a lot of vintage Port fans are necrophiliacs and so would disagree with that, but hell’s bells man, don’t you like a bit of life with your wine, some vivacity? No? Then waste your wines and don’t force me to drink them. I’m not going to say they are ‘decadent’ or anything silly like that anyway. Still, there is pleasure here and as this is well-known to be a lesser vintage it was far from expensive. Fun enough to drink, I did get newscasted and it did fall apart in 20 minutes. Well done everyone who likes Port, was born in 1975, or is simply enjoying life right now!

1. ^[1] Whilst at Oxford I would frequently talk to wine butlers who would decant venerable port vintages from the 40s and 50s the morning before they’d be served at dinner. This horrific waste of brilliant wine disgusted me and when one loathsome wine steward told me how much he preferred the ‘dryness’ of Fonseca 1945 after many hours in a decanter to the fruit when it was just opened I should have got the fucker committed.
   Or killed him.
   I still hate him.
   The gobshite. ↩

Related posts:

• Two of the most hilarious things I will ever own
• Couture has a bargain! I’m dumb-struck
• My birthday present from our guests

This was published on Elitistreview

Part two of my report on the Ile d’Amour larks is about the red wines. Edward has a bit of a thing for Claret, which my long-term reader will know I view as over-priced, over-hyped and just so god-damned dreary. But I liked the two he popped (hmmmm… liked? Perhaps ‘endured with a smile’). The Beaucastel reminded me why I used to buy the stuff and also that it can be a solidly enjoyable drink. It had characters reminiscent of the 1981 we must have drank fifteen-odd bottles of whilst students with access to historically-priced supplies from college cellars.

It was certainly a delight to share a bottle of Port that was totally mature and showing impressively well. Now all the old wine team lads and lasses have dispersed across the globe one doesn’t get much chance to revel in the sharp-end of Port experiences all that often. That Fonseca 77 was brill.

Chateauneuf-du-Pape 1995, Château de Beaucastel

When at the right age, Beaucastel can be gloriously scented with titillating meat and herbal aromas – this is just getting into that zone. And yes, I cannot deny there is a suggestion here of the tonnes of sheep shit the Perrin brothers dump on their vineyards. That is ok, though, as when there is the brooding Mourvedre darkness coupled with the plummy fruit of Grenache and peppery spice of Syrah (and Christ knows what characters from the 10 other grape varieties included) the sheep shit seems a mere drop in the ocean of an intricate and compelling whole. It is great that at Beaucastel they don’t feel the need to make their wines from grapes so ripe they’d revolt a raisin producer, the alcohol level is just fine. I do like the texture of the tannins, which have some soft mature characters but enough rigour to keep everything lively and energetic. More of that good meat action to the mouth-feel as well, and a very satisfying savoury character. Getting into its stride but no rush at all to drink. Chateauneuf done properly: not 15.5% of alcohol-fuelled, palate-annihilating terror but richly structured and complexity suffused with abundant charm.

Cos d’Estournel 1988

Mr T and I used to drink this embarrassingly frequently thanks to Christ Church^[1] before we got old and spent, which probably accounts for my impressive identification ability when served this bottle blind. If you are obliged to drink Claret best that it has some elegance and refinement to it, which I think this does. It is a classically structured Bordeaux, robust tannins support ripe but definitely not jam-tastic fruit and its acid-level isn’t that of a stewed, soupy wine contrived from obscenely over-ripe grapes. Cedar-wood characters present, I fancy, which there should be with Claret in good health. Even given my virulent enmity toward Claret I cannot deny quite liking this, but it is really very far from an unchaste romp in a hayloft with a curvaceous consort in terms of the sort of pleasure I’d prefer my wine experiences to lavish upon my meriting palate.

Château Palmer 1964 – half bottle

Hooray! One of Edward’s risky purchases was a success! A soft, scented nose of mature fruit and plenty of earthy richness. OK, there is some dry dustiness to it, but I’m getting enough fun sniffing this to merit the few notes it was secured for. The palate is a bit dry as well, but more than enough soft plummy fruit to hold one’s interest. I’m also quite impressed by how this is lasting in the glass, it really isn’t falling apart in moments which is what I would expect from a half-bottle of Claret this old. Yeah, good. I suppose it’d be a statement of the bleeding obvious to say, “Drink up”.

Vintage Port 1977, Fonseca

Now Port is large-scale wine done properly and this is in super condition. The fruit is very ripe, round and stylish, but it is not buxom to the extent of having its complexity driven out of it by a misguided quest for massive vinous bouncers – indeed there is sophistication here in abundance. I love the contrast between its soft maturity and the thrilling fiery edge. The palate is really rather silky and beguiling for such a powerful wine from a structured vintage. Even though it has manifest scale I am drinking this with delightful ease and it is such a pleasure I’ll welcome the undoubted pounding head when I stir at four in the morning. A really top Port of definite class which is drinking superbly well now.

Many thanks for hosting us, Edward and Kathryn, it was great to see you both and finally get to meet Lydia. We also were rather taken with Casper the kitten. We’d be very happy if we could engineer seeing you all with less of a gap than the one before this trip (volcanoes permitting).

1. ^[1] Speaking of college cellars Mr T’s frequent and disgracefully affordable access to Figeac 85 and La Mission Haut-Brion 83 was nearly enough to make a Pinotophile prematurely bald with worries about the veracity of their aesthetic ideals. ↩

Related posts:

• Two of the most hilarious things I will ever own
• A few days drinking in Jersey part 1 – the whites
• Couture has a bargain! I’m dumb-struck

This was published on Elitistreview

The local ‘priced like Harrods’ shop in our development had this at a very reasonable price. I think a bottle of port is a hilarious thing to be drinking of an afternoon.

Vintage Port 1997, Dow’s

An explosive nose of powerful fruit which has a hint of softness from age. It is a rich, heady, expressive nose with fruit cake characters and a real booze-licious whack. But that is what you want with Port. It is really quite sweet with lots of ripe fruit on the palate. More of that fruit cake here. The tannins are huge and incredibly ripe, so this seems balanced despite its excess. This is a bounteous, buxom wine which we are drinking a bit young. Young it may be but it is one hell of a lot of fun (see theory below).

So, my theory about big new world wines: If you like these 14.5%+ Australian Shirazes and Californian Zinfandels you should really be drinking Port. That style of wine is all about excessive fruit, alcohol and often tannin. If you like this then Port will provide you much more of the same. If you grab them young they are great entities of excessive intensity and I’d argue that they are more fun than the Shirazes and Zinfandels because they go up to eleven.

Related posts:

• Two of the most hilarious things I will ever own
• The fire and the delicacy
• My birthday present from our guests

This was published on Elitistreview

We had a dinner party last night which was not entirely successful. Our guests brought some lovely wines, but most of the stuff I opened was either awful or downright weird.

Riesling Serriger Schloss Saarsteiner Kabinett 2005, Schloss Saarstein

Still a bit yeasty on the nose. It had some good fruit and acidity, but not much in the way of minerality. It was also quite short. A passable drink but really quite dull.

Riesling Bernkasteler Lay Spätlese 1997, Wwe. Dr H Thanisch – Erben Thanisch

Lovely fruit on the nose, real minerality here too. This smells quite ripe but it has a pleasing purity of flavour. Great acidity on the palate, with good fruit and great minerality. Despite its good acidity this seemed reasonably buxom for a Thanisch wine. It didn’t show much in the way of maturity, it’ll last years yet. Quite delicious.

Chassagne-Montrachet Premier Cru Grandes Ruchottes 2000, Château de Maltroye

This had a really odd nose of unripe pear fruit and children’s glue. It was really unattractive. It tasted of glue too which didn’t make it terribly enjoyable to drink. So we didn’t drink it.

Gevrey-Chambertin Premier Cru les Cazetiers 2002, Armand Rousseau

A beautiful nose of pure, refined Pinot fruit. The purity and harmony of the nose was most pleasing. On the palate the fruit was nice and ripe, with perfect acid levels and a good, long finish. It was really quite complex with a good harmony between its flavours. This had a really good Gevrey character, and it was very Rousseau too. A lovely wine, great fun to drink now but clearly has the potential to age very well.

Volnay Premier Cru les Caillerets 2002, Michel Lafarge

The nose of this was extremely refined and sparkled with lovely fruit and a real Volnay purity. It was clearly extremely complex and completely charming. On the palate there were lovely, detailed, refined flavours and it had a wonderful silky texture. The balance was superb and it had a very long, complex finish. Very stylish too. I really like Lafarge wines and this was certainly up to his very high standards.

Brunello di Montalcino Riserva Poggio All’Oro 1997, Castello Banfi

This smelled just like a super-ripe, extremely oaky Syrah, this didn’t inspire confidence that it’d be good. There was no harmony or refinement to the nose, it was simply big. The palate was bloody awful, hugely extracted with dry tannins and frightening levels of acidity. It was certainly lacking fruit and was not balanced. No.

Gevrey-Chambertin Premier Cru Clos St. Jacques 2002, Sylvie Esmonin

Really ripe on the nose; blackberry fruit. The palate was quite a mouthful: loads of fruit, good extract and plenty of acidity. This was a lot bigger than I would have expected, but it seemed in reasonable harmony, though. I thought the finish was really pretty good with reasonably complex flavours persisting. Even though this was not typical, I thought it was quite a good wine.

Vintage Port 1983, Taylor’s

For a Taylor’s Port this had a very refined nose, it wasn’t the usual explosion of intensity. The fruit was good, and quite mature. Again there was refinement on the palate, not fiery at all. Good mature fruit and nice length. This was very enjoyable and fully mature.

Related posts:

• Thursday’s Chablis comparison and other wines
• After visiting Roulot we drank the following
• Dinner at Jeremy and Diana’s

This was published on Elitistreview

Two magnums of Port! Hooray!

Good Port, too. 2003 was a great vintage for Port and who could possibly sniff at Taylor’s and Fonseca? Now all I have to do is hope I last long enough for them to be ready. I’ll need some help to finish magnums of Port so I hope all of my friends don’t start hating me.

Related posts:

• My birthday present from our guests
• Couture has a bargain! I’m dumb-struck
• The fire and the delicacy

This was published on Elitistreview