ThePortForum.com

Very proud to have spilt this all over the tablecloth once I was told it cost £300 a bottle.

Best thing for it.

Not a patch on the 1998 Batailley we had blind next to it. A true gentleman amongst wines. I didn't spill a drop. And a sixth of the price!!

(Tonight was our 'Judgement of Belfast'. Unfortunately California won, across all wines.)

Not a good vintage of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, and it's Dominus (I assume the Estate and not the Napanook?)

Andy Velebil wrote:Oh, and it's Dominus (I assume the Estate and not the Napanook?)

Thank you. I think that was Autocorrect..

Thank you for correcting this. I assumed it was the Dominus. Not as good as the Batailley 98? Wow.

Really. At first it smelled supreme but it was too chunky, too overpowering. I have drunk almost no Napa Valley and looked forward to this. But the taste I can still recall, the curling smoky taste that I remember is that of the Batailley.

djewesbury wrote:At first it smelled supreme but it was too chunky, too overpowering.

Sounds like Napa, I know what you mean about being overwhelming. I wonder if we, being brought up on old world table wines, just can't get them. But then I drank Australian wines when I started, so that is not quite right. Also it is a bit odd for people who have come together because we like port should object to 'chunky'. I was told that Dominus is more elegant than most Napa wines, sounds like I had better stick to Ridge as my sole foray into California.

I'm sorry it was the last wine of the evening as it meant I didn't take a more detailed note. I think we as Port lovers like large fruit flavours but not when they are too blocky. This was not my cup of tea is all I can tell you. It was too domineering.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:At first it smelled supreme but it was too chunky, too overpowering.

Sounds like Napa, I know what you mean about being overwhelming. I wonder if we, being brought up on old world table wines, just can't get them. But then I drank Australian wines when I started, so that is not quite right. Also it is a bit odd for people who have come together because we like port should object to 'chunky'. I was told that Dominus is more elegant than most Napa wines, sounds like I had better stick to Ridge as my sole foray into California.

Having had a fair amount from this producer over the years, this is not a good vintage of this and thus not a good representation. Please don't make broad assessments based on one not so good vintage of a wine. That's like saying the Douro makes bad Port because you had a poor bottle of 1983 Royal Oporto VP.

And really, being brought up on old world table wines I assume the "experts" at the Judgement of Paris were brought up on old world table wine and they couldn't sort what was Napa and what was BDX. The silliest thing I hear people say all the time.

But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

djewesbury wrote:But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

Napa is by no means alone if that is the case.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

Napa is by no means alone if that is the case.

Oh quite, and a look on wine searcher suggests that it is not a expensive as Daniel suggests.

However I was simply wondering aloud why I found Napa valley wines a bit too much, I think I discounted most of my own arguments.

Andy Velebil wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:At first it smelled supreme but it was too chunky, too overpowering.

Sounds like Napa, I know what you mean about being overwhelming. I wonder if we, being brought up on old world table wines, just can't get them. But then I drank Australian wines when I started, so that is not quite right. Also it is a bit odd for people who have come together because we like port should object to 'chunky'. I was told that Dominus is more elegant than most Napa wines, sounds like I had better stick to Ridge as my sole foray into California.

Having had a fair amount from this producer over the years, this is not a good vintage of this and thus not a good representation. Please don't make broad assessments based on one not so good vintage of a wine. That's like saying the Douro makes bad Port because you had a poor bottle of 1983 Royal Oporto VP.

And really, being brought up on old world table wines I assume the "experts" at the Judgement of Paris were brought up on old world table wine and they couldn't sort what was Napa and what was BDX. The silliest thing I hear people say all the time.

Nearly as silly as the man who once suggested that the 2007 ports were bound to be good because they once stood next to a vat of it and it looked nice, eh Andy.

Did Winesearcher show you the price in Northern Ireland?

djewesbury wrote:Did Winesearcher show you the price in Northern Ireland?

No, I just typed it in and looked at the results.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

Napa is by no means alone if that is the case.

Oh quite, and a look on wine searcher suggests that it is not a expensive as Daniel suggests.

However I was simply wondering aloud why I found Napa valley wines a bit too much, I think I discounted most of my own arguments.

Andy Velebil wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:At first it smelled supreme but it was too chunky, too overpowering.

Sounds like Napa, I know what you mean about being overwhelming. I wonder if we, being brought up on old world table wines, just can't get them. But then I drank Australian wines when I started, so that is not quite right. Also it is a bit odd for people who have come together because we like port should object to 'chunky'. I was told that Dominus is more elegant than most Napa wines, sounds like I had better stick to Ridge as my sole foray into California.

Having had a fair amount from this producer over the years, this is not a good vintage of this and thus not a good representation. Please don't make broad assessments based on one not so good vintage of a wine. That's like saying the Douro makes bad Port because you had a poor bottle of 1983 Royal Oporto VP.

And really, being brought up on old world table wines I assume the "experts" at the Judgement of Paris were brought up on old world table wine and they couldn't sort what was Napa and what was BDX. The silliest thing I hear people say all the time.

Nearly as silly as the man who once suggested that the 2007 ports were bound to be good because they once stood next to a vat of it and it looked nice, eh Andy.

Actually because I put my stinky toes in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

Napa is by no means alone if that is the case.

Now you know how we feel when it comes to prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andy Velebil wrote:Actually because I put my stinky toes in it.

Good comeback! You may have just sold some 07 port right there. Do tell; what cuvée toe jam is your release being marketed as?

djewesbury wrote:But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

I have to repeat the question. I seriously would love to know (notwithstanding variable estimates on actual price).

Andy Velebil wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:But is it a bad vintage, at £300 a pop?

Napa is by no means alone if that is the case.

Now you know how we feel when it comes to prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes but it's easier for us. We just don't buy it.

LGTrotter wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:Actually because I put my stinky toes in it.

Good comeback! You may have just sold some 07 port right there. Do tell; what cuvée toe jam is your release being marketed as?

There are multiple vintages of AVTJ. No doubt you have already drunk some of them.

Correction due. Rachel tells me that the vintage we drunk was indeed a £300 vintage and not the 98. I am awaiting confirmation of what exactly it was.

djewesbury wrote:Correction due. Rachel tells me that the vintage we drunk was indeed a £300 vintage and not the 98. I am awaiting confirmation of what exactly it was.

Thanks, that's great. Apostrophe crimes needs augmenting with a vintage crimes supplement. Time for another brandy.

No. I have received confirmation. It was the 98.