ThePortForum.com

More complex, more spirited, and more structured than the basic 2007. Johnny Syms says this is 30% more expensive -- which I thought sounded precisely appropriate given the step up in quality.

90 pts

Wow. Very promising first taste of the 2007 vintage. Soft and approachable, but still rich and challenging. Quite a nice showing for something this young.

88 pts

This was difficult for me to drink, especially as late in the evening as it was. I thought this was closed, tannic, and generally bland. Not one of the stars of the night, but difficult to judge based on the hour, the fact that this was a mag, and just how young it is.

81 pts

Honestly, I was expecting a bit more from this (especially after having the 2004). Still a bit awkward, and perhaps a bit closed, this did not reveal as much intensity, complexity or structure as the 2003 or the 2000. Maybe great some day, but the jury is still out in my view. Still good, but the fu...

What a nice surprise this was! A bit gamey and beastly, but more accessible and polite than the 2003 and 2000. One of my favorites from the lesser years, and clearly something to seek out at an appropriate price whilst the 2000s and 2003s sleep.

89 pts

Wow! Another immense effort, and already showing balance and structure in a way that the 2000 isn't. Obviously tannic and difficult in the mouth, but this shows the potential to at least match the great 1994 if given enough time.

91+ pts (with significant upside)

Like the 95 following the 94, I found the 2001 a bit weak and uninteresting in every way. A bit of heat on the back-end also kept this from being a particularly enjoyable experience.

83 pts

Wow. Massive and untamed wine. Difficult to drink now, but showing great promise for the future. It was a bit hard for me to gauge the structure, and I'm worried it might be a bit all over the place, but clearly all the required elements are there.

90 pts with considerable upside.

Pretty rich and giving port, but a bit angular and surprisingly difficult to enjoy. Would like to taste again in 5+ years.

84 pts

I slightly preferred the 96, but I thought that the combination of the best elements from each would have made a smashing wine. This doesn't have the heat of the 96, but has lost some vibrance and flavor as a result.

86 pts

So...the only thing I wrote about this wine was 'meh' -- I remember it being pretty bland, dilute, and tannic without being flavorful. Among the less interesting wines of the night.

80 pts

I thought this was quite a nice effort -- but the spirit on the nose and the heat on the back-end keep this from being a classic wine in my view.

87 pts

Sadly, following the 94, this seemed particularly poor. A bit thin, simple, disjointed, and unmemorable. Maybe another decade under the influence will do it some good, but I'm not overly optimistic about my remaining bottle.

80 pts.

Ok -- NOW we're talking. On the nose, this to me IS the color purple. Everything I know about the color purple, from my earliest memories from childhood came through on the nose. Purple crayons from pre-school in particular. Great structure, balance, vigor, and intensity throughout. This is what gre...

Denser than all previous efforts. I got an almost meaty component on the nose (ground beef, anyone?) which was unexpected an interesting. This seemed better integrated than the 91, and while there is a clear spirit component in this one as well, the fruit and structure do a better job of containing ...

People seemed to find this more agreeable than I did. Starting to transition to a more port-like (i.e., darker) color, but still a touch lighter than you'd expected to find (especially for a generally declared vintage). A bit of spice on the nose (goal for the year -- get better at picking out indiv...

Again -- quite light in color. Started off a bit flat on the attack, but quickly proved to be much richer and sweeter to me than the 89. A touch mono-dimensional for sure, but that singular flavor profile is a bit of soft perfumed red fruits, which is tough to be angry with. Prefer this to the 89, b...

Quite light indeed -- would have believed you if you told me it was still red wine. Fairly soft on the nose, and a bit dull in the mouth. Grippy though -- in a way that turned out to be uncommon among the other vesuvios. Something more characteristic to me of 1983 Northern Rhone -- for some strange ...

How about the Noval 78? I don't think that has been spoken for -- and of the 85s I have, I don't think anyone so far is bringing Grahams.

How would those two serve?

Thanks Axel!

I have Dow, Fonseca, and Graham from 1985. Nothing that I am aware of from 78, and only some 87 halfs of Niepoort. But I am happy to source whatever makes sense.

Hi Axel,

This is the first time I'm seeing this -- but I'd be very interested in joining if there is still space.

Thanks

Thanks for the notes guys -- I had been under the impression that this was generally not a particularly good effort from Noval, and that it should only be viewed as attractive ~$65 -- it seems you guys were a bit more positive, no?

Hahaha -- actually, given the lower price points on the daily drinkers, I'd expect us to end up with 2-3 bottles per person. Perhaps a better name for the tasting could be 'best port value readily found under 20gbp' or something to that effect (i.e., being a bit more inclusive regarding eligibility)...

That's a good point Jacob -- and I would add as well that as technology improves, and the business of making ports continues to be refined, the quality (particularly at the lower level) continues to creep up. You rarely see complete plonk being bottled these days, even at the $15-$20 level.

I know we have a lot already on the docket for the coming weeks, but I thought I might humbly suggest some ideas for future tastings that could be interesting: 1.) Croft vs. Warre (66, 70, 77, 85 vintages, served head to head, single blind) 2.) Best 'daily drinker' (Quinta do Noval Black, Warre Warr...