1987 Dow Bomfim

[Will W.]

Aficionados of fine port will be aware of the fact that for well over a century Quinta do Bomfim has served as the bedrock of Dow’s vintage ports. Bottled with some regularity as a single quinta vintage since 1948, Bomfims are oftentimes very good and rarely disappoint. The 1987 Quinta do Bomfim which is the subject of this tasting note constituted no exception to this rule.

The bottle was opened on 26 April 2020 and decanted for seven-and-one-half hours. The wine was entirely opaque in the glass, being ruby in colour with the slightest hint of brown tempering the purple hue; failing eyes sensed a touch of pink on the rim. Initially, the nose struck me as being a touch understated. In the event, a bit of a swirl released all manner of delights: dark fruits were dominant, including blackberries, although hints of black honey, pine resin and chestnut flower were also discerned; the olfactory nerve was left with the impression of a port at the top of its game, albeit one that had not lost touch entirely with the vigour of youth. The mouth was treated to similar pleasures: a melange of dark fruits bathed the fore-palate in a most agreeable manner, giving way at the mid-point to prune compote and mild, complementary spices, not least the lightest dusting of cinnamon. It was at the mid-palate that the few discernible tannins became evident. Nothing of additional note appeared at the back; rather, the sensations which had presented themselves at the mid-point carried on to – and through – the finish. The latter was notable for its considerable length and gentility; it was bereft of astringency yet warmed the cheeks both inside and externally. There are few port makers who can perform this particular feat of magic.

The wine was balanced perfectly and quite dry, even by Dow standards; if it is not already at its peak, this port should be expected to arrive presently at its summit. Whereas the 1987 Quinta do Bomfim would appear to be about as good as it is ever going to be, I cannot help but feel that the score at which I arrived ultimately does not do justice to this wine. Put another way, I liked it a great deal more than the solid, albeit unspectacular numerical result would suggest.

-90.5 points

[PhilW]

I cannot help but feel that the score at which I arrived ultimately does not do justice to this wine. Put another way, I liked it a great deal more than the solid, albeit unspectacular numerical result would suggest.

If your feel the score you are giving does not appropriately match the wine you are tasting, then why are you giving it that score?
Perhaps the most obvious answer to that might be with a wine showing well but with a minor fault (e.g. delicious but marred by light TCA, so good otherwise), but I detect no obvious negatives or faults from your description. So why did you score it lower than you feel it deserved (or is this just re-assessment with hindsight)?

[Will W.]

I cannot help but feel that the score at which I arrived ultimately does not do justice to this wine. Put another way, I liked it a great deal more than the solid, albeit unspectacular numerical result would suggest.

If your feel the score you are giving does not appropriately match the wine you are tasting, then why are you giving it that score?
Perhaps the most obvious answer to that might be with a wine showing well but with a minor fault (e.g. delicious but marred by light TCA, so good otherwise), but I detect no obvious negatives or faults from your description. So why did you score it lower than you feel it deserved (or is this just re-assessment with hindsight)?

You are quite right, Phil, to have taken me to task on this matter.

I reckon that I have scored about 200 ports over the last three years (i.e., I feel that I am only starting to get the hang of it). Nineteen times out of twenty, the scores at which I arrive correspond to my overall impression. However, there is the occasional bottle where, having afforded five points for the appearance, fifteen points for the nose and so forth gives rise to a score at which the sum of the parts proves to be less than the impression of the whole. This is what happened with the 1987 Bomfim.

Having thought about your question a great deal since you posted it, I reckon - based on the suggestions of yourself and other TFP stalwarts who were kind enough to engage with me on this matter during a 'virtual' tasting - that there is no reason I cannot throw discretionary points onto a total score, where the initial tally does not do justice to the overall impression. I suppose that I could likewise withdraw the odd point or two, because I also find that I sometimes (albeit rarely) arrive at scores which strike me a touch high.