There may need to be a recount though. The 1945 totals 9.5 not 10.5, which creates a tie with the 1900.
But also, Charles has only scored 5, while Michael M has scored 7. I think I know why - Charles initially scored 5 points and then said "come back in a moment for the final point", and then he gave an extra half to a couple of wines. Those extra halves have been added to Michael M's wines...
So I think Michael M should show 1 each for the 1945 and 1948, and Charles should show 1.5 for the 1948 and 1.5 for the 1935. Which if correct means the 1948 still ends up with 11, the 1945 scores 9, and the 1935 scores 12.5. Which results in 1912, 1935, 1948, 1900, 1945.
flash_uk wrote: ↑06:28 Tue 14 Oct 2025
There may need to be a recount though. The 1945 totals 9.5 not 10.5, which creates a tie with the 1900.
But also, Charles has only scored 5, while Michael M has scored 7. I think I know why - Charles initially scored 5 points and then said "come back in a moment for the final point", and then he gave an extra half to a couple of wines. Those extra halves have been added to Michael M's wines...
So I think Michael M should show 1 each for the 1945 and 1948, and Charles should show 1.5 for the 1948 and 1.5 for the 1935. Which if correct means the 1948 still ends up with 11, the 1945 scores 9, and the 1935 scores 12.5. Which results in 1912, 1935, 1948, 1900, 1945.
I've held a quick recount.
Mike is correct in that Charles's late allocation of two half points was credited to Michael's column. These were half points allocated to 1935 and 1945. With this correction, everyone cast votes for 6 points.
There were 11 voters in the end, so 66 points should be expected from the wines. My initial maths on the night adds up to 67 points.
The final result after a recount, in reverse points order, is as follows:
1942 - flawed
1884 - 0
1890 - 0
1896 - 0
1917 - 0
1927 - ½ point
1878 - ½ point and 4 honourable mentions
1924 - 1½ points
1920 - 3½ point and 1 honourable mention
1908 - 5 points
1945 - 9½ points
1900 - 9½ points and 1 honourable mention
1948 - 11 points
1935 - 12 points
1912 - 13 points
In vintage order the results were:
1878 - ½ point and 4 honourable mentions
1884 - 0
1890 - 0
1896 - 0
1900 - 9½ points and 1 honourable mention
1908 - 5 points
1912 - 13 points
1917 - 0
1920 - 3½ point and 1 honourable mention
1924 - 1½ points
1927 - ½ point
1935 - 12 points
1942 - flawed
1945 - 9½ points
1948 - 11 points
Top Ports in 2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2025: Quevedo 1972 Colheita, b.2024. Just as good as Niepoort 1900!
After a challenging journey into town, I arrived at the Noble Rot in Mayfair, the venue for big question of is this the Swankiest Port Tasting Ever by The Port Forum Taylor 1878 to 1948?
The private room is downstairs and has a great little decanting area in it. When I arrived downstairs to see the port tongs being readied with a blowtorch, a lineup of incredibly old bottles on the sideboard, just missing mine and an ice buck needing Cliff’s champagne which I was transporting placed in it. I thought this is going to be great evening and worth the challenges of getting there. The decanting started, with the 48 already being decanted, it left the 45 and 35 to be decanted before dinner, the rest of the bottles were being tonged for decanting after dinner. Then a surprised guest walked in Mike, this was a thank you for organising the 1970 event. This still left us with over a magnum per head with Cliff’s extras.
The champagne was Winston Churchill Pol Roger 2002 in Magnum. It was very good, had balance, with a light tropical finish, but this is heading the next state of life for me, to a style I do not really enjoy I would drink this up. Please remember I am not the biggest fan of champagne with this review. The food, you must have the Parmesan Gougère as a little snack, these are incredibly delicious, then I had the starter of the scallops which had a lovely sauce to go with them, went perfectly with the champagne.
The 27 was decanted between courses.
The main was Whole Roast Suckling Pig with Champagne Choucroute and mash potato. What great flavours this has with wonderful crisping crackling and juicy meat. I do love this and have a little bit of a weakness for it. As a little surprise there was no comments about fries! We had alongside a 1985 Bartolo Mascarello, Barolo in magnum, lovely fruit with good balance, light tannins, mid to long finish, classic Barolo, excellent.
It was decided that we would have dessert in the middle of the tasting and move onto the ports, but Cliff had bought a sweet, this was 1920 Enrico Serafino, Passito Erbaluce, a lovely richness and elegant with balance, nice easy drinking, very good. While tasting this we finished decanting the ports.
The ports were passed around the table and poured, what great colours for the age of ports.
With the voting, I gave my scores to the wine when I felt it was at its peak and then points came from them.
1878 – recorked
Needed 30 mins in the glass to really open up, lovely dry old fruit, good balance with a mid length finish. This did not have the sweetness of that you normal expect from modern Taylor’s it was a little more like Dow’s. a complete wine, very good, just a little too old for me, to make it excellent. Very Good Hon Mention
1884 – believed to be Taylor, nothing on the cork
The cork had broken in half at some point, general view was most likely on the travel up or when tonging. The bottle had very thick glass, once the cork was pushed out there was nothing on it.
This was a very odd port for me, darker in colour to the rest of the 19th century ports, I high hopes on first sip, rich fruit, but no balance and a short finish, must come back to this, after 20 minutes it had got worst and fallen apart. Poor
1890
Had dry old fruit, not really balanced, there was a bit of bitterness in the finish. This was just old, past it best and was no longer interesting. Did not get better with time but didn’t fall away quickly. No faults for me, just too old. Average
1896
Got heat overpowering whatever fruit was left. This heat never went away. It was just a little odd. Average
1900
Lovely dry fruit with perfect balance, what a long finish, no heat. Just wow! Is this really been in bottle for 113 years. No sweetness, dry style again. What really surprised me was how long this lasted a good 2 hours. A complete joy to drink. Outstanding 2 points
1908
Took 30mins to open up and lose the heat. Then had lovely fruit with good balance, mid length finish, very enjoyable, Excellent
1912
Rich red fruit, lovely balance, great long finish. This was a change in style with a touch of sweetness coming in, more red fruit showing. Classical modern Taylor in style Got better and better as the evening went on. Excellent to outstanding. Hon Mention
1917
Red old fruit, good balance but a little bit of bitterness in the short finish. Good
1920
Lovely rich red fruit with good balance and a mid length finish, just didn’t have the staying power in the finish for that next step. Lovely drinking. Excellent
1924
Good rich red fruit, great balance, a touch of tannins (for a short time), mid to long finish. Just preferred to the 1920. Excellent
1927
At the start had a little heat this took around half an hour to disappear. Good rich red fruit, great balance, mid to long finish. Just lacked a little power to make it a great. Excellent to outstanding. Hon Mention
1935
the 2 hours decant seemed to be perfect for this. wonderful rich red fruit with power, perfect balance, fantastic long finish. This was a wow port, a complete joy to drink. Truly outstanding. 2 points
1942
Sadly, this was faulty, took a sip of this and it was very dirty. N/A
1945
After a 2 hour decant this needed a little long to get to peak but happy with decant time. Great rich red fruit with power, great balance, long finish. Very enjoyable port. Outstanding. 1 point
1948
After a 2 hour decant this needed a little long to get to peak but happy with decant time. Great rich red fruit with power, great balance, long finish. Very enjoyable port. Outstanding. 1 point
Overall, this was a fantastic tasting/drinking experience of wonderful ports made by Taylor. This was the shipper that got me into port, (Taylor 1927). I had exceedingly high hopes for this tasting, and it delivered across the board.
I believe that Tom A had told me at the Christmas tasting that Taylor changed it style after 1908, on this basis, I’m going to break the tasting in half, pre 1908 and 1912 onwards. Starting with the 19th century ports, they were generally just old and tired, they had some fruit left but didn’t have the length to compete with a powerful fruity lineup across the rest of the ports it was going to be a challenge for them to show in their best in a very short window, there was an exception to the rule which was the 1900, but even this started to drop off after an hour in the glass. 1908 show well but not match on the ports around it. I do have to give an honourable mention to 1878, which was the best of the 19th century options, very drinkable and had the most staying power.
We seemed to get to the big guns in the second half of the vintages. The 1912 onwards was this change in style to the rich red fruit and sweetness, I can see why others love the 1912 but for me there was a clear winner in this group of the 1935 this was just exceptional and outstanding. I could have sat there and drunk the whole bottle, there was no drop off throughout the evening. I am going to have to do the battle of the titans, Fonseca 34 vs the Taylor 35 one evening. This created a challenge for me because it had completely outshone the lovely, delicious ports from the 20s, which I would have been over the moon drinking on any other time but just outshone by the powerhouses of the 35, 45 and 48. I was a little disappointed that the 27 wasn’t even close to these powerhouses. I do feel the 20s do need drinking up now unless planned to be left for the next generation to try, like someone must have done with the 19th century ports we were lucky enough to try. The 1945 was as fantastic as always, what a fantastic port such a joy to drink, 3 hours decant is about perfect for this. The 1948, this was great bottle, I just preferred the 45 but not enough to move away from equal points. These 2 ports from the 40’s are going to give me joy over my lifetime, no rush but it is time to enjoy them now, I don’t think they will get better at the same time they aren’t going to start falling down anytime soon.
I do feel honoured to have been at this tasting with this lineup, there was very little left in glasses at the end, only a couple of ports falling apart too quickly. I do find the very old stuff interesting, but it did reinforce my view of for a wonderful, lovely drinking port there is a real sweet spot for me, 50 to 90 years old. Wow I have been lucky in life to have this view!
Interesting read, thanks to Harry for posting the pics and detailed review. The wines were clearly in fantastic condition for their age; the 1900 stood out to me in particular for its colour from the bottle photos before the event; glad to hear how well the wines showed, sounds like a great evening.
