Quinta dos Malvedos: 22nd March 2010

[DRT]

In case anyone is stressing that we may not have enough Port for 22nd March, the missing vintages of Malvedos are:

Graham Malvedos 1950
Graham Malvedos 1951
Graham Malvedos 1952
Graham Malvedos 1953
Graham Malvedos 1954
Graham Malvedos 1961
Graham Malvedos 1992
Graham Malvedos 1995 or 1996
Graham Malvedos 1999
Graham Malvedos 2005

We are therefore a mere 10 bottles away from a complete vertical. Do I really need to start quoting Rule 48?

[jdaw1]

At 165 pages, the Malvedos placemats are the longest print yet, stuffing the 156-page 1970 horizontal.

[jdaw1]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

[DRT]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

[DRT]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

Sorry, just got it. Rule 47(d)?

[Andy Velebil]

I hereby invoke Rule 47(b): If a member suggests adding a bottle to a tasting and no member objects prior to the Placemats being updated all subsequent objections are null and void.

If a member suggests adding a bottle to a tasting, and that bottle fits the theme of the tasting (such as being ‟vintage port”), and that bottle won’t embarrass a wine-maker who is present, the answer is yes.

Due to the clear and overwhelming concensus of opinion that it is the right thing to do, I have taken the liberty of adding GM98 to the line-up in the opening post of this thread.

Outstanding of you to do this and it will be well received on Monday

[jdaw1]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

Sorry, just got it. Rule 47(d)?

Describe the occasions on which we ‟have shared these two ports”.

[DRT]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

Sorry, just got it. Rule 47(d)?

Describe the occasions on which we ‟have shared these two ports”.

We haven't. So Rule 47(d) applies and we must have both.

[DRT]

In case anyone is stressing that we may not have enough Port for 22nd March, the missing vintages of Malvedos are:

Graham Malvedos 1950
Graham Malvedos 1951
Graham Malvedos 1952
Graham Malvedos 1953
Graham Malvedos 1954
Graham Malvedos 1961
Graham Malvedos 1992
Graham Malvedos 1995 or 1996
Graham Malvedos 1999
Graham Malvedos 2005

We are therefore a mere 10 bottles away from a complete vertical. Do I really need to start quoting Rule 48?

Please note that AHB (aka "Mr Sensible and Restrained") is out of the country and apparently unable to access - So, there is no one around to stop us adding more bottles in a fit of over enthusiasm.

Wine Searcher reveals that the 92, 95, 96 and 99 are all available in either the UK or Germany at reasonable cost. We seem to be stuffed on the other 6 unless someone has them in their own cellar?

[jdaw1]

Updated current draft of the placemats:

• The ‟1995 or 1996” is 1996. Wine-Searcher doesn’t know of a GM95 anywhere.

[JacobH]

I think this tasting has just accidentally ended up as large as the Cockburn one...

[jdaw1]

Larger, IIRC.

[DRT]

But not nearly as large as the 1970, so not at risk of inducing palate fatigue.

[jdaw1]

But not nearly as large as the 1970, so not at risk of inducing palate fatigue.

But that was a horizontal completely different and so utterly non-comparable.

[Chris Doty]

Please add the 1999 to the list.

[jdaw1]

The Ports: (with thanks to the Symington Family Estates for helping us track many of the more obscure bottles)

1. 1955 Graham
2. 1957 Malvedos
3. 1958 Malvedos
4. 1962 Malvedos
5. 1964 Malvedos
6. 1965 Malvedos
7. 1966 Graham
8. 1968 Malvedos
9. 1970 Graham
10. 1976 Malvedos
11. 1978 Malvedos
12. 1979 Malvedos
13. 1982 Malvedos
14. 1984 Malvedos
15. 1985 Graham
16. 1986 Malvedos
17. 1987 Malvedos
18. 1988 Malvedos
19. 1990 Malvedos
20. 1996 Malvedos
21. 1998 Malvedos
22. 1999 Malvedos
23. 2001 Malvedos
24. 2004 Malvedos
25. 2006 Malvedos
26. 2008 Malvedos (work in progress; may not be the final blend if / when a Malvedos 2008 is produced)

I have been putting the break between the sessions at ’79/’82. Objections?

[DRT]

I just spoke to Axel: he will be bringing 2 half bottles of Malvedos 1992 and 2 half bottles of Malvedos 95 on Monday

The missing vintages are now:

Graham Malvedos 1950
Graham Malvedos 1951
Graham Malvedos 1952
Graham Malvedos 1953
Graham Malvedos 1954
Graham Malvedos 1961
Graham Malvedos 2005

I have a very tenuous lead on a 1961 but am not hopeful at all. The other oldies just don't seem to be out there and the 2005 hasn't been released so I think we are done. Not too shaby

[jdaw1]

Updated current draft of the placemats:

• +1992;
• +1995;
• +1999.

First session twelve ports; second sixteen. Objections?

[DRT]

First session twelve ports; second sixteen. Objections?

I am starting to wonder whether or not the Graham's Vintages should be served as a separate mini-flight, perhaps at the dinner table?

[Chris Doty]

That's a very interesting question, and I will most happily defer to the judgment of the port gurus, but my initial thought on this is to keep them where they are.

The primary line of reasoning is that horizontals of Grahams in themselves are not entirely uncommon, whereas being able to taste the Malvedos wines from the same decades as their big brothers would be a pretty unusual and neat experience that would shed light both on Malvedos as well as the Grahams VP.

Just my 2p

[JacobH]

First session twelve ports; second sixteen. Objections?

I am starting to wonder whether or not the Graham's Vintages should be served as a separate mini-flight, perhaps at the dinner table?

I would be quite strongly in favour of tasting the normal Graham Vintages against the Malvedos ones, rather than separately, so that we can compare the influence of one on the other and have a good benchmark by which to judge the Malvedos. That sort of comparison was something I felt we missed a bit at the Vargellas tasting.

We can certainly shuffle some Ports from the second session into the first, though it may not be a bad thing to have more in the second as it will be longer.

[Andy Velebil]

I agree about keeping the regular Graham's in vintage order with the Malvedos so we can compare the "big brother" against the "little brother."

I'd also recommend doing what we did for the Cockburn's tasting. Since there are so many vinatges, do the younger ones first, have a break (food, etc.) then do the older ones last. That way we can enjoy the older ones without having to worry about spitting them early on in the tasting if they are tasted first. And yes, I realize no one should spit, but since we're pushing 30 bottles that's a reality or none of us will make it till the end.

[Glenn E.]

but since we're pushing 30 bottles that's a reality or none of us will make it till the end.

Pfft! It's only 30 bottles for 14 people... you've done 18 bottles for 5 people before, so this should be easy!

[jdaw1]

Should I swap the two sessions so making the first session longer or have a new break, and if so, where? (Don’t forget that we now have ’92 and ’95 as well.)

[Chris Doty]

For 30 glasses of port...I'm gonna need a lot of chocolate and cheese.