ThePortForum.com

In a bottle of Fonseca 1963 was a question rather than a certain answer:

jdaw1 wrote: ↑12:45 Sat 17 Feb 2018Are the 1963s coming into their second wind?

Recognising that this scientific question needed scientific experiment, a round dozen of us gathered to test some 1963s.

Links:

• Review of the event as a whole;
• 1963 Fonseca;
• 1963 Taylor;
• 1963 Croft;
• 1963 Dow;
• 1963 Graham;
• 1963 Warre;
• 1963 Cockburn;
• 1963 Cálem Quinta da Foz;
• 1963 Constantino;
• 1963 Mackenzie;
• 1963 Niepoort;
• 1963 Quinta do Noval;
• 1963 Offley Boa Vista;
• 1963 Ramos Pinto;
• Placemats (and parameters by which made);
• Food order;
• Planning and arrangements.

Very faulty; yuck.
Rating: not rated.

20% opacity copper orange. Lively nose, slightly sharp. Fruit almost gone, what's there is very extracted citrus, perhaps orange. Sharp bitterness along the palate. Tom said probably lightstruck, which would be consistent with the colour. Not so badly flawed to be undrinkable, but I did leave most of my glass as it didn't have much going for it.

O63: orange, 15% opaque. Nose very faint with hint of grapefruit. Palate very acidic, tangerine, and the ending very acidic.

Bottled by Grants of St James. Orange-amber colour, surprisingly pale at 20% opacity. Pleasantly floral on the nose at first but a swirl generates a tone of rich cape gooseberry. Smooth in texture on the palate, feeling luxurious. Lightly flavoured at first but develops on the late palate. Unfortunately the late palate is harsh and bitter with some tertiary fruit showing on an otherwise dried and tannic set of flavours. Some heat and burnt orange showed on the aftertaste. There was some speculation that this bottle was light damaged. 76/100.