2001 Champalimaud
Posted: 22:28 Mon 12 Apr 2021
I have reported elsewhere (here) that I am highly partial to the 1989 Champalimaud; it is found readily in Portugal for a modest tariff and makes a fine cellar defender. The 1995 effort by this same producer is likewise agreeable. In the event, my first tasting of the 2001 Champalimaud constituted a disappointment.
In the glass after a six-hour decant on 09 April 2021, the wine was brick in colour and largely opaque. The nose proved to be most distinguished, featuring as it did loads of prune and Turkish delight, with hints of spearmint, clove and nutmeg. At the fore-palate, all was likewise well: the aforementioned prune was coupled with an agreeable mulberry. However, at the midway point and through the back the constituent parts of this wine fell out of harmony. To be sure, there were touches of cinnamon, nutmeg and orange pith, though these were complemented by a viscosity level redolent of tap water. And the port was so dry that dust was left on the tongue; it made the Dow’s style seem like Pedro Ximénez sherry. The finish itself was pleasant, insofar as the spices lingered nicely on the palate once the salivary glands had shaken off the dryness and resumed regular service.
I have found this curate’s egg of a port to be difficult to score, given its unusual mix of appealing and disagreeable features. A further complication is my suspicion that this pedestrian effort by Miguel Champalimaud is on a downward slope. Try the 2001 Champalimaud if you must, though you must not seek it out.
-87 points
In the glass after a six-hour decant on 09 April 2021, the wine was brick in colour and largely opaque. The nose proved to be most distinguished, featuring as it did loads of prune and Turkish delight, with hints of spearmint, clove and nutmeg. At the fore-palate, all was likewise well: the aforementioned prune was coupled with an agreeable mulberry. However, at the midway point and through the back the constituent parts of this wine fell out of harmony. To be sure, there were touches of cinnamon, nutmeg and orange pith, though these were complemented by a viscosity level redolent of tap water. And the port was so dry that dust was left on the tongue; it made the Dow’s style seem like Pedro Ximénez sherry. The finish itself was pleasant, insofar as the spices lingered nicely on the palate once the salivary glands had shaken off the dryness and resumed regular service.
I have found this curate’s egg of a port to be difficult to score, given its unusual mix of appealing and disagreeable features. A further complication is my suspicion that this pedestrian effort by Miguel Champalimaud is on a downward slope. Try the 2001 Champalimaud if you must, though you must not seek it out.
-87 points