Niepoort Vintage Port 1987
Posted on 2 November 2009
Looks like the same wine:
And it is. But tasted three years apart, it
couldn’t show more differently.
couldn’t show more differently.
Wine is strange. I had two bottles of this 1987
in October 2006 and January 2007 (see review in Polish here, and pictures here), and thoroughly loved it. 1987 as a vintage doesn’t
enjoy a spectacular reputation for vintage port, and many producers did not ‘declare’
their flagship wine, released single-quinta wines instead (notably the
Symington estates, Fonseca and Taylor; the latter’s Quinta das Vargellas has
consistently shone in recent years). Niepoort didn’t hold back and I’m glad
they didn’t. Three years ago this wine was showing in absolutely top shape with
little agedness to it, citrusy freshness, stupendous balance and an absolutely
delightful ‘vinousness’ to it: it was tasting like a serious, brooding dry
Portuguese red with a few years of age, less sweet and liqueury than most ports
(a style I sometimes refer to as ‘Burgundian’ port). I really loved that
character and I loved the quality.
in October 2006 and January 2007 (see review in Polish here, and pictures here), and thoroughly loved it. 1987 as a vintage doesn’t
enjoy a spectacular reputation for vintage port, and many producers did not ‘declare’
their flagship wine, released single-quinta wines instead (notably the
Symington estates, Fonseca and Taylor; the latter’s Quinta das Vargellas has
consistently shone in recent years). Niepoort didn’t hold back and I’m glad
they didn’t. Three years ago this wine was showing in absolutely top shape with
little agedness to it, citrusy freshness, stupendous balance and an absolutely
delightful ‘vinousness’ to it: it was tasting like a serious, brooding dry
Portuguese red with a few years of age, less sweet and liqueury than most ports
(a style I sometimes refer to as ‘Burgundian’ port). I really loved that
character and I loved the quality.
I tasted this again from two bottles for the WINO Magazine awards. No aroma, no
flavour. High alcohol and a muddy, pilly kind of sweetness. An unattractive
herby bitterish dryness on palate; medicinal. Not that it has evolved since
2006/7: in fact it was showing just as youthful. It was just flat and
inexpressive. But clean and longish on the palate, so the theory of a
low-threshold TCA taint is rather to be rejected. It was not bottle variation,
and not a ‘root day’ (I drank up the remainder of the bottle over three days:
no improvement, in fact rather deterioration).
flavour. High alcohol and a muddy, pilly kind of sweetness. An unattractive
herby bitterish dryness on palate; medicinal. Not that it has evolved since
2006/7: in fact it was showing just as youthful. It was just flat and
inexpressive. But clean and longish on the palate, so the theory of a
low-threshold TCA taint is rather to be rejected. It was not bottle variation,
and not a ‘root day’ (I drank up the remainder of the bottle over three days:
no improvement, in fact rather deterioration).
Wine tasting is slippery territory. There are lots
of variables, and impressions are fairly volatile. One minute it’s
raspberries over citrus in your Beaujolais, and the next minute it’s
strawberries with lower acidity. I challenge anyone to produce exactly the same
tasting note from the first and last glass of any given bottle. When you think
you’ve finally grasped it, summarising your impressions in a satisfying synthetic
description, the next bottle will be vastly divergent. After my 2006/7 tasting
of this 1987 Niepoort I spent quite a few €€€ on three bottles of this wine.
Now I’m nonplussed. Should I open one to see if it’s the same disappointing
wine of a week ago? Or save them in hope the wine will reemerge from its dumb
phase?
of variables, and impressions are fairly volatile. One minute it’s
raspberries over citrus in your Beaujolais, and the next minute it’s
strawberries with lower acidity. I challenge anyone to produce exactly the same
tasting note from the first and last glass of any given bottle. When you think
you’ve finally grasped it, summarising your impressions in a satisfying synthetic
description, the next bottle will be vastly divergent. After my 2006/7 tasting
of this 1987 Niepoort I spent quite a few €€€ on three bottles of this wine.
Now I’m nonplussed. Should I open one to see if it’s the same disappointing
wine of a week ago? Or save them in hope the wine will reemerge from its dumb
phase?
