Someone mentioned a Porto Quinta Do Noval Nacional, Port this in another post and it piqued my curiosity.

I have never tasted this "ultimate" Port. As a matter of fact I've never seen a bottle in person.

How good is it? Is it an eye-popping sock-roller experience say like a 1967 Yquem or just a very nice smooth drink like the difference between a Merryvale and an Insignia?

And next time someone wants to open one I would love to be invited

David,

I've had three bottles of it. The 1967 -- within the context of that being an off vintage for Port -- is incredible. I've had the 1970 twice. On one occasion it was no better than any other good vintage Port. The other bottle, however, is easily one of the 10 best bottles I've ever had and a compete step above any other vintage Port I've tried. I may be selling it short saying it was one of the 10 best. It might be one of the 2 or 3 -- in any event, it was the best non-dry wine I've ever tasted (and, yes, that includes several vintages of Yquem, although not the '67).

a

You mean like 10 best WINES ever; not just 10 best ports .

It's better than Boone's Farm ?

Comparing the good bottle of the 1970 to other Ports would you say it had a "bigger body (like creamy)"? Did it have "brighter" fruit. Was it "balanced" with no alcohol taste at all? Could you smell the alcohol?

One of the things I don't like about Ports is that sharp alcohol nose (like a brandy [duh]).

Yes, David, like one of the 10 best bottles of wine I've ever had (and that is including duplicate bottles of awesome wine)!

To answer your questions -- yes, the "good" bottle was a bit larger scaled than most other vintage Ports I've tried. But the wine was not abnormally dark for a well aged vintage Port, nor was the fruit profile abnormally dark. Rather, the fruit profile ran the gamut from very dark to medium-light in a way that no other Port I've had has done. The fruit complexity was better than on any other Port I've had (only stratospherically priced Venetos have come close). And yes, from my recollection, regarding fruit, the real area where this seperated itself from other Vintage Ports was its ability to have the bright fruit complexity in addition to the more typical dark fruit complexity (although this was certainly evocative of just as dark fruits as any VP 've tried). I would deffinitely say it was the most balanced Port I've tried. (And, although not nearly as good, the 1967 is probably the second most balanced Port I've tried.) Regarding creaminess, insofar as the wine was very elegant and balanced despite its size, I guess it was creamy; but I would not say that it was unusually creamy in the viscous sort of sense.

Regarding the smell of the alcohol... I don't think it smelled alcoholic per se, but I think there might have been a slight whif of top shelf Cognac. Not like Paul Masson cooking brandy, but like Hennessy Paradis (or, I assume, Louis XIII).

I had this wine over a year ago and took no notes, so this is all going by recollection. But, for what its worth, this was the lineup that night:

1990 Dom Perignon (from magnum)
1996 Harlan Estate
1999 Araujo Cabernet Eisle Vineyard
1999 Dalla Valle 'Maya'
1970 Quinta do Noval 'Nacional'

The QdN was in a class by itself.

I got a small pour of 1962 Nacional at a tasting which probably did not have too much air time. It was good but not great, at least at that moment.

I have multiple bottles of the 1962 Nacional. I've opened one of them and it was pretty tasty. Yes, it needed a bit of air time. Not as good as the 1927 Fonseca, but not too far behind.

Whiner,

Great answer. I love it!
---------------------------------

Skwid,

Damn you! You've got all the good stuff. Lots of 1967 Yquem. lots of 1962 Nacional... Do you expect me to believe that you could better your feat of providing me with what was imo the best wine I have ever tasted in my life? I guess I can't blame you for trying.

I think it's time for another one on one