For those of you thinking "WS" and "TAA" are yet more BB acronyms with which you must become familiar, they refer to Wine Spectator and Tasting Across America. For further info, please click here:
http://forums.winespectator.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9306023451&f=3146091161&m=9076067&r=9076067#9076067and here:
http://forums.winespectator.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9306023451&f=6826053161&m=89260512Now on to the TNs, pasted from the WS thread:
I must confess that I originally opened and tasted this wine last Friday, not to flount the rules of the TAA, but to give it a fair chance of showing well. From my experience, almost any port (not the very old ones) needs lots time to breath. And I may be the only one that thinks this, but my experience with LBVs has been that they tend to be better a day or two after opening, and sometimes are even better a week later. I try not to keep them open for more than about 10 days, this is rarely a problem!
So how did the 97 Fonseca LBV port do? Sadly, not very well, IMHO. The night we opened it, we had already finished two bottles of white, three bottles of red (including a 2000 Dead Arm, a 2001 Rancho Zabaco zin, and a 2000 Domaine Brusset gigondas), and lots of BBQ-ed rib steaks with homemade Bernaise sauce, between 6 of us (5 really, since once was driving). We drank this port alongside a 1987 Taylor Vargellas vintage port and some NV Chambers Rutherglen muscadelle tokay, accompanied by a mild-ish blue cheese, dark chocolate, and other usual sweet wine matches.
The night it was opened, I found this port to be very hot, sharp, thin, with too-pronounced alcohol, not enough fruit, and not even enough sweetness. Of course, even a great LBV would probably have trouble showing well against the 87 Vargellas (WS 93 points I think) and the Chambers (WS 94 points, I think). It was telling, though, that while I gave everyone a taste, and left it on the table, even after the vintage port was gone no one went for seconds of the Fonseca. And despite what they'd had up to then, this was a group that would have slurped it all back if it was good.
I've had a bit more of this almost every night since last Friday, with a variety of food matches, and with nothing, and while it has shown a bit better since its first night, this is not a port that I can recommend to anyone. Then again, I tend to be a bit of a port snob when it comes to anything other than vintage port. We've had this debate here before, but in my view, the much higher prices demanded by vintage ports over LBVs, crusteds, and other almost-vintage ports, is usually well worth paying. Aside from the Dow crusted port, I don't think I've had a non-vintage port that I liked as much as even an average vintage port. I usually like them well enough, especially for the price, just not as much as a full, rich, jammy, sweet, mouth-coating-throat-seducing-"my-God-that-was-good!" vintage port.
I'm tasting it again as I type this, to give it one more chance to shine, and while it is better than it was the first night, it is just not getting the job done. Maybe I got an off bottle, but I'm scoring this one 80 points, sad to say.

Finally, thanks again for the warm and gracious welcome I got on returning to these forums for what I hope will not be a brief or infrequent visit. Despite the occasional flare-up of hostilities between WS and VinoCellar forumites, we can all only be better off from any cross-fertilization that goes on. It's been a pleasure, and I will certainly try to pop up here more often!