I had a flight of these this evening at dessert place in downtown Boston called Finale.

I'm not at all good with Port notes, so bear with me on this.

'66 - light brownish-orange color, tiny nose, very nutty, definitely not much left in this one, if you have any, I'd recommend drinking it yesterday

'77 - AWESOME! I had this in early December at the BWC tasting and was blown away. Very similar in color to the '66, but much more on the nose. Orange (not citrus, however), and caramel - almost like butter-brickle ice cream. Short but pleasant finish. I'm going to buy a bottle of this if I can find one. Again, I don't have much Port experience, but I'd give this one 95 pts.

'90 - noticably darker than the others, typical vintage port color (dark brown), lots of alcohol. There's a lot hiding in this one, I think it could use some time outside of the bottle. Maybe a day or so.

Glad you enjoyed the ports. Not to be picky, but...Do you think that a wine can have a, "short, but pleasant finish" yet still recieve 95 points? I think a 95pt wine is of classic proportions and would think that the finish would have to be really exceptional. I know different people have different concepts on what is a long finish, but wines with short finishes don't crack 90 on my scale. What do ya think?

jb

j_b -

You make a good point. In the realm of wine in general, I agree with your assertation that a 95 point wine should have an exceptional finish -one that lingers and keeps you thinking about it for while.

For me, and my arbitrary wine rating scale, I use the typical points of reference when gauging a wines "worth" Nose, palate, mouth feel, body, finish, etc.. However, I don't necessarily assign more weight to any one category. For example, I was at a Clarendon Hills tasting yesterday at the local shop. They were pouring a complete range of Grenache and Syrah (for some reason they don't call it Shiraz?). Anyway, one of the Grenache bottlings had slightly aobve average characteristics but the finsih was amazing. Decanter and I were there and we both stood in silence enjoying the finish for several seconds. Had it not been that finsih, I wouldn't have paid much attention to the bottling but, the fact that the finish was so remarkable gave the wine a bit more "worth", to me.

So, with the '77 Barros, the combination of all the other characteristics are so appealing to me, I'm willing to give a little on the finish. This wine makes me really happy when I drink it and I haven't had that sensation with a "dessert" wine since d'Yquem.

Perhaps others will disagree and say that a wine needs to exibit every characteristic profoundly in order to merit that high of a score, but I feel comfortable making an exception in this case.

Of course, by the time I tasted these three, I was not exactly in "tasting prime" if you know what I mean, so the fact that I mentioned the finish at all could mean something.

Thanks for raising this question, j_b.

I understand what you are saying. Everyone has a different palate and differing views on what makes up a "classic" wine in their opinion. For me, the wines that I have put in the 95 and up range have all had a finish that just wouldn't quit. It really is one of the components (balance, structure, tannins, acidity, extraction) that separates the "men from the boys". I just can't picture a wine with a short finish having "classic" credentials.

I have certainly been to enough tastings to know that you have to take the "end of the nighters" with a grain of salt.

jb