The Port Review

[mrtr33]

So, something that has come along in my cigar smoking hobby has been my choice of beverage. I've pretty much decided on coffee if it's a smoke before noon, or port for an after-dinner/evening smoke. There are plenty of threads about coffee. Here's one specifically about reviewing different ports.

This thread is for anyone wanting to post a review of a port. There is no specific format here, and everyone who enjoys port is invited and encouraged to post a review. The first review I make is only a very loose guideline as to what I had in mind. It will more than likely evolve over time. The second post in this thread will serve as a brief recap of all ports listed.

I intend on doing this as long as the evenings stay cool, but probably no more than once a month. For my own purposes, I'll be smoking the same cigar for each of my reviews - a Padron Londres maduro. I wanted something where I could trust it's consistency, something I've smoked a good bit of, but not something that would detract too much from the port I was enjoying. In other words, a solid smoke that could act as a constant in this little experiment. In each case (unless noted otherwise) I've drank the port both with and without the cigar.

Enjoy!

[mrtr33]

Fonseca Porto Bin no. 27 - A
Stone Mountain Wine Cellars Rico Suave - B

[mrtr33]

Maker: Fonseca
Name: Bin No. 27
Type: N/A
Vintage: N/A
Alcohol: 20%

Price Point: This is a nice port I've had the opportunity to have several bottles of. It's about the average of what I'd spend on a bottle of port (considering port at our house can last about 6 months) - I want to say we paid $18 for this bottle.

Specifics: There was nothing that indicated the kind of port this bottle was - Vintage, Late Bottled Vintage, Ruby, Tawny, etc. and there was no indication of the vintage year.

On the nose: Lots of dark fruit, but not overly sweet. I would say currant is the overriding theme here. Very bright, and smells like it's going to have tannins.

On the tongue: Pleasantly smooth. Chocolate and just a touch of spice. A good bit different than the way this port smelled. While there is a hint of tannins present, it's not as strong as originally indicated on the nose.

Conclusion: In my very brief experience with ports, this has been one of my favorites for an everyday port. It's very smooth, and not too sweet, but still provides that warm feeling inside. A fabulous port that should be available at most cigar bars or nicer restaurants. Definitely a good buy.

Grade: A

[denver24]

Great thread Mark! I typically drink Port with a cigar as well. I've found that I prefer tawny ports over ruby's but I haven't had enough experience to identify specific brands I prefer. Great review on the Fonseca and I'll add a review the next time I have a Port.

[mrtr33]

I've found that I prefer tawny ports over ruby's but I haven't had enough experience to identify specific brands I prefer. Great review on the Fonseca and I'll add a review the next time I have a Port.

Looking forward to it, Ian. I haven't drank enough to really formulate an opinion between either Tawny's or Ruby's. I do know that I have yet to have a bad LBV (Late Bottle Vintage), though those come at a price. I intend to test a wide variety of ports in this review - even the cheapie grocery store stuff. You never know, there could be a gem in there. And if not, port is great to cook with.

[mrtr33]

Maker: Stone Mountain Wine Cellars
Name: Rico Suave
Type: N/A
Vintage: N/A
Alcohol: 20%

One thing I've noticed in consuming wine is the taste difference between wine that has been recently opened, and wine that has been opened for several hours (or even DAYS!!!). When we have guests over for dinner, we'll sometimes open the wine several hours before we plan on serving it to our guests. In my opinion, this allows the wine to breathe a bit better. You could also achieve the same result with a decanter.

Some wines do well opened for longer periods of time. Some do not. Port, in my opinion, is a wine that can be opened and enjoyed for probably up to a month, sometimes more. Rarely does a bottle survive that long at our house, however.

So, when I first opened this bottle, I chose to drink it without a cigar. Figured I'd see what the "recent opening" tasted like, then compare that later after it had been opened for a little while. The tastes were quite different.

Price Point:
I don't have any idea. This was gifted to me. From someone. Here. You know who you are.

Specifics:
I'm finding that any sweet red wine with a reasonably high alcohol content can be "called" a port. I do not have enough of a refined palate to be able to tell the difference. There's nothing about this wine that lets me know what kind of "port" this is - it's a sweet, red wine.

First opening:
Very strong alcohol flavor, and over-pronounced sweetness. On the nose, the wine exudes strong berry and cinnamon notes, but it's simply too strong, almost like an over-fermented syrup. On the tongue, there's a burst of tastes that immediately hit your mouth, then the taste fades. The first (and ONLY!) glass at this sitting is not making a great impression.

Second opening:
The wine has definitely calmed down a bit since it's original opening. The scents aren't quite as overpowering, and the cinnamon/spice is much more pronounced. There's still a touch of the syrupy smell from before, but overall, it's much more of a desirable smell than previous. Likewise, on the tongue, the taste lingers a bit longer on the tongue. The taste is very similar to the smell, and goes down reasonably smooth. It's a bit sweeter than I prefer it to be, but this is incredibly subjective, as ports are classically a sweet wine.

Overall:
It's good. I don't know that I would order a case, but should I find myself in Pine Grove, Pennsylvania, I'd definitely make a point to pick up a bottle. Still a bit too sweet to me, and the complexity was lacking. The taste was just like the scent. Not my favorite, but not bad.

Grade: B