Dinner last night at Gavroche in Vancouver with one of the peripatetic heads of Taylors Port, Huyshe Bower. Or rather the Taylors Port Conglomerate, as they seem to have absorbed several other houses.
The inimitable Huyshe (those who have met him know what I mean) presided over a dinner assembled by Manuel Ferreira to accompany Portuguese wines, dry and sweet.
With grilled sardines on toast, prosciutto palmiers and escabeche of albacore tuna in phyllo:
Taylor's White Port - this was the sweet version, and was served with tonic water (2 parts port to one of tonic) with some mint leaves. An admirable drink on its own, I suppose, but I'd have opted for their dry version, which isn't quite (dry, that is), the Chip Dry, sans addition of quinine, there being little need to fend of the attentions malaria in these Northern climes.
With duck breast with seared fresh foie gras:
Taylors 10 Year Old Tawny Port - they make versions of this wood aged Port that are 10, 20, 30 and 40+ years old. This youthful example was the darker wine (wood tending to bleach the colour), and had the bigger sweeter nose, more like vintage Port. It wasn't as well integrated as the 20, and the nose had a slightly burnt aspect, and a vanilla element on top.
Taylors 20 Year Old Tawny Port - this is my favourite of the whole bunch, and I'd take it over the older versions. Dark amber edges, with a hot slightly sweet nose of nuts and spice, it was medium sweet on palate with great acidity. At this age, the fruit which dominated the 10 year old no longer masks the alcohol, and so it is better to serve this wine slightly chilled. The wood is nicely in balance, something I wouldn't quite say about the younger or older wines. It went remarkably well with the foie gras, and there is a special place in my cellar, and in my estimation for wines that can do that!
With salted cod with onions, black olives and garlic:
2002 Quinta do Vallado Branco - an interlude with a white wine made from various local varietals and touted as adventuresome and worthy. This one missed the barque in my opinion (the cod was probably caught by Portuguese fisherman in Canadian waters while we weren't looking). Simple nondescript citrus nose slightly flat on palate right after entry, a passable accompaniment to the fish, but I wouldn't go out of my way to find this one.With boar chop on spiced lentils and Port truffle reduction (that is what the menu said and I didn't get the chance to question the owner, but what showed up on my plate resembled slices of rare venison, so I expect the boar had fled and been replaced):
1999 Quinta do Crasto Tinta Cao - in Portuguese, this means Red Dog, and is one of the varietals that go into Port and that this house has been making small lots of as dry wine (Tinta Roriz and Touriga Nacional are others). Big nose of mixed fruit and rubber, pleasant enough, but the minute it hits your palate it narrows down and gets pretty tight and tannic. There is a flash of strawberry right at the end. I don't know what this wine will become, and have minor misgivings as to whether there is enough fruit to eventually come into balance, but time will tell.1996 Quinta do Crasto Reserva - totally different story here. Mellow fruit nose, with some cedar and vanilla from the French oak they use, a smooth balanced wine at peak drinking now. This wine is a best buy in good vintages -
1997 was good, 2000 was exceptional.With fig and mascarpone tart:
1994 Delaforce Port - at last the vintage Port! As expected, a dark wine with purple legs, the nose slightly hot. Sweet and forward in the mouth, with heat there as well, medium to good length, not one of the big ones, but pleasant, and while a bit one dimensional right now, a few more years should settle it down. The fruit was not as big or as sweet as one expects from the big boys.1997 Taylors Port - now we were talking! If the 94 was dark, this is still almost black. The nose was sweet and warm without any alcoholic bite and there was an amazing amount of stuff going on in there for such a young wine - berries, anise, spice and a definite floral note. Mellow and soft, if a bit hot in the mouth, this wine has the stuffing to go long haul. I was surprised that it showed so very well at this stage, but I'd also advise putting it away and not pulling another cork for 20 years. Do it - you'll thank me.
I had a discussion with Huyshe at this point about vintage Port. Well, sort of. One doesn't engage in conversation with Huyshe so much as make a statement or ask a question and then back quickly away as the erudite floodgates open and threaten to engulf one in learned and amusing rhetoric.
My question was 'Why is there a seeming policy among the Port houses, not to declare two vintages in a row, even if both are meritorious?" The answer included some derogatory language about money grubbing Americans, who have apparently asked him the same thing and wonder why both vintages aren't declared as you'd be able to make a lot more loot. Huyshe nobly replies that it isn't about money, and then descended to more practical considerations by saying that when they have two (or more) vintages, at least in component form, in cask at the same time, they evaluate them, and even if there is only a small difference in quality, they (nobly, he managed to get across without quite saying it) choose to release the better wine instead of declaring both. He cited the 1991 - 1992 pair as an example, and lauded their election to declare
1992 by saying that with a decade of perspective, others were coming to agree that maybe that vintage was the better one.Having spent so much time listening to that answer, I quickly discarded my intention to ask another in favour of tasting more wine. The question I would have asked was that this noble approach was all well and good when you had your average of 3 good vintages a decade, but what about decades that looked to be a bit sparse in that direction? In the 70s, for instance, they generally declared 1970, but by the time 1975 came around, with no really good vintage in view, the money lenders at the figurative door, and nobility in the back seat to economic necessity, they for the most part opted to declare a pleasant but by no means better than that vintage. It would have been a long dry spell had they stuck to the nobility and waited for 1977. Had I asked that question, I'd have no doubt still be sitting listening to the answer, or been summarily dismissed ('You aren't American by any chance, are you?") I never had the opportunity to listen to Huyshe and Bruce Guimaraens in the room at the same time, and I regret that - it could have been most entertaining.
I went on to:
1983 Taylors Port - ahhhhh - paler colour (but then look at the competition), wonderful weight to the wine, I hadn't tasted this for about 5 years, when it was still tannic rich and pruny. The fruit is now more plum than prune, with spice and smoke added. Many people would say this wine is ready to drink; I would not. Of all of the major Port houses, Talyor's often seems to me to take the longest for the spirit to meld into the wine - they can seem hot and alcoholic for longer than many wines from the same vintage. I don't think the 1983 is quite there yet, thought it is very, very good. I think a few more years may result in it becoming seamless. I think it is worth waiting to find out.