For my "verbal rating system", see postscript, if necessary.
<b>Graham's Vintage Port Malvedos 1987</b>
A half bottle I opened for my mother last night. Healthy, full ruby-black, merely slight amber at the rim. Viscous, fruity and quite sweet and precise with cedary-plummy table grape and strawberry flavours, plus a touch of blood orange. Smooth, with nice medium tannin and acidity, and medium-plus body and length. With airing more peppery, a bit waxy, some resiny-chocolatey raisins. Some licorice-tinged forest floor on the aftertaste. Refreshing enough, a delicious 1987. About outstanding.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
I usually avoid using numerical scores on the web (in order to avoid e-mails solely concentrating on the virtues of numerical rating, since I'd really rather talk about the wines themselves). For those who have problems interpreting my "verbal scoring", the numerical correspondences are as follows:
79 and below = NOT GOOD (i.e. no need to figure out exactly)
80 – 84 = GOOD (same as 16 and over in the European 20-point system)
85 – 89 = VERY GOOD (same as 17 and over; I sometimes use EXCELLENT or ALMOST-OUTSTANDING to indicate 88 – 89)
90 – 94 = OUTSTANDING (same as 18 and over)
95 – 99 = GREAT (or CLASSIC, same as 19 and over; I sometimes use NEAR-PERFECT to indicate a 98 – 99 score)
100 = PERFECT (20 out of 20)
Note I will rarely buy wine below my own EXCELLENT rating (that's where wine really starts standing out for individuality from the mass of technically impeccably-made wines) except for an occasional and there truly exceptional QPR (I must insist any wine in the VERY GOOD category with me is serious stuff, way above average wine, that I still wouldn't buy because I've got to somehow limit my wine buying). But if a wine is costly, it had better be at least OUTSTANDING!