TN: Gould Campell 1977, Graham 1955

Topic: TN: Gould Campell 1977, Graham 1955
Author: David
Date: 20040421043847

For my "verbal rating system", see postscript, if necessary.

Gould Campell Vintage Port 1977
A sample brought back by Albino from a Wine Spectator Offline he had attended in the Netherlands. He used a small apothecary bottle with an air-tight seal which he filled to the top, but since this had already been decanted for eight hours, tiny oxidation was noticeable. The reason I type a TN all the same is that it seemed structurally more convincing than bottles I had tasted before. The one I remember best, tasted in September 1996 with the Swiss importer, had seemed almost closer to being ready than this today, apart from a more youthfully purple hue to the colour (the one from the Netherlands today was a deep ruby with black reflections and a tender rusty hue) and a more primary character to the fruit, but it was also dustier and not quite as firm and focused as other 1977s, and that not in yet incomplete harmony easily excused by youth. The last and so far best sample of 1977 Gould Campell, tasted in October 2002, was more similar to the one today, fresher and racier of course due to the slight oxidation today's sample revealed, in altogether better shape than anticipated, but the impressive aspect of today's sample was that it was more similar to (a slightly awkward bottle of) Taylor 1977 structurally than anything else I could think of (the similarity of the colour is another interesting aspect) . There seems to be an interesting tendency in that some of the 1977s such as Smith Woodhouse and Gould Campell are catching up with those that initially seemed the finest (Fonseca, Taylor and Dow appeared to me the principal three for a long time, whereas the Graham simply seemed difficult to judge, but has since became much easier to interpret). In other words, although this sample had obviously suffered a bit (yet remained very enjoyable), it underlined my late impression that paradoxically, the top 1977s may be less far apart in quality not only in comparison to other so-called great vintages (I realize 1977 soon after its primary phase gave rise to detracting voices, and that not just by inexperienced tasters who are concerned every wine that is going through a dumb phase may be in serious trouble), but keeping in mind these qualitative differences once seemed significant. They may still be, of course, and this my late impression may solely be based on a weird coincidence, i.e. that I got to taste more structurally convincing bottles of once outstanding (never lesser ones to begin with) quality 1977s and sadly few of those that we used to agree were the greatest. No reason to jump to conclusions yet, but it would be interesting to hear whether other people have started applying question marks as to the relative value (not necessarily absolute ranking, but qualitative difference) of the top ten or so 1977s over time (I know one Swiss importer who always has, but it is always difficult to say in how far those immersed in trade can be objective about such things, especially where they are known not to have admitted selling what may also be misstored lots of some of the wines in question). To be continued… Be that as it may, the 1977 Gould Campell, even if never the most complex house style, and even if from a slightly oxidized sample, seems safely outstanding, and from pristine storage at a fair price, may well be worth checking out.

Graham Vintage Port 1955
A bottle recently acquired at auction by Albino, who brought a sample back from a Wine Spectator Offline he had attended in the Netherlands. He used a small apothecary bottle with an air-tight seal which he filled to the top, so that one could say that instead of having been decanted, it was "racked" and kept for another three days. It certainly stood up to this procedure very well, in contrast to the 1977 Gould Campell that had already been decanted for eight hours prior to being sealed in another apothecary bottle. Here, the medium-transparent ruby-amber colour with minor black reflections definitely reveals its age (since some much older Vintage Port look younger, judging the age of a wine on the basis of colour alone is fraught with difficulty), but other than that, there is no reason to assume the bottle has not been well stored. This has that unproblematic minor amount of volatility that along with lemony bee's wax, Amarone-like cherry, intense Chinese five spice, maybe anise and ginger, and some of the typical sugary-overripe strawberry of aged Port, here perhaps not more than medium-glyceric and -sweet, gives a tender Aceto Balsamico uplift to the aromas and flavours. Albino reports this started out a bit hot, but continually gained form in the decanter, and simply would not let down. It remains warm, but partly thanks to a still austere edge to the core is attractively sharply-etched. Definitely spicy on the back end and aftertaste, along with a suggestion of orange rind. Absolutely minimal Tawny Port-like nuttiness to the glyceric candy-like sugariness (that, as is so often the case with the finest mature Ports, is less sweet than that it has a flavour quality similar to candy). On the verge of outstanding to great quality, as its greatest plus, its attractive spiciness, may be partly due to the fact that it is not quite as dense with fruit as the handful greatest Ports (it was due to this characeristic, not its aroma and flavour profile, that it reminded me of the slightly more complex if less spicy, perhaps yet-less-fruity 1962 Nacional).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

P.S.
I have discontinued divulging numerical scores on this board (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!