1966 Kopke Colheita
Prezzo di mercato
Opzioni di acquisto
Note di degustazione
Bottled 2025. Deep browny ochre with some yellow-brown at the rim. Intense aroma that has many layers: dried fruits, walnuts, mocha, bitter apricot – completely captivating even before tasting. Rich, sweet yet balanced by immense freshness so you barely notice the sweetness. Sour-dark toffee, tangy reduced apricots, bitter orange and a saltiness that speaks of the concentration of long cask ageing. Fabulous concentration and yet it hasn’t got to the point where it is too concentrated to enjoy. Stunning wine. (JH)
Punteggi della critica
Punteggio medio
Julia Harding MW, jancisrobinson.com
Mark Squires
Altre recensioni e punteggi
Minimum 7 years in oak barrels but this has had much longer – bottled 2017. RS 126 g/l/. Deep brownish tawny, more walnut skin than red. Coffee and walnuts on the nose, both sweet and savoury. Seville orange as well as a touch of umami. Finest combination of savoury nutty character and the fine spicy burnt apricot/bitter orange fruit. Despite the sweetness, it has a long, almost dry-tasting tangy finish. (JH)
The 1966 Colheita Tawny Port was bottled in 2015 with 126.3 grams per liter of residual sugar, and comes with a bar top cork (as is typical here). As we start getting seriously old in the lineup from Sogevinus this issue, this shows what you get with increasing age: the superb concentration of flavor, the long, intense finishes and the complex medley of flavors that old Tawnies deliver effortlessly. That, to me, is what makes them worth the extra bucks. If some of the youngsters lean more to caramel, this adds more molasses with a touch of Brandy in the background. The concentrated flavors linger more or less endlessly, driven into the palate by the wine's power and acidity. You can smell and taste this for a long time. The graceful mid-palate is deceptively friendly at first. It sure does grip the palate at the end, though, finishing with juicy bursts of fruit and sugar. Over several days, it acquired a bit more harmony and shed a touch of aggression. The alcohol, speaking relatively, is not as well integrated here as with the 1965, also reviewed, but that is relative. I tended to like this just slightly better anyway for its complexity and concentration on several fronts. The freshness on the 1965 is quite enticing, though. It tastes younger. It depends on what you want: that old-wine complexity and depth or a livelier feel. They both have plenty of power on the finish. You can't go wrong, really.