Simon Field | A dense rich color, tar black of unfathomable depth; the nose starts off a little dusty, then gathers strength and gains definition, the fruit profile soon aligned with stark and almost brutal focus; dark and darker fruit, soot, tar, and roses, intimations of Barolo and maybe an austere Zinfandel; austere in essence, but teasing with the intimations of sweetness, courtesy of the beguilingly ripe fruit. The palate unpicks the qualitative template with rigor; dark fruits, for sure, a savory undercoat, and a spicy, almost salty backdrop, drawn out by the rigidly stentorian tannins and presaging a long and satisfactory evolution. Very complete already, pure and poised; to be assessed with genuine fascination over the next decade or so. | 95

Andrew Jefford | This is by some margin the deepest of the 1992 wines: opaque black-red graduating very slowly to a dark scarlet at the rim. The aromas are very promising: brooding and enticing, with layered, sweet black-and-red fruits, crushed spice and peppers, earth and dried herbs. Despite the sweetness, it conveys freshness and lift, too, and even a soft mintiness. On the palate, it is a Port of some ambition, solidly crafted, with ample blackcurrant and black-plum fruits, as well as plenty of the spice and peppery warmth the aromas sketched out. It doesn’t have thundering tannins or indeed any notably textural wealth, so it may not be a long-distance runner, but it is a notch or two above its two 1992 peers and will provide good drinking over the next decade. | 90

Richard Mayson | Very deep, almost opaque in color, withathin browning rim; dense, a touch spirity and rather demure on the nose, still brooding; big, bold, ripe berry fruit, dense and tight-knit, with ripe, broad, spicy tannins massing on to the finish, powerful dark-chocolate intensity all the way through the finish, showing good balance, too. Only just at the start of its drinking life and better still in five or ten years. | 96