Simon Field | Sepia, verbena-tinged, russet and watery at the rim; volatility above all else, another bottle required. The second bottle is also volatile, dusty, the VA does not dissipate with air, quite the reverse; the palate scores well for texture, concentration, and harmonious integration, but all is for nought, is it not, if the first impression is somehow blemished? What is bred in the bone will sometimes not out in the flesh, it seems. | 88

Andrew Jefford | This is another of the ’85s with a mid-life look to it: translucent red-black at the core and some scarlet clinging to the rim, though with a little less depth of hue than [Taylor’s 1985], for example. Nonetheless a promising appearance. It has rather reticent aromas: quiet, reserved, herbal, without ostentatious sweetness or primary fruit. There is a cork-scalping issue, and we try a second bottle—though this is still more scalped. The palate is deep, foursquare, a serious effort though perhaps without the very greatest vineyard materials, but the wine has lots of depth and some tannic and extractive force, too. A potentially very good Vintage Port, which I will mark as such on indulgence but ill served by its dry goods. | 90

Richard Mayson | Good mid-deep color with a broad tawny rim; distinctly lifted on the nose, to the point of being volatile. (Second bottle similar, and a bit dirty.) Soft and fully mature initially, with firm tannins and that volatile edge that reemerges on the finish. This is not going to get any better. | 74