Simon Field | Mahogany hue, dark chocolate, a little smudged; nose of fig, toffee, composted fruit and bay leaf; a touch of volatility, but not too much. The palate is leaner than expected, linear, too, the spirit aggressive on the finish and almost piercingly so. Rustic and uncompromising, then, still adolescent in outlook. The wine is structurally correct, Ionic architecturally, far from ironic temperamentally. | 90

Andrew Jefford | This wine, too, is a very dark black-red and not yet translucent, though it doesn’t have the blackness of [Warre’s 1980]. The core is black-red and the rim a dark red right to the meniscus. Sweet, mellow, and harmonious aromas mingling bramble fruits, plum and soft caramels. It has a little more harmony and classicism than [Warre’s 1980], though [Warre’s 1980] has more brute force and sheer earthy power. In the mouth, this is deep, searching, vivid, and lively. It, too, seems to have something of the same berry-like character noted in [Warre’s 1980], so perhaps this fruit style is a characteristic of the vintage. There is nonetheless tea-leaf and rose on the palate, as well as all the berries and the plums; the wine has palpable acidity which lifts the dense fruits; the textures are admirable, and the tannins soft yet still present. There is a deep-driving warmth to the wine, which one enjoys in Vintage Port provided the bond to the fruit is there. This also has a vinosity which [Warre’s 1980] lacks. Nonetheless in purely sensual terms [Warre’s 1980] is still such an astonishing effort that I cannot score this wine above it; it’s not far adrift, though, and wine of this quality is hugely reassuring after the disappointments of 1970, 1975, and 1977. | 94

Richard Mayson | Good, deep center, thin, browning rim; rich and chocolatey in its depth on the nose, lovely dusty-minty ripeness; another lovely, round, voluptuous wine, ripe fruit, good definition, backed by firm, ripe, spicy tannins and good grip on a fresh, gravelly finish. Plenty of life left. | 92