Simon Field | Attractive, evolved tawny color, less by way of gradation than some, a dignified personality, quite spirity at heart, maybe lacking the equivalence of evolution that one would wish for within the context of such unmitigated excellence; figs, ripe plum, soft raisin, and a gentle, spicy endgame. As with many of the ’77s, there is a slight disconnect between acidity, tannin, and the structural template—an impressive effort, but one has ultimately been left with more questions than answers. When a second bottle comes, it seems, if anything, more clumsy, oxidative notes to the fore and with a hint of volatility thrown in for good measure. | 87

Andrew Jefford | One of the two lightest wines in the 1977 cohort, with [Dow’s 1977], and just a little dull in hue, without highlights. The first bottle of this wine seemed a little murky, so we tried a second bottle only to find it was worse. Back to the first bottle. Beneath the murk, there is a sort of tar and incense, frankincense, which is something that appears in one or two of the other ’77s. There is some depth of flesh on the palate, with warm, sweet plum fruits, though the bottle is still not completely clean and the lack of aromatic finesse is a worry. Under the circumstances, it is hard to be generous with a score. | 83

Richard Mayson | Mid-deep, not terribly bright in color; sweet and sour on the nose, with a rather dirty backdrop; two bottles opened, both much the same; some fruit initially but overall rather skinny and falling apart with a weak rather earthy finish, none of this I want from Vintage Port! | 70