Simon Field | Blood on the rooftops, russet and auburn behind it; it looks the part for sure. Nose of toffee-apple, rosehip, and very, very ripe plums; spirited and expressive; a wonderful retort to those who claim that 1970 Port is over the hill... But an infant, one may descant? Maybe not, but, on the evidence here, far from demoded. This is edgy, fine, sculpted, and richly resonant; roses and jasmine, plumes of perfume, and a gamey, ludic, finely perfumed mid-palate, which is but in the first of many flushes of indulgent nostalgia. | 94

Andrew Jefford | A dark wine among its peers: not far off a deep red, and only just into translucency: a serious prospect, one would say. Aromatically, this is in midlife, not the maturity we have been looking at with ’63 and ’66; this still has the claretty freshness of fruit that great Vintage Port can exhibit in its middle years. Red berries and currants, but also the sweeter things, too: moist Dutch vanilla pipe tobacco in the pouch, ripe cherries, dried mushrooms, plum compote. After that very serious color, this is a terrifically exciting aroma. It is round, poised, vivid, glowingly fruity, and actually softly textured; very satisfying and complete on the palate, and it has retained fruit well, though overall it is perhaps a little less driving than I was expecting from color and scent. Absolutely delicious nonetheless, and a very well- preserved 1970. The best of a rather weak cohort for me on the basis of overall wealth, even if [Fonseca’s 1970] has slightly better post-tannins/ extracts and [Croft 1970] seduces with its silky charm. | 93

Richard Mayson | Good mid-deep center and thin, tawny rim; slightly wild, medicinal berry fruit withatouch of hedgerow on the nose; lovely, tight-knit, integrated ripe fruit and firm tannins, well-structured with a firm if rather dry, dusty finish but retaining freshness. | 92