Simon Field | An almost gentle color, evanescent, ethereal, subtle, which may or may not presage a thing of beauty. The nose is affirmative; rosehip, fig, bitter chocolate, and loganberry, seemingly yet to achieve its tertiary voice; the palate is broader and richer than anticipated, hints of caramel, orange fruit, and Asian spice; fennel and menthol behind to lend freshness and length. Again, less concentrated than its forebears from 1963, but wonderfully refreshing, mentholized, with aniseed sowed liberally, spice and dark-berried fruit; feminine elegance, softly perfumed; alluring and robust at the same time; an engaging statement, its apparent contradictions circumstantially almost irrelevant. | 94

Andrew Jefford | This is a little lighter than its ’66 peers: a clear russet-tawny. It’s a little bit dry and reedy aromatically speaking; not giving much now, so one senses that this may in fact be on the sunset slope. On the palate, it is slender, graceful, sustained, and with lots of mountain herb to balance its fine-drawn, pristine sweetness. Very good, fully aged Vintage Port that doesn’t quite have enough aromatic nuance and detail for a top score but would still be very attractive to drink. | 91

Richard Mayson | Bright orange-tawny hues; again, distinctly high-toned and distinctly rustic on the nose, to the detriment of the fruit underlying; a bit better on the palate, firm and structured, but with a rustic leathery character creeping in toward the finish. | 79