Warre's Vintage Port 1958: The capsule suggests that this is Warre's, but the vintage is unclear until we pull the cork, which reveals it to be from 1958, a decent although rather light vintage, especially when compared to the other declared vintage of this decade, 1955. The label, however, suggested that this was 1851 Vintage Port, resealed 1952, which is obviously nonsense. Another mature colour here, orange-tawny-brown, perhaps not quite so dense as the first wine. An interesting nose; a little high-toned, piquant, slightly baked, ethereal even? The palate is attractive, rounded, lightly creamy, bright, rather harmonious, although again there is a little oxidation. A firm finish. Quite stylish really. Easier to drink than the heavier, slightly sticky predecessor. 16/20

Graham's Vintage Port 1955: Another three-part moulded bottle claiming to hail from the 1851 vintage, resealed at 101 years of age. Again it is nonsense; the capsule suggests Graham's, and the cork confirms it to be of the superior 1955 vintage. The level is very poor though, down to bottom shoulder. The wine has a surprising tawny, orange-brown hue. The nose, however, is bright, obviously mature, with some appealing woodspice. An elegant palate ensues, very complete and appealing balanced, ethereal style, rounded, mature, forceful despite this, just a little vegetal note in the background. Not oxidised though, despite that low level, which is remarkable. This is certainly in keeping with the Graham's house style, evident despite the age of this bottle; I suspect that this is a rather advanced example though. I'm sure there exist other bottles of this wine in much better condition. 16.5/20

Taylor's Vintage Port 1912: Here the capsule reveals this to be of the 1912, although the shipper is unknown, until the cork is pulled at least. This reveals it to be Taylor's, generally regarded as one of the best wines from an exceptionally good vintage. The wine has a gorgeous, orange caramel colour, and the nose is delightful, with reserved, figgy, floral, really rather stylish characteristics. On the palate, there is a lovely, creamy, rounded structure with a complete presence on the palate. Really very good indeed, and certainly the leading wine in this setting. 17/20

Menis Collector's Port (Paarl, South Africa) 1948: A late addition to the event brought by another taster; obviously not true Port, but why not include it here? Finely preserved label, so I suspect this has not been in bottle as long as some of the Ports above. This has a cloudy, orange brown appearance with a dirty green rim. The nose has interest, with a sweet, meaty, alcoholic, tar and axle grease character; do they have any Pedro Ximénez in South Africa? Rather hot and raisiny. On the palate, sweet and peppery, with a caramel-toffee-walnut flavour presented in a rancio style. Textured. Very reminiscent of an Australian liqueur Muscat, adding weight to my thought that this may have spent a long time in barrel. Interesting wine. 14.5/20

Unidentified Port #1: The label here suggested that this contained two bottles of Chateau Lafite 1851, resealed 1852, which is a remarkable claim for any bottle; the three-part moulded bottle, however, looks younger than that. The capsule and cork, when pulled, reveal that this was bottled by Hedges & Butler, London, but unfortunately there is no further information such as vintage. A walnut-brown, caramel hue. The nose has a raisiny, toffee-walnut aroma, with a little light vegetal oxidation, later moving into a more woody frame. Impressive texture, rather surprising in view of the likely age of the wine, rather fat and stickily sweet, with a firm and peppery midpalate and finish. This has held together very well. 15.5/20

Unidentified Vintage Port #2, 1966: A three-part moulded bottle, no identifying marks externally, although the cork at least reveals the vintage to be 1966. The shipper, sadly, remains unknown. It certainly has a much more youthful appearance in the glass, with a vibrant red hue at the core, with pink-orange rim. The nose is fairly closed down at first, but opens out to reveal some appealing fruit. Delicate, textured, complete, fairly harmonious, this has a good presence on the palate. Rather spiced, peppery tannin still in evidence. Really quite good, although perhaps not up to the standard one might expect of a top 1966; it doesn't have the expected weight or presence. There is a little potential for further development yet though. 15.5+/20

Unidentified Vintage Port #3: Another wine claiming a heritage dating from 1851, but again I suspect this is nonsense. This is a three-part moulded bottle, with cork heavily encrusted with sediment. Perhaps this is where the pigment from this particular wine has gone, as it has a pale, orange-caramel hue at the core, with a yellow-green rim. Good clarity though. The nose suggests advanced maturity, with a vegetal character, notes of dried leaves, twigs and baked earth. No oxidation, but rather reminiscent of an old Madeira. Light, a little creamy and later fattening up quite a bit, with appropriate acidity for Vintage Port (not Madeira!). Old, leathery, complex style, persistent, fairly complete. This is certainly showing its age, whatever it is. 15/20

Unidentified Vintage Port #4: This bottle is clearly different from the preceding five; this is hand-blown and consequently has a slightly irregular shape. Here there is no available information at all; although the cork was in reasonable condition in part, where the shipper's stamp once was it is quite degraded. The wine itself is another very pale example, with an orange golden hue, but here it is likely that this is appropriate; the bottle and the wine are both in keeping with a 19th Century origin. The nose is dominated by volatile acidity which I fail to get past. On the palate, though, there are some characteristics of note. It is certainly dried out, with unusual organic note of green vegetation with an oatmealy, almond biscuit character. The volatility has a presence too. Interesting, but not something I would choose to drink. Giving points seems particularly inappropriate here, but I have done so, based on pleasure derived, and to place the wine in the context of the tasting. 13.5/20