Wine Enthusiast
This is very much in the mold of the 1992—maybe slightly less rich but just by a whisker. It’s dense without being heavy, with a beautifully spice-filled and long finish. Flavors of chocolate, mint and plum pudding linger elegantly for a few seconds longer than the ’92. Hold.
Score: 99.
—Joe Czerwinski,
February
01,
2007.
Wine Advocate
When tasting young vintage ports, Taylor is always the most backward. Yet potentially, it has the capability to be the most majestic. This classically made, opaque purple-colored wine is crammed with black fruits (blueberries and cassis). It reveals high tannin and a reserved style, but it is enormously constituted with massive body, a formidable mid-palate, and exceptional length. It is a young, rich, powerful Taylor that will require 10-15 years of aging. Compared to the more flashy, forward style of the 1992, the 1994 has more in common with such vintages as 1977 and 1970. Anticipated maturity: 2008-2045.
Score: 97.
—Robert Parker,
October
1996.
Wine Spectator
In a word, superb. It's full-bodied, moderately sweet and incredibly tannic, but there's amazing finesse and refinement to the texture, not to mention fabulous, concentrated aromas of raspberries, violets and other flowers. Perhaps the greatest Taylor ever, it's better than either the '92 or the '70, though it's very like the '70 in structure. Best after 2010. 10,000 cases made.
Score: 100.
—James Suckling,
April
30,
1997.
|
|
Send to a friend
print cellar notes
|
