1976 Ports

[Ronald Wortel]

1976 FG is a totally different color. It is more of a dark brown and it smells and tastes more along the lines of a PX Sherry than Port. When you have it side by side with any other older VP it stands out like a wolf in a herd of sheep. It's a fantastic example of an adulturated Port. It's also something you generally won't see any more as now all the larger companies test incoming lots they buy from outside producers and reject accordingly if there are any issues. Back then things were a little different.

Strangely dark, yes. Adulterated, from everything I heard and understand: definitely. But smelling and tasting of PX? Sorry, but that really misses the mark. It's still very much a port in character, with -admittedly- other elements in there. I always find it a pleasure to drink, which is fortunate, because I still have quite a few bottles...

[Andy Velebil]

1976 FG is a totally different color. It is more of a dark brown and it smells and tastes more along the lines of a PX Sherry than Port. When you have it side by side with any other older VP it stands out like a wolf in a herd of sheep. It's a fantastic example of an adulturated Port. It's also something you generally won't see any more as now all the larger companies test incoming lots they buy from outside producers and reject accordingly if there are any issues. Back then things were a little different.

Strangely dark, yes. Adulterated, from everything I heard and understand: definitely. But smelling and tasting of PX? Sorry, but that really misses the mark. It's still very much a port in character, with -admittedly- other elements in there. I always find it a pleasure to drink, which is fortunate, because I still have quite a few bottles...

Don't get me wrong, I agree it's a good drink. But very different, especially when you taste it side by side with other similar aged VP's.

[Frederick Blais]

Found a Warre's 1976 bottled in 1998 today in Porto, I'll probably open it with my brother in the coming weeks, I'll report on it.

I had the 1976 Poças a few times this harvest. It is good but not in the top. It is missing something, after a few days open, it got better though.

[Mahmoud Ali]

Can't believe no has rushed to mention the glorious 1976 Guimaraens - beautiful, intense and drinking very, very well at the moment.

I have been away from home (and the forum) for quite sometime. Now, reading this post, my thoughts were the same as Richard's, disbelief that no one had mentioned the '76 Fonseca Guimaraens. I have tasted the '76 Guimaraens on a couple of occasions, once head to head with the '77 Fonseca at a tasting in Edmonton where I can honestly say that the Guimaraens appeared to be the younger, darker, and more youthful of the two. The representative who was pouring and said that the '77 Fonseca was the better of the two and would outlast the '76 Guimaraens appeared to me a weak and contrived argument, I was not convinced.

Cheers.......................Mahmoud.

Color of Port can be very deceptive. Just because the 1976 Guimaraens is darker doesn't make it better. If you understand why it's so dark, compared to any other VP out there, you soon realize something isn't quite right with it. Lets just say there is something else in it to give it that weird dark color and a strange (for VP) nose and taste.

That's a fair point Andy but I meant more than just the colour. Apart from the appearance, the '76 Guimaraens also tasted younger and more youthful than the '77 Fonseca. It has been a long time since I had the '76 but in the two occasions I've had it there appeared nothing wrong with it and neither was it sweet, a PX sherry quality was not something I detected.

What alarms me though is the supposition in several posts that the 1976 Guimaraens is adulterated. I went ot the Fonseca web site and this is what they had to say about the Guimaraens:

“In certain years when there is no classic Fonseca Vintage Port, a Guimaraens Vintage Port may be made instead.

When Guimaraens Vintage Ports were first released in the 1930's they were made in the same years as the classic Fonseca Vintage Ports but blended from slightly less powerful components, much like the second wines of the Bordeaux châteaux.

Today Guimaraens Vintage Ports are made in years when the wines are more supple and early maturing and Fonseca in vintages producing bigger, more long lasting Ports.

Guimaraens Vintage Ports nevertheless share the origins, heritage and complex fruity style of the classic Fonseca vintages and are drawn from the produce of the same three estates. They differ only in that they are more approachable, ready to drink earlier and more accessibly priced.”

It seems clear that the Guimaraens started out as a second port made from the same components as the Fonseca. Later the Guimaraens came to be made when in years when Fonseca was not declared, again from the same estates as the Fonseca. This suggests that in both instances the Guimaraens is a selection made from the component ports that could be considered to go into a Fonseca were the quality sufficient for a declaration, either as a second wine or instead of a Fonseca declaratrion. To say that there is adulterated port in a Guimaraens is to suggest that there may be adulterated port in the Fonseca ports as well.

In the case of the 1976 Guimaraen, there was no Fonseca declaration that year so it would be safe to assume that the Guimaraens was made from the very best fruit of the vintage from their own estates. Also, I cannot see any reason why Fonseca would want to buy any additional port from other sources, especially in an undeclared vintage. Surely their own vineyards would provide a sufficient amount of quality port for the Guimaraens.

Here is my issue, if the ’76 Guimaraens is adulterated then whats to say the ’77 Fonseca isn’t adulterated, or any other vintage for that matter, whether Fonseca or Guimaraens. As an aside, If anything it is the ’75 Fonseca that should have been “adulterated.”

It seems to me that the late release of the 2001 Nacional can be instructive. In a separate post Roy provided a link to Christian Seely’s blog and there he said of the reason for the late release of the Nacional:

“Quinta do Noval Nacional Vintage is always a powerful concentrated wine, but in its youth the 2001 was extremely backward and quite closed up, dense and very tannic. Since we had just declared and released the 2000 Nacional Vintage, we decided to lay down the 250 cases of Nacional Vintage 2001 that were produced and keep them back for release at a later date.

All great Vintage Port wines retain their youthfulness for a long time, but with Quinta do Noval Nacional Vintage this characteristic is exaggerated, so we have waited some years before releasing the 2001, which is still immensely youthful structured and powerful, but is now just beginning to reveal its enormous future potential.”

My point is that if a single vineyard in the undeclared 2001, in this case the Nacional, can produce a backward, structured, dense, and powerful port, then why couldn’t the same have taken place with the components that went into the Guimaraens in 1976. Just as the ’01 Nacional appears to be an outlier so too is the ’76 Guimaraens. Just my opinion.

Cheers ........................... Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

I have been away from home (and the forum) for quite sometime. Now, reading this post, my thoughts were the same as Richard's, disbelief that no one had mentioned the '76 Fonseca Guimaraens. I have tasted the '76 Guimaraens on a couple of occasions, once head to head with the '77 Fonseca at a tasting in Edmonton where I can honestly say that the Guimaraens appeared to be the younger, darker, and more youthful of the two. The representative who was pouring and said that the '77 Fonseca was the better of the two and would outlast the '76 Guimaraens appeared to me a weak and contrived argument, I was not convinced.

Cheers.......................Mahmoud.

Color of Port can be very deceptive. Just because the 1976 Guimaraens is darker doesn't make it better. If you understand why it's so dark, compared to any other VP out there, you soon realize something isn't quite right with it. Lets just say there is something else in it to give it that weird dark color and a strange (for VP) nose and taste.

That's a fair point Andy but I meant more than just the colour. Apart from the appearance, the '76 Guimaraens also tasted younger and more youthful than the '77 Fonseca. It has been a long time since I had the '76 but in the two occasions I've had it there appeared nothing wrong with it and neither was it sweet, a PX sherry quality was not something I detected.

What alarms me though is the supposition in several posts that the 1976 Guimaraens is adulterated. I went ot the Fonseca web site and this is what they had to say about the Guimaraens:

“In certain years when there is no classic Fonseca Vintage Port, a Guimaraens Vintage Port may be made instead.

When Guimaraens Vintage Ports were first released in the 1930's they were made in the same years as the classic Fonseca Vintage Ports but blended from slightly less powerful components, much like the second wines of the Bordeaux châteaux.

Today Guimaraens Vintage Ports are made in years when the wines are more supple and early maturing and Fonseca in vintages producing bigger, more long lasting Ports.

Guimaraens Vintage Ports nevertheless share the origins, heritage and complex fruity style of the classic Fonseca vintages and are drawn from the produce of the same three estates. They differ only in that they are more approachable, ready to drink earlier and more accessibly priced.”

It seems clear that the Guimaraens started out as a second port made from the same components as the Fonseca. Later the Guimaraens came to be made when in years when Fonseca was not declared, again from the same estates as the Fonseca. This suggests that in both instances the Guimaraens is a selection made from the component ports that could be considered to go into a Fonseca were the quality sufficient for a declaration, either as a second wine or instead of a Fonseca declaratrion. To say that there is adulterated port in a Guimaraens is to suggest that there may be adulterated port in the Fonseca ports as well.

In the case of the 1976 Guimaraen, there was no Fonseca declaration that year so it would be safe to assume that the Guimaraens was made from the very best fruit of the vintage from their own estates. Also, I cannot see any reason why Fonseca would want to buy any additional port from other sources, especially in an undeclared vintage. Surely their own vineyards would provide a sufficient amount of quality port for the Guimaraens.

Here is my issue, if the ’76 Guimaraens is adulterated then whats to say the ’77 Fonseca isn’t adulterated, or any other vintage for that matter, whether Fonseca or Guimaraens. As an aside, If anything it is the ’75 Fonseca that should have been “adulterated.”

It seems to me that the late release of the 2001 Nacional can be instructive. In a separate post Roy provided a link to Christian Seely’s blog and there he said of the reason for the late release of the Nacional:

“Quinta do Noval Nacional Vintage is always a powerful concentrated wine, but in its youth the 2001 was extremely backward and quite closed up, dense and very tannic. Since we had just declared and released the 2000 Nacional Vintage, we decided to lay down the 250 cases of Nacional Vintage 2001 that were produced and keep them back for release at a later date.

All great Vintage Port wines retain their youthfulness for a long time, but with Quinta do Noval Nacional Vintage this characteristic is exaggerated, so we have waited some years before releasing the 2001, which is still immensely youthful structured and powerful, but is now just beginning to reveal its enormous future potential.”

My point is that if a single vineyard in the undeclared 2001, in this case the Nacional, can produce a backward, structured, dense, and powerful port, then why couldn’t the same have taken place with the components that went into the Guimaraens in 1976. Just as the ’01 Nacional appears to be an outlier so too is the ’76 Guimaraens. Just my opinion.

Cheers ........................... Mahmoud.

Mahmoud,
I understand you've read some things on their website. Let me make this very clear so there is no misunderstanding. The 1976 was made with a small percentage of grapes that were adultered. That is not debatable, it happened. It happened on occasion back then in the Port trade and does not happen now. TFP, as do most companies, test every lot they get from their suppliers to prevent such things now. And despite what you think Fonseca and FG have been and are made from a percentage of grapes bought from other farmers, as are the majority of Ports from the Douro.

**You can not blame a producer for getting a lot of grapes that someone secretly adulterated and sold to them. Remember this was back when quick and cheap testing was not available so there was no easy way to tell until years later when irregularities showed up. One had to rely on the word of the hundreds of supplies used each year. The vast majority were and still are very honest hard working people. However, a few will always try to cheat the system.

[Ronald Wortel]

Mahmoud,
I understand you've read some things on their website. Let me make this very clear so there is no misunderstanding. The 1976 was made with a small percentage of grapes that were adultered. That is not debatable, it happened. It happened on occasion back then in the Port trade and does not happen now. TFP, as do most companies, test every lot they get from their suppliers to prevent such things now. And despite what you think Fonseca and FG have been and are made from a percentage of grapes bought from other farmers, as are the majority of Ports from the Douro.

**You can not blame a producer for getting a lot of grapes that someone secretly adulterated and sold to them. Remember this was back when quick and cheap testing was not available so there was no easy way to tell until years later when irregularities showed up. One had to rely on the word of the hundreds of supplies used each year. The vast majority were and still are very honest hard working people. However, a few will always try to cheat the system.

Excellent explanation Andy. In addition to that, it is important to remember that "beefing up" of wine in difficult vintages used to be very common in many countries. Bordeaux with wines from the South and Rhone, Rioja with Bobal from the SE coast and Sangiovese with the wines from Puglia, to name just a few examples.
Mahmoud, I suggest you read Mayson's book Port & the Douro, there is a very good piece on adulteration in it that explains a lot.

[Richard Beeken]

Andy - what specific adulteration (type, amount, etc.) occurred with the 76 FG? How do you know with non-debatable certainty that adulteration happened in this case? I'm not contesting your assertion, just curious . . .

[Mahmoud Ali]

Andy,

I don’t dispute your conviction that the 76 Guimaraens is adulterated. I am merely trying to put this information into context.

When you say that a certain percentage of grapes were adulterated I am presuming that you mean there were unauthorized grapes in the lots that were purchased by Fonseca. This suggests that growers either had these grapes planted in their vineyards or were shipping in grapes from elsewhere. If the grapes were planted in their vineyards then it means that the same vineyard was supplying adulterated lots in other years as well. On the other hand if the grapes were imported from other areas then it’s likely it was an established pattern and not a one-off rushed into place for the 1976 vintage. As you said, “a few will always try to cheat the system”, and the corollary to that would be that unless caught they will continue to cheat the system.

With this in mind it occurred to me that with this kind of adulteration, either in the vineyard or through outside grapes, that other vintage ports may also have been adulterated, not just the 1976 Guimaraens. Of course the degree of adulteration in each vintage port would depend on the amount of the adulterated port that might have been blended into the vintage. Since 1976 was not a declared vintage I assume that the very best lots went into Guimaraens and that includes the adulterated lots. That being the case it’s very possible that the same farmer/grower would have provided adulterated lots in the preceding and subsequent vintages, namely for the 1975 and 1977 vintage ports.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m just setting out my thoughts based on the statements made and the information available online. I am not denying that the ’76 Guimaraens might be adulterated because I wouldn’t know. Rather I am looking at this from two fronts, on one side the issues involved if in fact adulteration was occurring back then and on the other side whether there might be other reasons why the Guimaraens might be such a dark and full-bodied port in an undeclared vintage.

It was prior to reading this thread I had seen where Seely talked about the late release of the 2001 Nacional and fact that it was an extremely backward port despite it not being a declared vintage. That’s what made me wonder why the same couldn’t be true of the 76 Guimaraens.

I didn’t post this before but in looking for information on the 1976 vintage I came across a description of it by Michael Symington in October 1976:

“The main characteristic of this vintage has been very low production from all Quintas and very low yields from the grapes themselves in the lagares.
In spite of the rain, graduations were uniformly high and the colour of all wines excellent. 1976 will certainly turn out to be a year of dark, full bodied Ports but possibly lacking in ‘freshness’ – this quite understandable after such an exceptionally dry year.”

That description of the vintage is certainly in keeping with how the '76 Guimaraens turned out.

Anyway, to summarize my thoughts, I don’t dispute that the 1976 Guimaraens might be adulterated but given the practice it suggests to me that other vintage ports may also be adulterated, not only due to the suppliers to Fonseca but the suppliers to other port houses as well. On the other hand, without the knowledge you have Andy, I couldn’t help wondering about reasons that would account for '76 Guimaraens being a fine port in an undeclared vintage.

Cheers .............................. Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

Andy - what specific adulteration (type, amount, etc.) occurred with the 76 FG? How do you know with non-debatable certainty that adulteration happened in this case? I'm not contesting your assertion, just curious . . .

Let me just say it comes from a non-debatable source.

And what was used, to my knowledge isn't exactly known. But most likely one of several things that were used then. Same for quantity. No one know for sure but typically it's a very small amount of something added in. Think of it as food coloring, a tiny bit goes a long way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eric Ifune]

In the past, a few things like elderberries were added in with the grapes to boost color. Individual growers might throw in a few.

[Richard Beeken]

Damn! I've really enjoyed a whole bunch of bottles of the 76 FG not knowing they were "adulterated" . . . Now that I know, I'll have to go back and revise my notes to reflect that I didn't really like them much at all and deeply resent the pathetic and futile attempt to one put over on me by use of such an unscrupulous winemaking tactic . . .
And to think I figured I got a pretty good deal at $50 C a bottle, all-in! A whole case, too!
Of course, my biggest problem is what to do with the remaining three of four bottles of this swill remaining in my cellar. Obviously it can't be enjoyed the way it once almost was so I guess it's down the drain lickety-split! - on the other hand, I suppose Mahmoud and I could make sure we sample one or two together before I toss 'em just to make sure we really didn't like them much after all. Maybe with some "beefFGportignon".
Or . . . Hey! Anybody want to trade an 01 Nacional for these?

[Andy Velebil]

I'll give you 5 nationals for one 76 FG hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mahmoud Ali]

Richard,

You certainly got an excellent deal with the '76 Guimaraens, I had to pay somewhere around C$65. So with your three bottles and my two we have 3.75 litres of the stuff, surely enough to cook something in a pot. Alternatively, though I have no Noval Nacionals, if you open one of your bottles I'll open a 2000 Noval VP, supposedly almost as good as the Nacional if some of the reviews are correct.

Cheers ......................... Mahmoud.

[Mahmoud Ali]

In the past, a few things like elderberries were added in with the grapes to boost color. Individual growers might throw in a few.

Yes, I've seen references to elderberries and the grape and skins of the Baga grape being used in the adulteration of port.

Mahmoud.

[Mahmoud Ali]

It is now clear to me (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that Andy has heard about the adulteration of the ’76 Guimaraens from a source close to the heart of things but is keeping it close to his chest so as not to betray a confidence and that is completely understandable.

The interesting thing about all this is that it has made me do a bit of casual reading and I have since discovered that adulteration and it’s effects has been a part of the port trade since the beginning. In the early 18th century brandy was sometimes added to port wine barrels to help it withstand the rigors of a sea voyage. Sometime later there were producers who fortified the wine during the fermentation. This practice of fortification during fermentation was found to make the wines sweeter, stronger and more aromatic and it found great appeal. With time this practice caught on but not everybody was happy about it. According to the Taylor Fladgate website one of the fiercest opponents of fortification was Baron Forrester who apparently campaigned against it till his accidental death by drowning in the Duoro River. As we all know fortification is now an integral part of port and it is no longer considered adulteration.

Meanwhile other kinds of adulteration had also been taking place. This involved elderberries, the addition of sugar, and wines from Bairrada. Bags of elderberries were used to add colour to the wine and Bairrada wines (made from Baga grapes) were either used in the blend or passed off as Duoro wines. Severe measures were taken to eliminate these practices and Jamie Goode discusses this in a tasting report on Bairrada wines in 2001/02. In the report he thought that the practice of using elderberries in the Douro was still ongoing.

“ ... a very important year in Portuguese viticulture was 1756. This was when the Marquis de Pombal (a modernizing prime minister who by all accounts was also a bit of a nutter) demarcated the vineyards of the Douro. The motivation for this was that the Douro was losing its reputation through fraud, for two key reasons. First was the use of the elderberry bag to give colour to the wines. This is the practice by which a bag of mushed-up elderberries was suspended in the lagar (the stone trough that grapes are trodden in): that this is still ongoing in the Douro is indicated by the fact that elderberries currently sell for more than Touriga Nacional and Touriga Francesca grapes (my emphasis).The second source of fraud was that other wines, principally Bairrada’s, were being passed of as Douro wines. So Pombal uprooted all the elderberry trees and just about every vine in Bairrada. A little extreme, but no doubt effective.”

(http://www.wineanorak.com/bairrada.htm)

I was very surprised to read Jamie Goode’s assertion because it means that the adulteration of port was still fairly recent. However I suppose one shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that producers may try to get as much colour into their wines because some winemakers do it as well, using special enzymes to enhance colour extraction from red grape skins. I recall reading in Alice Feiring’s book The Battle for Wine and Love about a top flight Spanish winemaker who said he did this because the critics like the darker colour.

Which brings me to Andy’s last comment:

And what was used, to my knowledge isn't exactly known. But most likely one of several things that were used then. Same for quantity. No one know for sure but typically it's a very small amount of something added in. Think of it as food coloring, a tiny bit goes a long way.

Now I know that Andy might not be able to comment futher for the reasons mentioned above, but his suggestion to consider the adulteration as food colouring suggests he may be talking about the elderberries. Andy also says that there were a number of adulteration practices back then and I can’t help wondering if Andy’s reference to quantity raises the spectre of Baga grapes or wines.

What all this means is that there is no assurance that a bit of elderberry and Baga did not make it into some of the other ports of that era and for sometime later as well. In that case perhaps Richard and I should just trust our palates and continue to enjoy the pleasures of the ’76 Guimaraens. And whenever we come across another particularly dark looking port we should just think of the Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazlewood song Summer Wine and instead of:

“Strawberries, cherries and an angel’s kiss in spring,
My summer wine is really made from all these things”

we would sing:

“Strawberries, cherries, and an elderberry kiss in spring,
My Porto wine is really made from all these things.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH800q8qQsg


And on that note ........................... Mahmoud.

PS: Apparently Baron Forrester drowned in the Douro because he was weighed down with gold sovereigns in his money belt while his two lady companions survived because their crinolines buoyed them. Since Baron Forrester’s body was never found it must mean that there are gold sovereigns at the bottom of the Douro. How deep is the the river and can one rent scuba gear in Oporto?