1989 Cruz Vintage Port

[Al B.]

This was a bottle that I opened with some concern given that it had featured as the "worst port experience" in the lives of a number of forum members.

I think that this is unfair on the wine. Its not a top tier (or even middle tier) port, but its a perfectly respectable simple port.

Decanted 3½ hours before tasting. Light ruby colour, very similar to the colour of a ruby or ruby reserve port. Suffered from slight bottle stink on decanting but this had blown off by the time the wine was tasted.

On the nose this had a slight vegetal tone from the bottle stink, a touch of heat and a hint of rhubarb. Sweet impact into the mouth with little flavours. Mid-palate development is good and brings some cough sweet style fruit on a number of different levels but with some distracting bitterness. Aftertaste takes a long time to develop, but eventually comes through nicely and last a decent time.

A wine like this would not have created a "worst port experience" in any port drinkers career. While not great, it is worthy of more than just emptying down the sink. Scoring - only 72/100 and a wine that is likely to be one of the 5 worst VPs that I drink this year and won't improve over time so I rate it as a 0/0 on Tom's scale. Would I buy this again at the bargain price of £8? Probably not, I'd rather spend twice as much and get something significantly better.

Alex

[Derek T.]

Alex,

An interesting note. Given your experience and you knowledge of the quality control in the Douro do you think this passes as "Vintage Port" - generally accepted as the king of the premium port styles?

My view is that the term Vintage Port does not simply inform the consumer of the method of production used. It should also be an indication of extremely high quality when compared to other styles. Which this wine isn't.

Personally, I don't think wine of this quality should be allowed to use the VP classification.

Derek

[Frederick Blais]

I think that Cruz nomination in the worst Port we had was in fact influenced as it should not be VP. Yes it is not undrinkable but some rubies are clearly better.

I did ask to the IVDP in 2005 when we did visit the place with Roy what they think of Ports made by those componies who are clearly underperforming on purposes. He said that this is a very political subject and sometimes they want to avoid controversies as the line between good and bad can be very thin.

About Cruz, I did have a talk with someone who knows very well the president of the company during my last trip. He told me that he keeps repeating him that his wines are crap and the president keeps repeating him that he's only there to make money!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways Cruz is mainly drank by French who put ice in it to mask those bad flavours. Why make good port when they spoil it anyway 8)

[Al B.]

Interesting questions. If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that as I was writing previous my note I was actually thinking that the wine should probably have been failed by the IVDP and declined a VP categorisation.

However, I have 2/3rds of the bottle left in the decanter and came back to it today. You know, after about 24 hours in the decanter this is actually a pretty decent wine. Its not a stunning VP, nor even an above average VP but I would put it on a par with an average LBV - say the Smith Woodhouse filtered 1994 that I wrote a note on some time ago. But that's no bad thing since this is a port that was actually priced lower than the Smith Woodhouse.

This wine has improved significantly since yesterday. It is still too hot with the spirit dominating the initial aftertaste but there is a lovely, long aftertaste once the spirit fades (which it does quite quickly). Its also too sweet for my taste, but that isn't a flaw in the wine, just a matter of preference.

The wine has improved sufficiently that I would now be tempted to buy another bottle for immediate drinking if it was priced at £8.69 next time I go to Morrisons.

Scoring for the wine would still be a 0/0 on Tom's scale - it is almost certainly one of the 5 weakest VPs I will taste this year - but on an absolute scale I would now give this something around 78/100. Decent and good value if cheap enough and certainly drinkable.

Hey - I've never been afraid of going against the majority view. I would protest that dismissing this wine as "crap" is extremely unfair on the wine. Its much better than that.

Alex

[simon Lisle]

When I rubbished the cruz 89 it was as a vintage port.But I would say it is not bad as a ruby.But not as good as most lbv's I've had but it is cheaper than most.

[Derek T.]

As far as I am aware the quality measurements used to classify port as a VP do not include price. Either the wine is good enough to be VP or it isn't, whether it cost £8 or £800 is irrelevant - although obviously important in terms of the purchasers overall satisfaction.

My only point on my experience of Cruz VP is that I don't think it deserves the name.

Derek

[Al B.]

I'm not claiming that the Cruz '89 is a top notch VP, but I think its fair to give it a VP approval. Its better than some of the corked stuff that you and Andy were knocking back in Portugal

Equally, I've had LBVs that were better than some of the VPs I've drunk. In my opinion, this doesn't mean that those weaker VPs should be refused their certification.

However, I will be the first to admit that I don't know what the objective of the IVDP is. If it is to ensure that wines meet a certain minimum standard then this wine could well be at that minimum standard (and it would be a perfectly reasonable business strategy to make wine that just gets over the minimum threshold and then gets sold cheaply but in large quantities). If it is to improve the standard and to promote the high quality of VP then I would agree with the general sentiment that this wine should not have been allowed a VP classification.

Alex

[Derek T.]

Alex,

As the process that results in a bottle being corked occurs after the wine is approved I think Andy and I can hold our heads high and be proud of the fact that we amongst the very few people in the world who have downed a bottle of corked Nacional 8)

From your options on the objectives of the IVPD, I would like to think the second option is correct. If this in fact what the classification system is trying to acheive then we seem to be in full agreement

Derek

PS: I am currently sitting here with a glass of "cooked" Croft 1977 - not worthy of a TN, probably fabulous at the point of classification, now weak, hot and a bit lifeless, but still better than a Cruz 89

[Tom Archer]

Did this wine actually obtain approval?

The name Cruz never seems to appear in any published list of declared wines. Are they using the term Vintage Port without formal approval?

Is the IVDP's approval process enshrined in law - or can it be by-passed?

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Alex,

As the process that results in a bottle being corked occurs after the wine is approved I think Andy and I can hold our heads high and be proud of the fact that we amongst the very few people in the world who have downed a bottle of corked Nacional 8)

:help:

[Andy Velebil]

Did this wine actually obtain approval?

The name Cruz never seems to appear in any published list of declared wines. Are they using the term Vintage Port without formal approval?

Is the IVDP's approval process enshrined in law - or can it be by-passed?

Tom

Tom,
One thing I learned was if the IVDP rejects a submitted sample, the producer can challenge the results. That said, and I could be totally wrong, is that the IVDP rarely rejects a VP sample submitted. So, I would agree with Fred's comments.

[Frederick Blais]

From what I've heard they reject an average of 12 bottles per year. When they examine a VP for instance, they are looking at color and both aromatic and tasting palate of flavours in its youth. Then the Port also udergoes chemical components examination to rate the quality of the alcool and all other components they can find in the wine. This is with the latter that it is easy to discriminate a sample of Port. The tasting part is really to verify the primary perceptions. An oxydize Port will probably be rejected but again they will challenge the results and test another sample that will probably be good.

These decisions are not easy to make, there is a lot of money on the table when you reject one Port. One thing to keep in mind is that not all producers for different reasons are able to make quality like the top 5. It is good to have variety at different prices but they have to draw a line about when bad quality affects the image of the category.

[Al B.]

Did this wine actually obtain approval?

The name Cruz never seems to appear in any published list of declared wines. Are they using the term Vintage Port without formal approval?

The actual name on the label reads "Bottled in 1992 by Gran Cruz Porto - Sociedade Commercial de Vinhos Lda". It could be that this is the name that appears on the declared wines list. I'm pretty sure that it was approved as it carried the expected sellos, although I just ripped it off and didn't really inspect it.

Alex

[Tom Archer]

An '89 wine bottled in '92 - that's a bit late for VP, but without my books I can't look up and find if this is possible within the permitted time limits.

Does the label actually say 'Vintage Port'?

Tom

[Frederick Blais]

If memory serves good, VP needs to be bottled from 18 to 36 months after the harvest.

[Ronald Wortel]

Although not very common anymore nowadays, it is certainly allowed.

I've drank very few ports by Cruz, all bad. As far as the '89 VP is concerned, I completely trust on KillerB's judgement, who -if I recall correctly- seriously tried to like it, but in the end had no choice but to flush it though the sink.

[Alex K.]

Maybe I had a bad bottle!

Don't think so, I found it really unpleasant, lower than almost any Ruby that I've tasted. Overly hot, too little in terms of flavour. Here is my original note on WS:

http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/for ... #955107872