Vintage port house styles - what are they and can you tell the difference?

[Anthony M]

I’m curious to know if there are any accepted DEFINING characteristics in the style of VINTAGE PORT between the major shippers/producers and what these defining characteristics are. Can anyone help?

What defining characteristics go through your mind when you consider the various producers?

Are there any articles on the web or in this forum on this topic?

[Frederick Blais]

Yes there are differences between the houses. If you can tell or not, I guess it depends on how many times you've tasted the Ports and your quality as a taster.

For example, in the Symington main line of brands, Graham's will be sweeter, Dow's dryer and more tannic while Warre's more feminine and elegant. They achieve those styles by selecting specific vineyards for each brands and also varying some aspect of winemaking.

Then you'll have the single quinta producers and also the single quinta from Port houses, these wines will reflect the style of one quinta in one harvest.

Is there anything written on this already, yes! There are many Port books that go trough most of the Port producers and describe each house. You can look on the producer's website, also you can read a few tasting notes of one same writer over many wines of one house and you should get a feel of it.

[Eric Ifune]

Agree with Fred.
Within the Taylor, Fladgate Group, Taylor's is known for "grip" and it's iron backbone. Fonseca is more voluptuous.

[Tom Archer]

Most of the houses have discernible characteristics, some of which can be readily put in words, others not so easily - both Noval and Niepoort have styles I can usually recognise, but they are very hard to put into words. Some houses also have a style that is quite similar to another - it is quite easy to confuse Graham with Fonseca, for example, also Warre and Cockburn (on older vintages)

Some useful aide memoirs are:

Dow - 'dour'
Fonseca - 'luxuriant'
Graham - 'liquid Xmas pudding'
Taylor - 'bit of a beast'
Sandeman - 'strawberries and cream'

[Bert VD]

that is actually quite nice, a list of words that you feel describe the different houses. i don't have enough experience with different producers but it's fun to read

[Moses Botbol]

Croft - slight heat and Mandarin Oranges.

[Eric Menchen]

No one has yet mentioned the Taylor warmth. Too much alcohol heat in a Port is unpleasant, but along with its power and grip, I regularly find Taylor to have a well integrated alcohol warmth, more so than many other houses. Maybe others have the alcohol, but not enough other flavors to balance it out.

[Thomas V]

misspost

[Andy Velebil]

I typically find Taylor's to have a bit more pronounced spirit when young. Whereas Fonseca is a more voluptuous sweeter Port.

[Tom Archer]

Croft - slight heat and Mandarin Oranges.

With really old Croft bottles, you can tell it's Croft by the orangey smell - even as soon as you pull the cork; but from '70 onwards, I'm not really seeing it. I wonder whether it acquires it with age - or the style has moved on..

[Moses Botbol]

Croft - slight heat and Mandarin Oranges.

With really old Croft bottles, you can tell it's Croft by the orangey smell - even as soon as you pull the cork; but from '70 onwards, I'm not really seeing it. I wonder whether it acquires it with age - or the style has moved on..

Who drinks Croft newer than 1970?

[Eric Menchen]

Who drinks Croft newer than 1970?

Guilty. I hosted a vertical some years ago, and I have a case of 1991 that I'll admit I broke into just to try one. They are good, but I'll probably drink a few more as cellar defenders before long.

[Moses Botbol]

Who drinks Croft newer than 1970?

Guilty. I hosted a vertical some years ago, and I have a case of 1991 that I'll admit I broke into just to try one. They are good, but I'll probably drink a few more as cellar defenders before long.

1991 is the best Croft since 1970; better than a cellar defender. I have a case too... I think I have a few bottles of '94 and 2000 as well.

[Tom Archer]

Croft was one the winners from the '75 vintage. '77 is OK but nothing special and the '82 is nothing like as bad as Mayson made it out to be. '85 was a bit of a disaster. It's a long time since I last had the '91 but it was OK, although way too young, back in 2011.