Interesting chat about fortifying spirit.

[Chris Anstee]

I'm a recent recruit to this website, so please forgive me if the comments which follow have been covered previously or elsewhere.

In the late 1970s, Bruce Guimaraens, who preceded his son David as Chief Winemaker of the Taylor/Fonseca (Fladgate Partnership), made some interesting observations to me about fortifying spirit.
In those days, port producers could only purchase this spirit from the Portuguese government-licenced distillery. Its quality (cleanliness) was very variable and it often contained undesirably high levels of 'heads', and 'tails' - fusels, congeners and other organoleptically discernable impurities, which resulted from careless or ignorant distillation. Bruce told me that these impurities were almost certainly the main cause of consumer complaints that port could cause vicious headaches and hangovers. But he did emphasise that as port is typically consumed after possibly excessive quantities of other wines its reputation as the cause of hangovers was not at all deserved. Bruce stated that with age some, but not all, of these early, undesirable impurities would become combined with other components in the wine and were therefore discarded as part of its sediment. Another powerful argument for drinking fully-mature port wines.

On a more recent visit to Taylor's about 10 years ago, I related this discussion to David Guimaraens who had by then succeeded his late father. David is very familiar with the history and manufacture of the great Australian fortified Muscats, Tokays and port-style wines produced in the Australia's Rutherglen region. Interestingly, his feeling at that time was that pure, neutral fortifying spirit which had now become readily available to port producers in the Douro was possibly too clean and might therefore be robbing modern wines of some their former complexity. He had tasted many examples of very fine fortified wines from Rutherglen produced in an era when each winemaker often also carefully distilled his own spirit. Like the Cognac and Scotch distillers, these winemakers were able to judiciously allow into their final fortifying spirit minute quantities of desirable 'heads' and 'tails' which gave greater personality and complexity to the wine.

I don't have any update on this line of thinking and how it might have changed port producers' choice of fortifying spirit but I would be interested to know ....

[Andy Velebil]

Moderators note: I split this very good question/topic from THIS topic in the Other Discussion forum. As it really belongs here.

And Chris, to the Forum!

[Andy Velebil]

Chris,

A very good question you have brought up and one I have thought about on many occasions over the years. I'll let some others chime in first, then I'll add my thoughts to it.

[Andy Velebil]

I guess I'll chime in since no one else has so far. I'm somewhere in the middle. In the "old" days there was no doubt the spirit used wasn't as good and as a result you had VP's that took a while to integrate and become enjoyable to drink and lower end stuff that was a bit rough around the edges. However, now I think you've got the exact opposite problem; they are too clean. For younger stuff like LBV's, Ruby's, etc. that's not a bad thing. Actually a very good thing since they are typically consumed young. I am not totally convinced, yet, that being so pure is a good thing for VP over the very long haul. Making drastic changes in a short amount of time is always a risk and with spirit that switch from average to excellent spirit was rather quick. I think we've seen the same with the big purge of mixed field blends and now the resurgence of their importance. And how Souzao has, once again over 100 years later, regain in popularity. There is something to be said of older ways of doing things...

The flip side, is it that the high quality of spirit has definitely produced better lower end stuff, like Rose Ports. No way you could make a good Rose with poor spirit

[Eric Ifune]

I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve. I would guess higher proof fortifying spirit would be more clean. In Madeira and Setubal, they use 95+%. I don't see those wines as being "squeaky" clean. Then again, they're wood aged. Has anybody or any firm used different spirits in their glass versus wood aged Ports? Perhaps the differences show more in VP?

[Andy Velebil]

I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve. I would guess higher proof fortifying spirit would be more clean. In Madeira and Setubal, they use 95+%. I don't see those wines as being "squeaky" clean. Then again, they're wood aged. Has anybody or any firm used different spirits in their glass versus wood aged Ports? Perhaps the differences show more in VP?

I am not the best one to ask about proofing spirit manufacturing, but I thought that the actual finished proof doesn't matter when it comes to the quality or "cleanliness" of it (Is that the correct term?). That the quality comes from how it was distilled and, as mentioned, the heads and tails that are usually rejected and just the middle run that is kept in the better quality stuff. Hence why your cheap store bought vodka can give you a nasty hangover and a top end one won't (all else being equal that is).

I do know TFP experimented with various qualities of spirit to make Croft Pink Port. They ended up having to use the very best stuff, the same that they use in their top end VP's. That was one of the main reasons why Pink was on the pricier side when it was released (there is a significant price difference between lower quality and high quality spirit used to fortify Port).

[Bert VD]

is the spirit used for port distilled from grape stems and skins like grappa? or just very pure so it doesn't matter what it's made from? (like wodka; wheat, potato, or even quinoa)

would it be possible for a port maker to go for a distinct style by using different high quality spirits that do add a certain taste like cognac (distilled white wine), calvados (distilled cider), palinka (fruits, can be anything but mostly apricot, plum and pear), cachaça (sugar can juice)... and what about a barrel aged version of any of the above?

[Eric Menchen]

is the spirit used for port distilled from grape stems and skins like grappa? or just very pure so it doesn't matter what it's made from? (like wodka; wheat, potato, or even quinoa)

I've been told it is always a grape based product.

[Eric Ifune]

I've always thought that the higher the proof, the purer the alcohol. That's why Bourbon can not be distilled at high proof, they want all the flavoring agents to remain.

[Glenn E.]

I've always thought that the higher the proof, the purer the alcohol. That's why Bourbon can not be distilled at high proof, they want all the flavoring agents to remain.

That depends at least in part on how you get to the proof.

If you take Everclear (190 proof) and mix it 50/50 with pure distilled water, the purity will remain the same but the proof will drop to 95. (Yes, I know that's not 100% accurate. I started out as a chemist. It's close enough.) You can also alter the purity via filtering without changing the proof.

But solely from a distillation point of view, and assuming you're not throwing in weird impurities deliberately chosen to distill at the same point as alcohol, yes the higher the proof the purer the alcohol.

[Chris Anstee]

I was sorry to see that no one with some insider knowledge has joined this thread and grappled with the topic I tried to raise...
Andy, or Roy, perhaps, do you have any thoughts as to whom I could contact?
Or perhaps one of your group could raise it on my behalf when next you are visiting 'God's own country'?
with thanks
Chris

[Mike K.]

Many good points above. When distilling whiskies, the higher the distillation proof the lighter and less flavorful the spirit. Bourbon aficionados in particular appreciate a lower distillation proof.
But as previously stated, it is important to make the cuts at the right spot. Too narrow and the spirit is too ‘pure’ and looses character. Too wide and you get undesirable compounds which taste funky and definitely lead to hangovers. A particular bottling of Armagnac comes to mind - upon tasting I immediately felt the cuts were too generous and sure enough my head hurt in the morning.
While visiting Setúbal this past spring I noticed that some producers were experimenting with Armagnac as the fortifying spirit. I felt it worked well. J.M.Fonseca poured us three similar Moscatel’s - one using traditional fortifying spirit, one with Cognac, and one with Armagnac. The spirit made a significant difference and was easily noticed. The Armagnac version was the clear winner.

[Andy Velebil]

I was sorry to see that no one with some insider knowledge has joined this thread and grappled with the topic I tried to raise...
Andy, or Roy, perhaps, do you have any thoughts as to whom I could contact?
Or perhaps one of your group could raise it on my behalf when next you are visiting 'God's own country'?
with thanks
Chris

Chris,
I can ask around when I'm there if I remember. FYI, You generally won't get producers or "insiders" posting much on any wine forum. People tend to take what is posted out of context, want to argue their beliefs which tend to be in a not nice manor, and so on and so on. As a result most producers don't post on certain topics in public forums of any type.

I do know producers pick and choose the spirit they want from producers that offer what they want. There are various levels of spirit and corresponding price points. The top ones can be significantly more money than the lower end ones. One isn't using the most expensive spirit to fortify what will become a basic ruby Port that will retail for less than $10/bottle. It is impossible from a viable economic standpoint (see my point above re: Croft Pink).

[Eric Ifune]

We once encountered a spirit tasting at Taylor Fladgate. They were determining which to use. There were 4 separate spirits. They were all high end, quite different, but they didn't say what qualities they were looking for in their fortification.
I once briefly discussed the use of spirits with David Morris of Morris, Rutherglen. He said they preferred higher proof (96% similar for Madeira and Setubal) for their white varieties to maintain the fruit. Lower proof (77% as for Port) for darker flavors in the red varieties.

[David Spriggs]

We once encountered a spirit tasting at Taylor Fladgate. They were determining which to use. There were 4 separate spirits. They were all high end, quite different, but they didn't say what qualities they were looking for in their fortification.
I once briefly discussed the use of spirits with David Morris of Morris, Rutherglen. He said they preferred higher proof (96% similar for Madeira and Setubal) for their white varieties to maintain the fruit. Lower proof (77% as for Port) for darker flavors in the red varieties.

Interesting. Most of the "port" makers in California prefer the 96% for their Ports. Less water to dilute the product.