LBVs (Late Bottled Vintage) Port - the skinny

This section is for those who have basics questions about, or are new to, Port. There are no "dumb" questions here - just those wanting to learn more!

Moderators: Glenn E., Roy Hersh, Andy Velebil

Post Reply
User avatar
Roy Hersh
Site Admin
Posts: 21829
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:27 am
Location: Porto, PT
Contact:

LBVs (Late Bottled Vintage) Port - the skinny

Post by Roy Hersh »

Is it better to buy LBVs from declared or non-declared years?

You make the call!
Ambition driven by passion, rather than money, is as strong an elixir as is Port. http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Frederick Blais
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
Location: Porto, Portugal

Post by Frederick Blais »

I prefer not paying attention to the Vintage on the bottle but more to the producer on the Label.

But referring to the question I'd say that from my experience declared years produces always good quality LBV as to off years can lead to the best as to some deceiving ones. The best LBVs I had so far where from 1990 and 1996 and the worst from 1998. On the other side, 1997 and 2000 LBV where good but nothing impressive came to my palate.

Since I'm not a big LBV buyer nowadays I just pick want I want to taste in a near future. If you want to buy for the cellaring, I'd say buy one, taste it and then evaluate it. Since LBV are much more cheaper than Vintage, it is something you can/should afford to do.
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

I think it varies.

One thing that I have sometimes wondered is how the shippers go about selecting their LBV juice. Selecting wine destined to be VP seems fairly easy to imagine - pick the best grapes from known vines and stick them all in the same oak and cross your fingers for 2 years.

LBV is different, at one point in its life it has the chance to be VP but could be rejected for 2 main reasons (1) it isn't good enough to be VP (Mr Cruz, are you reading this!!) or (2) there is too much juice that is good enough to be VP so some has to be put aside for LBV to keep the customer happy and the VP price up in the clouds.

For wines that are de-selected at option 1 then I wouldn't expect a great LBV. However, wines de-selected at option 2 could be made largely from the same juice that went into a classic VP.

So, based on my assumptions on the selection method, my vote goes to buying LBV from declared years 8)

I would love to know if my assumptions are anywhere near the truth.

Derek
User avatar
Tom Archer
Posts: 2790
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by Tom Archer »

My logic says that good 'second' years are favourite, since in declared years the best juice goes into VP - so years like 1995 and 2001 should be better than the average.

That said, I have found most of them to be pretty consistant, year on year..

..clever guys, these blenders..

Tom
Moses Botbol
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Boston, USA

Post by Moses Botbol »

I am yet to find older LBV's on the market. The selection of LBV's is much more scarce than VP's in the New England market.

Shooting from the hip; I'd think non-declared years would have the best juice since none of it would be utilized for VP.
Welsh Corgis | F1 |British Cars
User avatar
Gizzyeq
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:03 am
Location: NYC & Japan, New York, United States of America - USA

Post by Gizzyeq »

I'd agree from what I've seen also that...its more common to see VP than LBV to a certain extent
Frederick Blais
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:07 am
Location: Porto, Portugal

Post by Frederick Blais »

Moses Botbol wrote:I am yet to find older LBV's on the market. The selection of LBV's is much more scarce than VP's in the New England market.

Shooting from the hip; I'd think non-declared years would have the best juice since none of it would be utilized for VP.
I don't think you'll ever find a great selection of old LBVs on the market. Appart from the Symingtons, I don't know another shipper who bottle age their LBV for a few years before releasing them. Second, if they were releasing a few batches in time and you could be prooved that LBV can age and get better, maybe you'll not spend that much for a Vintage. So they want to keep the image that VP is the ONE to age and LBV is meant to be drank as you wait for your Vintage port.

Now with all the declaration of Single quinta, some of the juice meant for classic VP goes there, but yes probably some good juice that would have gone into VP in declared years goes into the LBV.

Next time you come in Montreal for the FTLOP tasting, I'll tour the SAQ with you if you want to buy some nice LBV, we must have 10+ differents brands.
Living the dream and now working for a Port company
Michael M.
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Windberg, Germany

Post by Michael M. »

My experience is limited, but 1999 as undeclared Vintage should be very good forsome LBV (Niepoort, Noval, Silval Magalhaes, also Pocas imo). 2000 on the other hand as a declared vintage should be not so good for Niepoort or Noval (pretty disappointing for me in the filtered version) for example.

2001 is imo very good for Niepoort- I like this LBV very much. What is your oppinion about Niepoort 2001 LBV???

Michael
Jay Powers
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:48 pm
Location: Pacifica, California, United States of America - USA

Post by Jay Powers »

Michama wrote:My experience is limited, but 1999 as undeclared Vintage should be very good forsome LBV (Niepoort, Noval, Silval Magalhaes, also Pocas imo). 2000 on the other hand as a declared vintage should be not so good for Niepoort or Noval (pretty disappointing for me in the filtered version) for example.

2001 is imo very good for Niepoort- I like this LBV very much. What is your oppinion about Niepoort 2001 LBV???

Michael
I think I'll have to vote non-declared years are better. My reasoning is that, as above, 1999 was a very nice year for LBV, and 2000 was not so nice in my experience. 1996 (Niepoort) and 1995 (Warres) are a couple of additional data points in my experience.

But then the 1997 Grahams LBV was pretty nice when it was available....... :wink:

Jay
Michael M.
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Windberg, Germany

Post by Michael M. »

Jay Powers wrote: But then the 1997 Grahams LBV was pretty nice when it was available....... :wink:

Jay
And 1997 Quinta do Noval unfiltered! :D
User avatar
Andy Velebil
Posts: 16813
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Post by Andy Velebil »

Can only say I've had a couple of LBV's from a major declared years. The Taylor's 2000 was he best of their LBV's that I've had. However, for other producer's (Grahams, Noval, Niepoort, Warre, etc) I've been very happy with thier LBV's from non-declared years. (discalimer: can't say I've had more than one or two LBV's from a declared year from these other producers so I cannot acuratly compare them).

I agree that there probably is a greater percentage of the top quality grapes going into LBV in non-delcared years since the grapes aren't needed for a VP. Making the LBV's in non-declared years a notch better.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
Michael M.
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:13 am
Location: Windberg, Germany

Post by Michael M. »

Andy V. wrote:The Taylor's 2000 was he best of their LBV's that I've had.
Andy, did you have Taylor 2001 too? What's your opinion?

Michael
User avatar
Andy Velebil
Posts: 16813
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States of America - USA
Contact:

Post by Andy Velebil »

Michael,

No, I have not seen it yet at any of the stores around me.
Andy Velebil Good wine is a good familiar creature if it be well used. William Shakespeare http://www.fortheloveofport.com
User avatar
Derek T.
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom - UK
Contact:

Post by Derek T. »

I have had both the 2000 and 2001 Taylor's LBV recently. I think the 2000 is by far the superior of the two. The 2001 is, to my taste, more typical of the Taylor's LBV style - a bit too sweet and light in the mouth. The 2000 is a more robust wine and could possibly stand up well against a traditional LBV of similar age. How it will develop over time, if at all, is anyone's guess.

Derek
Bob bman
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:48 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Post by Bob bman »

My LBV rule of thumb is to buy them from lesser porthouses in lesser vintages. I don't think I've ever had (not that I've had that many) a non-vintage port from Taylor, Fonseca, Graham, Dow or any top porthouse that I've really loved, but I have really enjoyed a Noval (not so much a less house, I know) and another that I can't currently remember.
Moses Botbol
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:38 am
Location: Boston, USA

Post by Moses Botbol »

bman wrote:I have really enjoyed a Noval (not so much a less house, I know) and another that I can't currently remember.
The Noval has been my favorite so far. It has more body than most of the others I have tried, and seems like it could develop into a classic the most out the usual players in the Boston market. The Ferreira degrades quicker once open than the Noval, but initally has a fabulous taste. It also tastes older than it's age, which I am finding similarly in their VP's.
Welsh Corgis | F1 |British Cars
Post Reply