1863 Taylor Fladgate....how long to hold?

[Glenn E.]

I'm with Eric regarding the definitions of topping up and refreshing.

Topping up is using the same wine even if not stored identically. It's still the same wine from the same year and possibly even from the same lagar.

Refreshing is using a different wine (presumably younger) to change the flavor.

[Andy Velebil]

I'm with Eric regarding the definitions of topping up and refreshing.

Topping up is using the same wine even if not stored identically. It's still the same wine from the same year and possibly even from the same lagar.

Refreshing is using a different wine (presumably younger) to change the flavor.

That makes absolutely no sense. Is a 1960 tawny Port still stored in barrel today the same as a 1960 VP bottled in 1962? I rest my case.

[Mike J. W.]

I'm with Eric regarding the definitions of topping up and refreshing.

Topping up is using the same wine even if not stored identically. It's still the same wine from the same year and possibly even from the same lagar.

Refreshing is using a different wine (presumably younger) to change the flavor.

That makes absolutely no sense. Is a 1960 tawny Port still stored in barrel today the same as a 1960 VP bottled in 1962? I rest my case.

[Eric Ifune]

Same wine, different elevage. I'm trusting the company to put out the best product possible for the consumer while keeping labeling accurate. If that takes topping up for a 150 year old wine, I'm all for it. It remains the best thing I've ever ingested into my body.

[Glenn E.]

I'm with Eric regarding the definitions of topping up and refreshing.

Topping up is using the same wine even if not stored identically. It's still the same wine from the same year and possibly even from the same lagar.

Refreshing is using a different wine (presumably younger) to change the flavor.

That makes absolutely no sense. Is a 1960 tawny Port still stored in barrel today the same as a 1960 VP bottled in 1962? I rest my case.

It's the same wine. It was grown and harvested in the same year. It's been stored differently and so has different characteristics, but it's the same wine.

How reductio ad absurdum do you want to get? As Sandeman demonstrated with their single-barrel "Cask 33" Very Old Tawny Port, even port aged in 2 different barrels can end up very different in the long run. So do you want to call all forms of blending "refreshing" since Cask 33 was a very different Port than their regular 40 Year Old?

No, of course not, that would be silly. As long as it's the same wine, it's "topping up." If it's not the same wine, it's "refreshing."

[Andrew Kirschner]

This thread has been great! Thank you so much for the thoughts. I’ve learned a lot here.
Best,
Andrew

[Al B.]

There is a little label on the top of the cork in the 1863 decanter, which says it was bottled in 2014.

I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time a few weeks ago to be able to share one of these remarkable bottles. The wine was amazing, still so powerful and intense. I didn’t feel as though there should be a rush to open these bottles.

FWIW, I think I scored it 99/100.

[Glenn E.]

Regarding the rate of loss in a barrel over time...

I'm going to be a bit vague about this for now because I cannot remember if the producer wants the specifics of this discussed in public. If Stewart or Roy gives the okay, I'll come back and fill in further details later.

But the relevant parts...

Last year I had the opportunity to taste an amazing old wine that PHT2 got to experience on the tour. I wasn't able to be on the tour, but Lisa and Vic arranged for a test tube sample that they could bring back for me.

This extremely old tawny Port was found in a warehouse that had partially collapsed. The barrel(s) were under some of the rubble and had been there since the collapse, which (if I have the story straight) happened in the 1800s. There's no record of the wine, so they're just guessing, but based on its location in the warehouse and the date of the collapse they estimate that the Port is probably around 200 years old.

And it literally hadn't been touched in over 100 years when they found it because it had been buried under rubble.

It is certainly viscous, but it is not molasses. Not even close. It could be described as heated - as in hot, not just warmed - honey. It is visibly thicker than water but not as thick as mass market pancake syrups. (Maybe a fancy Vermont pure maple syrup? Those are pretty runny as I recall.) It still flows freely and runs down the side of the glass (or in my case, the test tube). You can still swirl it in the glass normally. It's maybe about as thick as a TBA German Riesling? That's at least in the ballpark. I don't think it's as thick as a PX... at least not the PXs that I've had.

You probably couldn't sell this as Port. It's clearly thicker than normal and, texturally, it probably wouldn't get past the IVDP tasting panel. But it is still wine and not syrup, albeit an unusually thick one. You could definitely use it to beef up a younger tawny Port and give it some of those aged characteristics we look for!

So the rate of loss from a barrel clearly plummets over time because this is still a wine, not molasses, and it was untouched for 100+ years.

[Andy Velebil]

Many things affect evaporation of a barrel, but certainly not limited too:

- size of the barrel
- weather (humidity, heat, etc)
- type of wood
- age of the wood (grain sizes)
- contents
- If a barrel is buried and essentially cocooned in, that would also affect evaporation rates.

[Roy Hersh]

Eric Ifune wrote the following two posts:

The other thing to remember is that they may have topped up with the same wine. Again, there were two and a half pipes when we visited. I'm undecided what to think. I believe Mr. Carneiro, but he's not 100% sure. They did keep many wines in demijohns for topping up in their lodge. This wine had huge concentration but fabulous balance as well. Other wines I've had, supposedly in pipe for over 100 years, were on par as far as concentration goes. And these pipes were in the Krohn lodge in Vila Nova where they were meticulous with humidity and the like.

Andy,
I'd disagree with topping up with the same wine albeit aged in glass rather than wood. To me, it's topping up and not refreshing. Is a Colheita 10 years in wood and 10 in glass different than 20 in wood? Yes, of course. But the label is the same other than the bottling date. It still has the legitimate date of harvest.
I'd call refreshment the use of a younger harvest wine. Akin to a solera.
And don't diminish the wetting down of the soil floor to control evaporation. Over long periods of time, it would lead to big differences. With Madeira, according to Ricardo Freitas, the lodge humidity is important as well as temperature.

Next, Glenn wrote:

As Sandeman demonstrated with their single-barrel "Cask 33" Very Old Tawny Port, even port aged in 2 different barrels can end up very different in the long run. So do you want to call all forms of blending "refreshing" since Cask 33 was a very different Port than their regular 40 Year Old?
No, of course not, that would be silly. As long as it's the same wine, it's "topping up." If it's not the same wine, it's "refreshing."

We can all agree to disagree, but given what we've learned with Port & Madeira ... Eric's premise and Glenn's are completely what I agree with, because the definition of topping off, vs refreshing ... (especially w/ Madeira) but wood-aged Ports too, is difficult to have a pure clean and precise meaning. But I clearly agree that if the same vintage is kept in demijohn, it is as close as we can ever get and has been done for eons, to maintain "vintage" integrity.

For me, it is not only about changing the consistency of what can eventually turn to molasses if not dealt with ... but the number ONE reason for topping off with the same vintage, (even from demijohn as is done by Barbeito and Blandy's and D'Oliveiras) is to maintain the purity of the vintage year. Refreshing has been described above. Most of us consider that cheating. It bastardizes the year of the Colheita or Very Old, or Very Very Old Tawny Ports, and once lost ... while possibly the Port is saved, in my pov, it is unethical at best. But there is a CRITICAL factor that is nearly as important as maintaining the integrity of the vintage ... and that is by topping off with Port of the same year, and not something younger, (and there is plenty of evidence that wines from one cask that is nearly empty is then kept in demijohn to use for adding to like-year Ports!) by adding to the volume, you can prevent the acidity from going volatile. That is what has the MOST negative effect on a Port that is not "managed" ... which is different than manipulated. Keeping the balance of the acidity and the RS, is paramount for an ancient cask of Port.

I was fortunate to be permitted into the cage, with a few different groups. I remember each of them fondly and it was a huge privilege provided to a few FTLOP groups to tap into those magical 3 Ports, (1863 plus the White & Tawny 1896). Unforgettable seeing the expressions on people's faces. When scoring 298 combined points for 3 remarkable Ports from pipas, you know you must be living a clean life to have such an experience.

Anyway, I'd love to hear from Alex B. when he tasted the 2014 bottling he mentioned, if it was from Taylor's or Krohn?
Either way, neither made it as we are sure that Taylor's obtained it from the Carneiros. But I do know that it was Cristiano van Zeller that came up with the idea for the bottling to be done. I can easily call him, but first, I'd like to see if Alex remembers, or has any photographic proof. Ultimately it matters not, at all in fact. I am purely curious whose name eventually appeared on the bottles, as I never saw the finished product.

[Eric Menchen]

Many things affect evaporation of a barrel, but certainly not limited too:
- size of the barrel
- weather (humidity, heat, etc)
- type of wood
- age of the wood (grain sizes)
- contents
- If a barrel is buried and essentially cocooned in, that would also affect evaporation rates.

Those are certainly big factors, more so than the additional ones I'm about to list, but here's more:
- How was the wood dried? Kiln dried or in air, and in what conditions?
- Was the wood split or cut to make staves?
There have been many debates about French vs. American vs. Hungarian vs. ... oak. Certainly that makes a difference, but I recall at least one study found the factors I mentioned could be more important than the country of origin. Differences attributed to French vs. American oak were really dependent on the French process vs. the American process, not where the trees were grown. This probably affects flavor elements of wines aged in new barrels more than evaporation of Port in reused barrels, but I can see it being a factor.

[Al B.]

Anyway, I'd love to hear from Alex B. when he tasted the 2014 bottling he mentioned, if it was from Taylor's or Krohn?
Either way, neither made it as we are sure that Taylor's obtained it from the Carneiros. But I do know that it was Cristiano van Zeller that came up with the idea for the bottling to be done. I can easily call him, but first, I'd like to see if Alex remembers, or has any photographic proof. Ultimately it matters not, at all in fact. I am purely curious whose name eventually appeared on the bottles, as I never saw the finished product.

The 2014 bottling I drank was a Taylor bottling, but came with a book that explained the story of the wine and how it had passed from one family to another.

[Roy Hersh]

I was with Cristiano van Zeller last week and he told me that he had talked Jose and Iolanda into allowing him to bottle a limited edition lote of the 1896s and the 1863 as well. I had no idea he had been directly involved in that project. I assume it was before the Taylor bottling in 2014, that Alex had tried.