New Smith Woodhouse labeling spotted

[Eric Menchen]

This was at the liquor store next door to the Costco north of Denver:

SW2000LBVsml.jpg (89.93 KiB) Viewed 2630 times

SW10sml.jpg (77.05 KiB) Viewed 2630 times

FYI, the 2000 LBV was $23.99, and I probably should have picked some up at that price. The 10 year old was a more typical $24.99.

[Rob C.]

The retro "postage stamp" labelling has been around since the end of 2006 / early 2007 i think - certainly the unfiltered/bottle matured SW LBVs have been released with that labelling for several years.

I ordered some of the 95 unfiltered/bottle matured SW LBV recently and unfortunately this was what turned up! Probably should have kept at least one to try as i haven't had this type of SW LBV before, but was annoyed by the mix-up so sent back.

[Al B.]

Was this a filtered variety of LBV? Or was it just a very recent bottle matured LBV with only 2 years of bottle maturity before being sold?

[Roy Hersh]

The labels that are shown by Eric, (LBV) typically are aged for four years in wood and then bottle aged an additional four years prior to release. As for the bottling shown by Rob, I am not sure.

[Rob C.]

Was this a filtered variety of LBV? Or was it just a very recent bottle matured LBV with only 2 years of bottle maturity before being sold?

Wasn't clear to me from the label, and not stated on the website.

I had assumed filtered (similar to the two different Warre LBV bottlings - bottle matured unfiltered, and filtered)

as i said, i may have been too hasty in sending back (but i was quite annoyed!)

[Eric Menchen]

The bottles I took pictures of were bottled after four years, and as the label indicates in the picture, unfiltered.

[Roy Hersh]

It would be a shame if SW was moving away from their great methodology of four years in wood and then an additional four years of bottle aging prior to release.

[Rob C.]

It would be a shame if SW was moving away from their great methodology of four years in wood and then an additional four years of bottle aging prior to release.

I would hope that is not happening - the Symingtons still seem to make contemperaneous releases of both unfiltered and filtered LBVs for Warre and SW in the UK (current UK versions of Warre seem to be the 2001 unfiltered bottle matured and the 2006 filtered, and the SW 2000 unfiltered bottle matured and 2005 filtered).

If you look at the label for the 2000 SW LBV piuctured below and compare it to the one picture by Eric in the first post, the bottling dates are different (one in 04, one in 06). This suggests that there are two different versions for that year at least (and hopefully they have continued to make two different versions!).

SW2000LBVsml.jpg

[Eric Menchen]

Is the gold-black label the filtered version?

[Rob C.]

The white version in your picture is definitely unfiltered and bottle matured

The black label version is presumably filtered (? nothing on label), but given the extra one/two years in wood and looks to be released soon after bottling (2005 has been in UK stores for at least 18 months)

[Andy Velebil]

I've reached out to try and get an answer to some of your questions. Will report back.

I am going to move this to the main Port Forum where others are more likely to see it and for easier future reference.

[Cynthia J]

Andy, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I am not able to answer this one myself, I will have to consult with colleagues which is likely to be difficult this week - big annual sales and marketing team meeting this week. Bear with me, and I will show and tell to them and come back with confirmation of products and labelling just as soon as I can get some one's attention. Thanks!!

[Andy Velebil]

Thanks Cynthia!

[Cynthia J]

Hello again... I have spoken with colleagues, who confirm the white label is (and will continue to be) used for the unfiltered, bottle-aged LBV Smith Woodhouse and the black label is used for the "modern" LBV style of Smith Woodhouse. This is true in both UK and USA markets. While I was at it, I asked about current releases - on the bottle matured the latest release is the 2001 and on the modern style the latest release is 2007. Enjoy!

[Rob C.]

Cynthia - by "modern" do you mean filtered?

Interesting that the 2007 "modern" LBV has already released whereas the 2000 "modern" LBV appears to have been given a lot more time in wood (bottled in 2006)

[Andy Velebil]

Thanks Cynthia!

[Cynthia J]

Hi Rob, yes "modern" is how we refer to the filtered LBV which is released to market when bottled, though on label it is simply "LBV"

"Bottle-matured" (in parlance and on label) for the ones we bottle without filtration and then lay down at least 4 years in bottle before releasing to market (regulation is minimum of 3 years - we tend to leave it "at least" another 4).

The guidelines for LBV (either kind) - it can be bottled any time between 4 and 6 years after harvest, so the 2000 bottled in 2006 was at limit, as mature as we are permitted for the style. When to bottle is winemaker's choice, according to Charles's judgement of the development of the wine, and bluntly, when he thinks it tastes really good and appropriate for this style. As you have spotted, we were generally going full 6 years but with the 2007 Charles decided to bottle after just 5, for a slightly fresher profile which he felt suited this wine.

It is possible, though not common, that we could do a second bottling - e.g. having bottled the 2007 at 5 years in cask, if there was the demand, we could make the call to EITHER bottle more of the 2007 (up through 2013, to the limit of 6 years of age, assuming of course there was any left!) OR we could move on and bottle and release the 2008.

Hope this has clarified more than it has confused! The possibilities in winemaking are mind-boggling, honestly.