Expansion of a Port category?

[Mahmoud Ali]

if we assume that in a declared vintage a producer will want to make as much vintage port as they can, then anything left over, whether for LBV or crusted port, is "not good enough for VP". So we're stalemated there.

Mahmoud,

That statement isn't normally true. As an example, imagine that a producer has 5,000 litres of each of three components from which he will blend his VP. If what you say was always true he would make 15,000 litres of VP and would have no VP-quality juice left.

However, all VPs are blends of the components each producer has at his disposal. If the optimum blend (i.e. the best VP he can produce) is 5,000 litres of component A + 3,500 litres of component B + 1,000 litres of component C he will end up with 4,500 litres of VP-quality juice that he cannot use for his VP from that vintage. He will then decide whether to use that for a second label VP, age it a little further for an LBV, blend it into Crusted or Ruby Reserve or consign it to wood to be destined for his tawny products.

The volume of VP that can be produced is always restricted by the available volume of its constituent parts, which normally results in some very useful leftovers

Derek,

Maybe I wasn't clear or perhaps you misunderstood me. So indulge me as I start again. Everything that a producer fortifies is port. From there a producer will take what is best, the stuff that qualifies, to go into their VP. What is left is also, until then, a vintage port, the stuff that you referred to as "not good enough for VP." From here, the producer will decide what will go on to be LBV, Ruby, Tawny, etc., including the crusted.

I didn't mean that the producer will make VP from all the port they make, rather, that they would make as much VP as they could from the port that makes the grade. My point was that it isn't necessary that the quality of the crusted is selected after all the rest, including the LBV. It may well be that the stuff that goes into the crusted may be as good, if not better, from a quality perspective not necessarily aging, than the LBV.

In any case, thanks for the math lesson, even though it wasn't really necessary.

Cheers.............................Mahmoud.

[Derek T.]

Maybe I wasn't clear or perhaps you misunderstood me.

Did you consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

[Mahmoud Ali]

Maybe I wasn't clear or perhaps you misunderstood me.

Did you consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

Yikes......I tried to explain that I didn't mean to say that a producer would make their house VP from all the port they made in any particular year but rather that they would try to make as much of their house VP that they could from what they believed was their best quality port.

But since I'm such a good writer, there is no way I couldn't have been clear in what I was trying to say and, being so clear, there is no possible way you could have misunderstood me. Yes, you're right, there is only one possibility, I'm wrong.

Cheers............................Mahmoud.

[Derek T.]

I have tried twice and been met with sarcasm both times, so I now give up.

[Phil W]

@Mahmoud - I think the you may have overlooked above is that a VP is itself a blend of several components, and that there could easily be an excess of one or more components. These would be vintage-quality but not used to make VP due to deficit of the other components. It is these which I beilieve may then be considered for use in a subsequent crusted.

[Derek T.]

@Mahmoud - I think the you may have overlooked above is that a VP is itself a blend of several components, and that there could easily be an excess of one or more components. These would be vintage-quality but not used to make VP due to deficit of the other components. It is these which I beilieve may then be considered for use in a subsequent crusted.

That is exactly the point I was making.

[Roy Hersh]

Agreed.

Now let's all go back to getting along.

[Mahmoud Ali]

@Mahmoud - I think the you may have overlooked above is that a VP is itself a blend of several components, and that there could easily be an excess of one or more components. These would be vintage-quality but not used to make VP due to deficit of the other components. It is these which I beilieve may then be considered for use in a subsequent crusted.

That is exactly the point I was making.

Me too.

Of course VP is made from a blend, I would have thought that everyone on this forum would have been aware of that. Nonetheless, there would still be some VP remaining, whether you want to call it component VP or anything else. And from the remaining material a decision is made on how to use the remaining components. Here, port houses will put their focus on LBV, Crusted, or Tawny. Didn't Cockburn decide not to make a VP in 1977 because they wanted to use their VP material, components if you want to call it, to make other ports?

Actually, sarcasm aside (sorry about that), I think we basically agree on the point that port houses make their primary decisions on the best house VP they can make. After that they make decisions on what the remaining material will be used for. What I was disagreeing with was the sentiment that suggested, in an offhand manner, that the components that went into crusted port was somehow inferior to LBVs, traditional or otherwise. I begged to disagree.

My only experience with crusted port is with the Churchill's. I have to say that it is one lovely port. If you check the Churchill website I think it is quite clear that the crusted port is be superior to their LBV which, by the way, is unfiltered and bottled after 4 years, a traditional LBV.

Basically, it is up to the port house to decide whether the superior port remaining after their house VP is blended and bottled, whether to turn it into LBVs or crusted.

Cheers...............................Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

What I was disagreeing with was the sentiment that suggested, in an offhand manner, that the components that went into crusted port was somehow inferior to LBVs, traditional or otherwise. I begged to disagree.

My only experience with crusted port is with the Churchill's. I have to say that it is one lovely port. If you check the Churchill website I think it is quite clear that the crusted port is be superior to their LBV which, by the way, is unfiltered and bottled after 4 years, a traditional LBV.

In theory yes, in actuality not necessarily true. For instance, Graham's uses its "second best" grapes to make Six Grapes, then LBV after that. That doesn't follow your theory that Crusted is always better than an LBV and thus an LBV would always be superior to a Ruby Reserve. In this case their Ruby Reserve gets better grapes than their LBV, or Crusted if they made one. It really is dependent on the producer and what they want to use those "second best" grapes for. So why a producer such as Churchill may use the "second best" grapes to make a crusted, another producer may not.

[Derek T.]

At the risk of unintentionally going against Roy's very reasonable request, I think this is possibly the root of why there is some disagreement here...

My only experience with crusted port is with the Churchill's. … If you check the Churchill website I think it is quite clear that the crusted port is be superior to their LBV

We are discussing a category here, not what is written on one Port producer's website.

My observations of what port producers do with their various qualities of components is based on my understanding following numerous conversations with many producers about many styles of Port. I strongly suspect that Andy's opinions are based on similar experiences. This subject is much more complex than simply taking what Churchill do and say and assuming it applies to the rest of the trade.

[Mahmoud Ali]

I don't think there really is any serious disagreement here, just a bit of semantics perhaps.

Andy, Derek, I never did say that all crusted port was superior to LBVs, just that by way of the Churchill example at least one producer chooses to make their crusted superior to their LBV, not the entire industry. Andy, as you so rightly pointed out, and it was discussed here on the forum not so long ago, Graham chooses to make their Six Grapes superior to their LBV. It seems pretty clear to me that when you report about what Graham chooses to do on their website it applies to them and not the rest of the trade.

As I already said I was only disagreeing with the earlier assertion that crusted port was inferior to LBVs. Nothing else. Churchill was but one example. Clearly, I've not communicated this very well.

Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

As I already said I was only disagreeing with the earlier assertion that crusted port was inferior to LBVs. Nothing else. Churchill was but one example. Clearly, I've not communicated this very well.

Mahmoud.

Just to clarify....You agree that Crusted Ports can be inferior to LBV's?

One thing I have learned over the years about Port companies...there are few hard rules and lots of gray areas.

[Mahmoud Ali]

As I already said I was only disagreeing with the earlier assertion that crusted port was inferior to LBVs. Nothing else. Churchill was but one example. Clearly, I've not communicated this very well.

Mahmoud.

Just to clarify....You agree that Crusted Ports can be inferior to LBV's?

One thing I have learned over the years about Port companies...there are few hard rules and lots of gray areas.

For goodness sake Andy, of course, even vintage port can be inferior to LBV. Among the ports I had in the last few months I thought that a '92 Warre's LBV was superior to a '77 Sandeman's.

Port is a many splendoured thing.......................Mahmoud.

[Mahmoud Ali]

Wait, wait. I should have said that even vintage port can be inferior to SOME LBVs.

Phew, almost started another round of recriminations............Mahmoud.

PS: You do know I'm just joshing.

[Andy Velebil]

Wait, wait. I should have said that even vintage port can be inferior to SOME LBVs.

Phew, almost started another round of recriminations............Mahmoud.

PS: You do know I'm just joshing.

Sorry now you're just

[Tom Archer]

When I worked with Oscar to blend his first Crusted two years ago, I was struck by how much better the multi year blend we came up with was to any of the component single year stocks that we drew from.

I realised then that unfiltered LBV is an exercise in doing things the hard way. That producers, especially the smaller ones, can produce more good port from their stocks if they produce multi year Crusteds in preference to the necessarily single year LBVs.

It follows that as consumers we will ultimately enjoy better 'second division' drinking if we encourage the producers to produce more Crusted in preference to LBV.

[Glenn E.]

When I worked with Oscar to blend his first Crusted two years ago, I was struck by how much better the multi year blend we came up with was to any of the component single year stocks that we drew from.

I would expect as much, though I assume that the difference is not quite as significant as it is between single year single varietal Ports (pre-blending) and their resultant Vintage Port blend? That can be dramatic - to the point that none of the single varietal components taste all that great (bland, flat, etc), but the blend is delicious.

[Andy Velebil]

When I worked with Oscar to blend his first Crusted two years ago, I was struck by how much better the multi year blend we came up with was to any of the component single year stocks that we drew from.

I would expect as much, though I assume that the difference is not quite as significant as it is between single year single varietal Ports (pre-blending) and their resultant Vintage Port blend? That can be dramatic - to the point that none of the single varietal components taste all that great (bland, flat, etc), but the blend is delicious.

Agree. And it goes for almost any Port really. Blending, either from the beginning as a field blend or blending some amount of single varietals, or some combo of both, is generally going to be better than the sum on one individual part. To what degree one category is better than the other has a lot of variabilities.

[Roy Hersh]

Mahmoud wrote:

Of course VP is made from a blend, I would have thought that everyone on this forum would have been aware of that. Nonetheless, there would still be some VP remaining, whether you want to call it component VP or anything else. And from the remaining material a decision is made on how to use the remaining components. Here, port houses will put their focus on LBV, Crusted, or Tawny. Didn't Cockburn decide not to make a VP in 1977 because they wanted to use their VP material, components if you want to call it, to make other ports?

Andy wrote:

It really is dependent on the producer and what they want to use those "second best" grapes for. So why a producer such as Churchill may use the "second best" grapes to make a crusted, another producer may not.

It is my assertion that it is not the "second best" grapes ... but lotes of fermented Port, already aging in wood in hopes of having the quality to be used as Vintage Port. When the winemaker / master blender is evaluating juice about 16-17 months after harvest to determine whether they will send samples for evaluation to the IVDP as Vintage Port, (BEFORE they can even declare, the sample must be approved as such). If given the go ahead based on the IVDP's organoleptic evals only then can a Vintage Port be declared/bottled. Given the timing, it is the Port (not grapes) considered for inclusion as VP and what is then not bottled as VP, can be deemed to be used as LBV, Crusted, Ruby Reserve, Ruby etc., OR it can be left in wood even longer to be added to Tawny Port stocks. After bottling the Vintage Port, occasionally these decisions are greatly affected by "Lei do Terço" (law of thirds), and influenced by what the shipper can then produce based on specific market needs, or as a specific category of Port abie to be sold in a particular year. Regardless, the decision can go in any direction a shipper would like it to, even the production of a Colheita ... as long as samples for the IVDP are handled properly and the Port is then designated for a specific category, under which the samples have been submitted.

Yes, Cockburn chose not to commercially release their 1977 VP as that juice was used to blend into Cockburn's Special Reserve when their MD at the time was having difficulty gaining traction with that wine in the UK. The added quality of the '77 VP into that "Vintage Character" Port, (as the category was known prior to 2005, when the nomenclature was amended) enabled the launch of Special Reserve into the UK marketplace. Because of that decision, the CSR remains the largest single SKU of any Port produced for consumption. I think there are less expensive bulk produced Ports made specifically for the restaurant trade in France that may be of higher volume. One must be careful to parse words here nowadays.

Mahmoud wrote:

Basically, it is up to the port house to decide whether the superior port remaining after their house VP is blended and bottled, whether to turn it into LBVs or crusted.

True. But again, that can only happen once samples are approved by the IVDP.

[Tom Archer]

Cockburn chose not to commercially release their 1977 VP as that juice was used to blend into Cockburn's Special Reserve when their MD at the time was having difficulty gaining traction with that wine in the UK. The added quality of the '77 VP into that "Vintage Character" Port, (as the category was known prior to 2005, when the nomenclature was amended) enabled the launch of Special Reserve into the UK marketplace. Because of that decision, the CSR remains the largest single SKU of any Port produced for consumption.

Cockburn Special Reserve (in the UK at least) has never been labelled as 'Vintage character'

Whilst their late seventies marketing campaign gained them UK dominance in the Ruby and Reserve markets, it also trashed their previously dominant reputation for VP.

JDAW has noted that in the past, Cockburn commanded the highest release prices for VP, yet today, merchants complain that Cockburn (along with Croft, for its association with cheap Sherry) are very difficult brands to sell at the quality end of the spectrum.