Caveat emptor 1985

[NickA]

>>I can never figure out why people equate "turned to vinegar" with volatile acidity. I thought the ketone aromas were a result of a very ripe vintage and/or winemaking practices (such as in Quintarelli) produced such aromas. I can't see see things happening "in the bottle" as you say. Please explain.


Paul,

Volatile acidity and acetic acid (vinegar) are basically formed at the same time, so the presence of one assures you of the other. VA is when the acetic acid reacts with ethanol (i.e. ethyl alcohol) and forms ethyl acetate which is very volatile (which is why it's more obvious than acetic acid. You can be sure of ethanol in a wine (!), so they are always going to be in a wine together.

Winemaking is a key to the formation of it, and hot vintages it may lead to more VA in a wine for the same amount of acetic acid. But basically it's bad winemaking at play, not a hot vintage thing per se.

In terms of in the bottle, the ethyl acetate can react further with oxygen and revert back to acetic acid, so they don't have to remain in the same quantity in bottle. Much will depend on the storage.

[Paul Napolitano]

Hey Nick,

Thanks so much for the explanation. I know very little of that. It is precisiely for reasons such as this that I find wine boards interesting...and the lack thereof the reason I have left (ahem) other boards.

Paul

[Paul Napolitano]

Re: 1997 Niepoort: I had bottles that literally dripped onto the floor (and other bottles). Also, not only did a few .750s leak but one or two of my .375s leaked also. Maybe ask Dirk about this also.

All my leakers were consumed with no noticable flaws (actually they were extraordinary!).

Paul

Roy,

I just checked and I have a couple more .750 and .375 leakers. And I was also unhappy to see that two of my three mags are leaking! Please ask Dirk why this might be the case.

Paul

[Tom Archer]

If bottles of different sizes are seeping, there would seem to be serious problem with the corks -

Possible causes might be-

- Inferior raw materials

- Corks undersize

- Corking machine malfunction causing some corks to be structually damaged.

I'd be tempted to borrow some tongs, decapitate the worst offender and send the neck with cork in situ to Dirk and ask him for his opinion.

I've not had any dealings with him, but those who do always seem to speak kindly of him.

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Paul,

Here is the answer to your question and I hope I did not mislead you in my earlier explanation.

Here is the latest of what Dirk wrote to me on this issue, copied from his email:


we believe that the problem with the 97 was mainly because of having to ship (and bottle) a big amount of bottles very quickly.
I explain;
We bottled the vintage a few weeks later than we wanted and were pressed to ship it (to a few countries) very fast. what happened is that usually one should let the bottles standing up for one or two days before packing them so that the cork can expand correctly in the bottle.
well we didn´t do that . we bottled and packed and shipped most of the bottles the same day. that was a big mistake, which will not happen again.
the correct procedure should have been;
bottle
let the bottles stand for one or two days
keep them in our lodge for at least one month
pack them and ship


If you have seen bts which are leaking I wouldn´t buy them
if you have bottles leaking we will change them for 2000 or 2003 vintage

[Al B.]

I've got to say, if that was the offer from the Niepoort organisation - to change leaking '97 bottles for good 2000 or '03 bottles - then I am very impressed with their care for their customer.

Top marks from me to Niepoort for putting their hand up and offering to make good a problem that they have identified.

Alex

[Roy Hersh]

if that was the offer from the Niepoort organisation

Alex,


Ye of little faith ... IF? This was a direct email to me with a CC: to another board member here who first asked this question in a personal email to me when first joining this BB. I contacted Dirk and this other person also rec'd this same response in our email.

Anyway, this was from Dirk van der Niepoort himself and I can promise you that this man (like just about everyone I have met in the Port trade) cares foremost, about the quality of his product. It is a real offer and I feel comfortable guaranteeing that he'd stand behind his words!

I hope this erases any question that you may have had.

[Al B.]

Roy,

Its not a question of having little faith - I just didn't want to take it for granted that I had understood your message properly.

Given you clarification, perhaps its most appropriate if I also clarify my message.

Dirk - I'm extremely impressed and touched by the care you have shown to your customers over the issue of the leaking bottles. I only wish other people in other (non-port) businesses would follow your example and openly identify a problem and make a generous offer to fix it. As a port consumer, I can only thank you for your honesty and generosity.

Roy - if Dirk is not one of the people who reads this forum, perhaps you would be kind enough to pass my message on to him.


Alex

[Ronald Wortel]

Thanks for posting Dirk's answer Roy, it completely clarifies the cause of the problem. The offer he makes is a very generous one.

[PeterX]

How does one go about exchanging a 1997 leaker?

[Al B.]

Peter,

I guess that depends on the country where you are located. Raymond Reynolds kindly posted a note under the topic of "Niepoort 1997" and, as the UK agent for Niepoort, offered to help swap the leaking bottles for replacement vintage wines.

The principle probably extends to other countries. If you can identify the Niepoort agent in your home country they may well be able to help you.

(It would help us to answer if you put the country in which you are located as part of your profile.)

Alex

[PeterX]

Sorry, I just registered and didn't know it was important to list where someone is from. I live in Los Angeles, California (USA).

[Al B.]

Peter,

I don't know who the US or CA agent is for Niepoort wines, but your local specialist wine store may be able to help you track down the contact details for the US representative for Niepoort.

Once you have been able to identify them, give them a call or drop them an email and ask for their help in swapping out your leaking bottles.

In the meantime, if I am able to track down any information for you, I will post it here.

Alex

[Roy Hersh]

Nearly a decade later, when this vintage has now turned 30, I wanted to see if there were any new impressions. I know that locally, we had a great horizontal tasting of this vintage several few months ago. So it would be great to have a few summations as an update.

Thanks!

[Moses Botbol]

I have about a case of '85 Niepoort and the one bottle I tried had a little VA to it. For me, it was barely drinkable compared the '85 Fonseca we paired it. Was in no rush to try another '85 Niepoort. It wasn't as bad a '85 Croft. Maybe I should give it another go? Need to figure out where that case is...

The 1985 big names like Taylor, Graham, Dow, and Fonseca are all outstanding bottles regardless of the vintage IMO. Lesser regarded producers like Burmester and Gould Campbell are all tremendous ports.

In the end, 1985 is a cherry picking vintage that when good, is great.

[Andy Velebil]

I'll disagree with Moses. I think Taylor's is not up to par and is fully mature and ready to start drinking up. It won't make old bones by any means.

Overall, My impression is that there is lots of variability in it; Cork issues, VA, weak performance, etc. What I typically find odd about this vintage is some of the not so well known ones did well and some of the well known ones didn't do so well. But overall most fall into the average range and most are now fully mature and won't make super old bones. Which when compared to vintages such as 1963/1966/1970 is a disappointment as IMO those are holding up as good or better yet are significantly older.

In short, I am very picky about what classically declared VP's from any part of the 80's I buy in which I plan to age them longer term. To many issues and less than stellar performances. Though many make for a pleasant Port for current drinking.

[Glenn E.]

In short, I am very picky about what classically declared VP's from any part of the 80's I buy in which I plan to age them longer term. Too many issues and less than stellar performances. Though many make for a pleasant Port for current drinking.

I agree with this. While lively debates can be had about which 80s vintage is best, it's pretty clear to me that none of them taken as a whole vintage can hold a candle to vintages like 1970 or 1994, and even fall short of vintages like 1977. I'm pretty much on board with Roy's Vintage chart. The 80s vintages are very good, possibly excellent in the case of 1985, but certainly not classic.

There are absolutely some stellar examples from all of the 80s vintages, but you have to cherry pick from those vintages a lot more than you do from others.

[Tom Archer]

Ho hum..

Nine years after musing that the '85s were just coming into mainstream drinking, i'm now of the opinion that they are, err.. just coming into mainstream drinking, although most can wait a while to advantage..

No writer has put a date on it, but there was probably a moment, perhaps around '89/'90, when there was a ghastly realisation in the trade that vintage port production needed to shake up its act to maintain it's reputation.

There were a multiple of issues at play from the early seventies on - the repatriation of VP bottling, for which they were not adequately prepared, the chaos of the revolution in '75, the amalgamation of the cork producers and the very slow subsequent realisation that buying corks at the same price did not result in corks of the same quality; excessive attention to cost cutting both by the growers and wine-makers, experimental vinification methods, and then to cap it all, the emergence of at least one alcohol tolerant spoilage microbe..

The producers who dodged these bullets continued to produce good VPs, but there are too many casualties along the way. This was vintage port's 'dark ages' - not least due to the high usage of wholly opaque glass during this period.

The big question is: when did it end? Most (but not all) producers had cleaned up their act and got the first dodgy microbe under control (along with stronger corks) by the time the '91 vintage was bottled. However some of these wines are showing a strange and unpleasant earthiness on the palate - where has that come from? Could there be a second bug out there? I've not seen that earthiness on any '94 so far, although I've not drunk many '94s recently; however it did rear it's ugly head to ruin a Noval '97 a year or two back.

I like to think the trade finally got it's act together with the 2000 vintage, and will be very disappointed if avoidable problems emerge subsequent to that. Going forward, I would now like to see the the demise of the selo, as selos stained by leaky bottles are so symbolic of this unfortunate period.

For me, that would be the port trade turning the final corner.

[Roy Hersh]

Back only a half decade ago, even Douro wines carried a selo. Today that regulation has gone away and you nearly never see a selo on a DOC Douro wine anymore. I have 2010s that do, but none from 2011.

Personally, as a traditionalist, I hope the Selo de Garantia remains on Port bottles, forever!

Now to my thoughts on 1985 Vintage Ports, three decades hence, after trying a broad swath of VPs from 1985 earlier this year:



There are surprisingly few top notch bottlings from the 1985 vintage. At this age, when Ports at thirty years of age should be showing distinctive signs of their true character, at best there is a single handful of 1985 Vintage Ports that I would buy again. The second qualitative tier nowadays is much broader with good, but not great aromatics and flavor profiles. The third tier is littered with lesser producers, names that are certainly recognizable, but somehow they failed to produce compelling or at the very least, age-worthy Ports. Some are bordering on turning tawny, while others just lack the structure and fruit to even be worth the time it takes to remove the cork. I am not going to put a list together of these three tiers, but was a bit unpleasantly surprised by how this vintage has evolved with bottles that seemed in lock step with prior examples of the vintage and specific producer. From the heights achieved in some Ports from the 1970s to the many fine Ports that can be found from vintages of the 1990s, the decade in between is fraught with inconsistencies, with only the occasional exception.

Overall, I would say that the 1983 vintage today has surpassed the overall quality bandwidth of the 1985 vintage. There may be a couple of 1985's that overshadow any VP vinified in 1983, but that is a truly small list.

[Glenn E.]

Personally, as a traditionalist, I hope the Selo de Garantia remains on Port bottles, forever!

Me too, definite +1 from me!

Overall, I would say that the 1983 vintage today has surpassed the overall quality bandwidth of the 1985 vintage. There may be a couple of 1985's that overshadow any VP vinified in 1983, but that is a truly small list.

Agreed, as well as with your longer description. I think it's very close, but 1983's overall breadth seems greater than 1985's, and sufficiently so to give it the overall nod over 1985's small cluster of truly excellent or outstanding Ports. 1983 does have some overlooked gems. They can't compete with F85 or G85, but they aren't that far off.

I do hesitate to read too much into the 1985 horizontal we held earlier this year, though. I purchased a large number of those bottles in a single purchase online and really have no idea of their provenance. Considering that such a wide variety of lesser-known 1985s was available at one time, it may very well be that someone was purging their collection. Some of those bottles showed pretty poorly at the tasting, so it's hard for me to say with any conviction that the problem was with the Port and not with the past storage/provenance. That said, my overall experience with both 1983 and 1985 is at least similar to our two horizontals, so even if the individual bottles were suspect (in either case) the overall trend does seem to hold true.