1994 Taylor Fladgate LBV (filtered). This is a great, aged LBV.
The degree of filtration matters enormously, yet we are always left guessing about this. The Niepoort LBVs do not qualify as unfiltered, yet age very well for decades, something that appears to be intentional. The Taylor LBVs age moderately well, but don't seem to gain much after ten years, whereas their aged tawnies never really seem to go over the hill.
By contrast, the Symingtons seem far too aggresive with their filtration regimes, and filtered products sold under the Graham label never seem to benefit from years in the cellar. The Dow LBVs however, despite being T-stoppered and not marketed as unfiltered, seem to throw as much sediment as an unfiltered wine and age very well, so presumably escape treatment.
These days, the producers generate a detailed technical data sheet for every wine they make, yet inclusion of the fining/filtration/cold stabilisation regimes deployed seems optional, and only gets mention when they have been omitted.
Every producer must have a settled policy when it comes to filtration - you don't notice LBVs that appear filtered one year and not the next. Is hiding the detail of this commercially important? If all producers were required to make disclosure on their data sheets, it's hard to see anyone gaining an unfair advantage as a result.