For The Love Of Port

FYI: OTHER IMAGES were installed on the bottom of page 3.

Thanks, Roy! It's great to see Scion in it's native environment!

Yes, the pictures are very cool. Many thanks to Adrian for sharing them with us.

I never tried Scion before, but did try both Krohn 1863 and 1896 as well as Burmester 1890 last May at Vinexpo in Hong Kong. Only had 2 19th century Ports prior to this in Portugal.
Regarding both Krohn Colheitas, what surprised me was the freshness and acidity of the wines. Of course they are very very concentrated and the color is a good indication that both wines are very old. But in the mouth it's still very lively and balanced. If there is no doubt about the fact that those wines have only been topped off with the same wines during their long aging in barrel an$ if Scion reveals the same kind of liveliness, freshness and acidity then you can assume that Scion has only been topped off with the same wine.
As for the Burmester 1890, compared to Krohn 1896, the color is lighter and it seems less thick in the mouth. It's also an amazing Colheita, with multi layered aromas and flavors (citrus notes noticeable) and exceptional acidity for such an old wine. Different style compared to both Krohn Colheitas which present similarities in color and characteristics, although my preference goes to the 1863.

I really enjoyed the question for the Port trade. I will not comment the answers but hope to`see more questions like this one in the future.

Hey Matthieu,

Nice to see you here. Glad you liked the question. I realize I still owe you an email and will get this going after the weekend. I agree about the Krohn's and got the same impression when considering the Scion, which admittedly, I tasted quite awhile back. Anyway, that chapter is over. Glad we now know the truth. I'll be in touch. Thanks for signing up here.

Roy Hersh wrote:I agree about the Krohn's and got the same impression when considering the Scion, which admittedly, I tasted quite awhile back. Anyway, that chapter is over. Glad we now know the truth.[cheers.gif

Do we?

Derek T. wrote:

Adrian Bridge wrote:We cannot say that the wine was not topped up as it is logical that the wines could have been to reduce the ullage. This is a normal process and records may not always be kept. However, we can be fairly certain that the wine was not refreshed – younger Port placed in it – as this would show up on the technical analysis of the residues.

Adrian Bridge wrote:Again the tests will give you an idea about a wine but are not printed in a hand book as a set of scales so that a particular total acid level coupled with residual sugars and other residues will tell you the exact age. Remember we are dealing with a wine that comes from a different harvest each year, ages in different climatic conditions ( even in the same lodge) as each year is different. This is why the tests carried out could not be used to prove an exact year but a general sense of age.

Adrian,

These two statements seem to be somewhat contradictory. Is it not possible that small amounts of new wine could have entered these casks during the first 50 years (which would have been normal then) but the other variables conspire to convince the analysts that this is a wine from an era consistent with the documentary evidence? That being so, how can anyone be certain that this wine was never refreshed?

I still maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be certain that any wood-aged port from the mid-19th century contains only one vintage. Where real hard evidence exists from the source there can of course be an element of confidence in such a claim, but it can never be certain - especially where such evidence is completely absent from a period of half a century or more of the wine's life.

Derek T. wrote:

Roy Hersh wrote:I agree about the Krohn's and got the same impression when considering the Scion, which admittedly, I tasted quite awhile back. Anyway, that chapter is over. Glad we now know the truth.

Do we?

Derek T. wrote:

Adrian Bridge wrote:We cannot say that the wine was not topped up as it is logical that the wines could have been to reduce the ullage. This is a normal process and records may not always be kept. However, we can be fairly certain that the wine was not refreshed – younger Port placed in it – as this would show up on the technical analysis of the residues.

Adrian Bridge wrote:Again the tests will give you an idea about a wine but are not printed in a hand book as a set of scales so that a particular total acid level coupled with residual sugars and other residues will tell you the exact age. Remember we are dealing with a wine that comes from a different harvest each year, ages in different climatic conditions ( even in the same lodge) as each year is different. This is why the tests carried out could not be used to prove an exact year but a general sense of age.

Adrian,

These two statements seem to be somewhat contradictory. Is it not possible that small amounts of new wine could have entered these casks during the first 50 years (which would have been normal then) but the other variables conspire to convince the analysts that this is a wine from an era consistent with the documentary evidence? That being so, how can anyone be certain that this wine was never refreshed?

I still maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be certain that any wood-aged port from the mid-19th century contains only one vintage. Where real hard evidence exists from the source there can of course be an element of confidence in such a claim, but it can never be certain - especially where such evidence is completely absent from a period of half a century or more of the wine's life.

That's the thing about conspiracy theories. They never go away because the conspiracy theorists can never be satisfied, and in fact seem to have a vested interest in never being satisfied.

Glenn E. wrote:That's the thing about conspiracy theories. They never go away because the conspiracy theorists can never be satisfied, and in fact seem to have a vested interest in never being satisfied.

At no time have I stated, implied or inferred that there is any sort of conspiracy going on here. What I am challenging is the strength of the statements being made about Scion or any other ancient tawny port about being "certain" that they have never been refreshed. That isn't an accusation of conspiring to falsely represent the product, it is merely pointing out that the irrefutable evidence that would be required to back-up such statements of certainty simply does not exist, or at least has not been presented here.

Adrian has used the term "fairly certain" to qualify his statement that he believes the Scion wine was not refreshed, which I think is appropriate and as close as anyone could get to being "certain". That statement correctly leaves open the possibility that the wine might have been refreshed, but probably not in sufficient quantities to materially affect the age profile of the finished wine.

However, Roy is expressing statements of absolute certainty and "truth" which are not backed-up by irrefutable evidence. That, I believe, is misleading and over-stating the point.

Derek

Derek T. wrote:However, Roy is expressing statements of absolute certainty and "truth" which are not backed-up by irrefutable evidence. That, I believe, is misleading and over-stating the point.

I don't believe he is. He stated that now we know the truth, which we do. And in this case, the truth is that Adrian is "fairly certain" of Scion's provenance.

I don't see anywhere that Roy has stated that we're absolutely certain that Scion was never refreshed (or at least I don't remember having seen it if I have). He has simply questioned the methodologies and motives of the doubters, saying that they really haven't provided any proof that it has been refreshed.

Derek T wrote: However, Roy is expressing statements of absolute certainty and "truth" which are not backed-up by irrefutable evidence. That, I believe, is misleading and over-stating the point.

Derek

If you're going to keep insisting on absolute certainty about what was in those Scion casks, you're obviously going to have to accept disappointment because none of us sat by those casks 24 hours a day prior to bottling -- I think the rest of us have accepted that implicitly. I don't know that Roy ever mentioned being "absolutely certain" about anything here, so it is your own paraphrase of his words that is misleading and overstating the point. In any case, for Roy to state that he is satisfied Scion was not refreshed, after exercising his own intelligence and experience, examining available evidence, and listening to the corroborating analysis by the experts at TFP, seems perfectly reasonable and intellectually honest on his part. And for him to regard this as the settled "truth," inasmuch as we understand how knowable the truth can ever be in this case, is equally reasonable and intellectually honest.

To simply keep pointing out that we can't know for certain, is to repeatedly state the obvious. If you want Roy to say "We can't know for certain Scion wasn't refreshed", which is an ontologically true statement, such a statement and its likelihood of being quoted out of context would probably be MORE controversial in the Port community than the approach he has taken. Again, we all implicitly accept the difficulties of absolute certainty here -- heck, do you realize it's an act of faith to even accept that the cask itself dates to 1855, as TFP admits they cannot state that fact with absolute certainly, either? It may be even older.

As I've noted before, and it's one of the few negative things about this forum, some veteran participants here have a hard time letting go of very strong opinions or even allowing room for other opinions, and it tends to stifle discussion here sometimes -- ever wonder why so few newer subscribers ever get involved in some of these threads?

Glenn E. wrote:

Derek T. wrote:However, Roy is expressing statements of absolute certainty and "truth" which are not backed-up by irrefutable evidence. That, I believe, is misleading and over-stating the point.

I don't believe he is. He stated that now we know the truth, which we do. And in this case, the truth is that Adrian is "fairly certain" of Scion's provenance.

I don't see anywhere that Roy has stated that we're absolutely certain that Scion was never refreshed (or at least I don't remember having seen it if I have). He has simply questioned the methodologies and motives of the doubters, saying that they really haven't provided any proof that it has been refreshed.

hmmm....

[url=http://fortheloveofport.com/roys-blog/the-truth-about-taylor-s-scion]Here[/url], Roy wrote wrote:Some questioned the veracity of whether Scion was actually from 1855. Others called its authenticity into question based on nothing more than mistaken evaporation-curve-math, misconceptions of Douro bake and storage conditions in old cellars there, including wildly inaccurate assumptions based on misunderstanding how/when/why Ports are topped off or refreshed. One conspiracy theorist went far out on a limb, to link the timing of the release of Scion to the needs for funding of The Yeatman Hotel. To make a long story short: the "naysayers" were having a field day, albeit, badly misinformed.

Fortunately, Adrian Bridge stepped in to correct such myths and fallacious guess work that aroseand we now have a very clear and fact-based picture providing the truth about Taylor's Scion.

In any event, what Roy said is somewhat of a side argument. In terms of SCION itself, Adrian's information about evaporation was interesting, and is not something i had previously appreciated (for instance, see how Oscar Quevedo describes things on the Quevedo blog).

Even so, Adrian's statements do make me clamour for further detail on evaporation rates - particularly as i had previously understood, to take one example, that DALVA were still experiencing significant evaporation on their 1952 golden white even after 60 years in cask. It would also be interesting, for instance, to know observed evaporation rates of the C19 Krohn ports mentioned (or other C19 / early C20 colheitas) - presumably they must also now be down to near-0% evaporation rates?

Rob C. wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

Derek T. wrote:However, Roy is expressing statements of absolute certainty and "truth" which are not backed-up by irrefutable evidence. That, I believe, is misleading and over-stating the point.

I don't believe he is. He stated that now we know the truth, which we do. And in this case, the truth is that Adrian is "fairly certain" of Scion's provenance.

I don't see anywhere that Roy has stated that we're absolutely certain that Scion was never refreshed (or at least I don't remember having seen it if I have). He has simply questioned the methodologies and motives of the doubters, saying that they really haven't provided any proof that it has been refreshed.

hmmm....

[url=http://fortheloveofport.com/roys-blog/the-truth-about-taylor-s-scion]Here[/url], Roy wrote wrote:Some questioned the veracity of whether Scion was actually from 1855. Others called its authenticity into question based on nothing more than mistaken evaporation-curve-math, misconceptions of Douro bake and storage conditions in old cellars there, including wildly inaccurate assumptions based on misunderstanding how/when/why Ports are topped off or refreshed. One conspiracy theorist went far out on a limb, to link the timing of the release of Scion to the needs for funding of The Yeatman Hotel. To make a long story short: the "naysayers" were having a field day, albeit, badly misinformed.

Fortunately, Adrian Bridge stepped in to correct such myths and fallacious guess work that aroseand we now have a very clear and fact-based picture providing the truth about Taylor's Scion.

In any event, what Roy said is somewhat of a side argument. In terms of SCION itself, Adrian's information about evaporation was interesting, and is not something i had previously appreciated (for instance, see how Oscar Quevedo describes things on the Quevedo blog).

Even so, Adrian's statements do make me clamour for further detail on evaporation rates - particularly as i had previously understood, to take one example, that DALVA were still experiencing significant evaporation on their 1952 golden white even after 60 years in cask. It would also be interesting, for instance, to know observed evaporation rates of the C19 Krohn ports mentioned (or other C19 / early C20 colheitas) - presumably they must also now be down to near-0% evaporation rates?

Roy has said it was never refreshed with a younger Port. But as we know it's impossible to know for sure. Historically, as Derek pointed out, pipes were topped up/refreshed with younger Ports as well as the same year. Oscar made it quite clear, there is no law that prohibits the topping up of barrels using a younger vintage. As it is allowed and still done today.

As far as Scion, we'll never know for sure. Most likely, as already stated, it MAY have been topped up with a younger vintage as some point many many years ago. There will always be that element of the unknown. But as long as it tastes good, does it really matter?

Matter of fact I remeber the discussion that ensued at Roy's 50th over an old Colheita from the 1800's. With one major player in the wine trade making the statement there was no way it wasn't topped up/refreshed with a younger vintage at some point. And when you compared it to others from that general era, it was quite the standout.

I think part of the issue is the trade uses the terms refreshed and topped up interchangeably. Come to think of it, I've never heard a producer say they are "refreshing" a Port. The term I've always heard is "topping" off or up. So unless you specifically ask a producer what they mean by the term they are using, it could refer to two different things.

Derek is correct. There is no 100% guarantee either way. All we have to go on is Adrian and David's fact checking, research and due diligence in having a lab do their best to date the wine and Adrian also provided very substantial backing as to why they believed that Scion was never refreshed. We all know it is not a certainty. However, it is the best "truth" that we will ever know. I am good with accepting that. What doubts linger for others ... so be it. I believe everything we've been told and as there is no information to still be discovered; all the rest remains as speculation.

Rob's sharing of my quote is something I do stand by. I don't want to waste everyone's time by putting forth all of the mistaken info that was included in earlier posts, (prior to Adrian's posts) which does nobody any good. All of us ... Derek, Andy, Rob, Glenn, Tom, me ... and others, have typed mistaken info in this thread. So what? Let's move along.

I still maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be certain that any wood-aged port from the mid-19th century contains only one vintage.

As discussed the 1855 Scion can not be 100% proven beyond the point at which we have been left by Adrian Bridge. However, Krohn's 19th century Colheitas have been in that locked cellar at the Lodge under the ownership's watch and it WAS clearly stated and explained by the current owner that it was "NEVER topped off with younger wine." That was what my mention of "NEVER," Andy ... and for the record, I have heard producers use the term "refreshed" in differentiating the use of a younger wine when topping off, (Oscar Q. being just one of them). That took place on our very first tour to Quevedo.

As for Scion, like everyone else here, I have long realized that there is no evidence in anyone's possession that could prove ... beyond a shadow of a doubt ... how it was handled in the past (unlike the Krohn). That's exactly why I originally asked Adrian to drop in and clarify and confirm the facts, as he knew them and to correct some of the mistaken speculation.

Anyway, please let's keep this civil and it is ok to agree to disagree.



Note: As this thread drifted so far off topic and was then ammended to include the Scion discussion; there was zero point to head in another direction with comments on a past Tour de France winner and those comments and only those two posts which mentioned nothing about AQFTPT or Scion; have been deleted.

Thanks for your balanced response, Roy.

As some here seem to think I am doubting the accuracy or honesty of Adrian or TFP's words on Scion I can confirm that I absolutely believe what has been said and trust the conviction with which it has been delivered. That doesn't mean I am as convinced as others that the wine has never been refreshed, simply that I trust and believe that what is being said is believed to be true by those who are saying it.

As explained earlier, my challenge was simply in relation to a convincing argument being represented as an absolute truth. That, I think, has now been clarified and I am glad that the discussion seems to have reached a stage where readers of this thread can understand both sides of the argument and make their own mind up rather than simply relying on one view.

As for Tom D.'s observation that discussions such as this one discourage newer members from participating, I sincerely hope that is not the case. I think a forum like this needs healthy debate, sometimes fuelled by strong views, to make it interesting and informative. Provided these discussions remain civil and don't include veiled or overt personal attacks then I think an exchanged of strongly held views is good for the life of FTLOP or any other forum.

Roy Hersh wrote:it is ok to agree to disagree.

I couldn't agree more

Derek

Derek T. wrote:Provided these discussions remain civil and don't include veiled or overt personal attacks

I hope you didn't take my comment about conspiracy theories as a personal attack, as it was most definitely not intended as one. If you did take it as such, I apologize and hope that you will forgive me. Next time we see each other, I'll bring the Port.

I have never tasted Scion, but do have a degree in mathematics. Which allows me to do basic arithmetic.

• (1 - 4%) ^ (1855 - 2011) ≈ 583

So at 4% evaporation per year, to have one bottle now required starting with about 583 bottles. It doesn’t matter whether these were in multiple casks, gradually merged over the years, or in one cask, gradually diminishing and merged at the end. Four percent a year is four percent a year.

And to have a thousand bottles now would have required five hundred and eighty-three thousand bottles at the start. Nice cellar.

Even 2½% per annum is lots:

• (1 - 2.5%) ^ (1855 - 2011) ≈ 51.913

So if there was no adding of younger port, then evaporation really needed to be about zilch for most of its life.

Let’s do the maths differently. Assume that it evaporated 4% a year for 20 years, then 2% a year for 20 years, then 1% a year thereafter. Also assume that the owners drank 9 litres a year (what would be the point of a cask in the cellar with no ‘quality control’?).

¿Then how much must have been there in 1855 to finish with 1100 litres in 2011?

Answer = 19488 litres, or 38.66 shippers’ pipes.

Julian D. A. Wiseman wrote:Let’s do the maths differently. Assume that it evaporated 4% a year for 20 years, then 2% a year for 20 years, then 1% a year thereafter.

Adrian did say that evaporation would drop to a "very low level" so try this (I'm not equipped to do it myself at the moment):
3% for 20 years, then 1% for another 20 years, then 0.25% for the remainder.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Glenn E. wrote:3% for 20 years, then 1% for another 20 years, then 0.25% for the remainder.

With drinking 9 litres a year, starting with 6654 results in 1100. With zero drinking over one and a half centuries, 3306 litres.

But I just don’t believe ¼% p.a. Cutting it to 1% was hard to believe. Indeed, is it risking the fitting of assumptions to the desired answer?