For The Love Of Port

I tried my first Madeira last month, breaking my "cherry" with a Broadbent reserve 5yrs. I enjoyed th taste almost a much as I'm currently enjoying the way the Madeira can sit out on the counter in my 80 degree apartment week after week without degrading. A beverage that embraces heat and poor storage conditions is brilliant!

I attended a Champagne tasting last week that included a old bottle of 1973 Charles Heidsieck "La Royale." This Champagne was deliciously musky and caramelized. As many tasters comment how much they enjoyed the flavors of this aged Champagne, one member of the group noted that the flavors resulted from "maderization" of the wine from its time in the bottle and storage conditions. That comment flipped on the lightbulb in my head and I finally connected that the lovely flavors were remarkably similar to the Madeira I'd tried earlier in the month.

If Madeira longevity after opening makes it such a sensible beverage to keep on hand, and if people seem to enjoy its flavors (as evidenced by the comments during the Champagne tasting); why isn't Madeira more popular in the U.S.?

Is it because Madeira is grouped in with Port by the general wine-drinking community? While Madeira and Port are obviously different animals to the registered members of FTLOP, the fact that the two wines sit side-by-side in most wine stores, and the similarity of the bottle shapes, colors, and labeling have to make it hard for the average person to differentiate the two wines. Plus, Port isn't all that popular in the U.S. either. Sure, Port get a token representation on most wine lists, but I rarely hear people ordering it, and I hardly ever see a glass of it on a restaurant table. In an attempt to peddle his daily wine offering (a 2011 Calem vintage port), Garagiste's Jon Rimmerman discusses how vintage-of-the-century conditions in a particular wine region often provide the needed catalyst to propel that region from the shadows of obscurity to the forefront of the average U.S. wine consumer's consciousness. Rimmerman forecasts that the fervor over 2011 vintage port will catapult Port to popularity with U.S. consumers. Rimmerman often makes such predictions to generate hype and demand for his daily wine offering, but in the case of 2011 vintage port, does Rimmerman's prediction have merit? If so, could a boost in popularity of vintage port produce a halo effect on Madeira popularity in the U.S.?

I'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on maderized Champagne, Madeira's relative anonymity in the U.S., the 2011 vintage port, or predictions about the future popularity of port in the U.S.

-Lindsay

Port:
I think Port will be a niche interest with serious wine fans and perhaps people from families with "cellaring traditions". I see interest in Port continuing to decline in future, especially over in Europe.

Top vintage port costs far too much for something that needs to be set aside for 30-40 years before hitting its peak. How much disposable wine income can people realistically set aside for such delayed gratification? Also, there are a lot more wines in the market clamouring for a share of the pie, so less available money for extensive cellars of port.

All this hubbub for 2011 port - without meaning to cause offence, most purchasers of significant quantity are likely to have passed on (or have a shot palate) before the 2011s are ready. I'm probably the youngest person on this forum and I'll be in my 60s in 30 years time...far too much $$$ to spend and time to wait.

The trend in the wine industry (for the majority of wines) is towards earlier-drinking styles. Most people will be satisfied with the "port-hit" they can get with an LBV rather than bother with cellaring, at a fraction of the cost.

The final whammy is that Port is not a dry wine that isn't easily compatible with the savoury courses of a dinner...and restaurants are unlikely to bother trying to cellar VP as it's tough to try and sell an entire bottle to a customer to finish off over dessert.

Madeira:
Madeira has room to grow considerably because of its reputation as the longest-living wine in the world, its flexibility re. dryness-sweetness, and that it can remain open for long periods of time. Also, it is bottled ready to drink.

Re. age: most are attracted to the idea of old wine. Madeira pretty much lasts the longest - one of the great virtues of wine.

Re. flexibility: can match with many foods, or many occasions.

Re. remaining open for long periods: this should be the darling of the bar and restaurant trade, a wine that keeps like a spirit.

The downsides with Madeira:
1. From my recent experience as a Madeira n00b, you need to go at least 10yrs or above before Madeira is convincing. I've been drinking Madeira now for about a year, but I haven't come across any 5 year old that was close to being interesting. A 10yr Madeira is not inexpensive for many wine fans.

2. Madeira doesn't have the vintage hype machine that Bordeaux, Burgundy, Port etc. have to leverage off.

Jon D wrote:Port:

The final whammy is that Port is not a dry wine that isn't easily compatible with the savoury courses of a dinner...

I could not disagree more. Port works wonderfully with many starter courses and main dishes. The problem is Port has an image problem of only being consumed after the meal. I've served Port with the main meal to many guests who thought it would never work and they all turned out to love it. Just like certain types of dry wines, people only think they won't work or aren't good because that's what they've heard from others. Most wines and Port are FAR more adaptable to various dishes than most people are led to believe.

Madeira's price isn't helping it. For me, Madeira needs to be at least 10 years old. I won't recommend Rainwater or a 5 year to anyone who has not tried Madeira before. Port, Madeira, and Sherry need to be introduced to potential consumers in the right setting without pretense.

Some great points, Lindsay. First off, I totally agree that price point is a sticking point for Madeira, but I don't think it's something that can really be fixed. The island is only so big, production is so small (on a global scale) and wines must be held for so long, that I'm not sure you'll ever see 10+y/o wines under $30. This is much the same pricing issue that Burgundy has, where wines with real character don't really exist under $30, which makes it tough to break in and get an understanding without some serious financial outlay.

As for Port, I don't think price has much of an issue. As far as the world's great wines go, it's very well priced. The regular cuvée of VP makers is in the $40-$90 range on release, with an extra $10-$30 bucks a bit after release. Bordeaux's best can't compare, California's best can only sometimes compare, Burgundy's best can't compare, Champagne can't compare, Italy's best only sometimes, Alsace and Germany are the only classic areas where you can buy the best producers consistently for under $100.

Vintage Port doesn't always need 30 years to come around. There are big wines and big vintages that perfectly illustrate your point, to be sure. Vintages like '91, '82, '80, '75 and possibly '03 are all years with major declarations that have had (or could have) a lot of wines drinking well only 15-20 years post vintage, and presumably were very attractive as young wines. Single Quinta VPs allow for many more VPs that are tasty 10-15 years after vintage, which is no longer than people wait for big cabs to come around. Sure, in 10 years time when ill be in a position to own a house and have a large cellar ill almost be too old to see out a big VP, but that's what auctions are for. It doesn't seem like VPs appreciate in value significantly (baring a huge score) in the first 15-20 years. I'm sure the folks here can correct me if this is more a result of other factors, but I'm guessing its because supply doesn't really tighten up until people start drinking them. You can buy a lot of '94 VP for close to release price.

VP, at this point, doesn't lend itself to a by the glass program at restaurants at all, as you're right, people don't order it. You need to sell 6-8 2oz pours @$10+ in ~3 days to break even, a tough sell in most places. I don't understand why restaurants mark up reserve rubies and 10 or 20 year Tawnies so much though. As a server, when we had a dessert wine on special for $5 a glass, we moved tons of it, regardless of what it was. You would only need 3ish pours of a reserve ruby @$5 over a couple nights to break even. One good server can do that in an evening. I typically see these wines at $9-$15 a glass, which usually makes me skip dessert, and pick up a whole bottle (12x more juice) for ~$20 on the way home. Madeira and long wood aged port rarely seem to get more than a token appearance, which is silly, as you're right, they're not really too time limited once open. If you have a good 10y/o Madeira or younger colhieta you should have a good dessert to match and be able to sell 4-5 $10 glasses over 2 weeks. Just my thoughts.

Concerning old Champagne, I'm always amazed at how wine that would otherwise be "flawed" tastes pretty good with some bubbles. I've had numerous bottles that didn't survive storage or were over the hill, but wound up tasting like a bubbly vin jaune, which is oddly tasty.

2011 will not spark Bordeauxesque jumps in prices, simply because there isn't enough demand for port to begin with. Short supply and good PR will definitely force prices up, but in reality, vintage port doesn't have a much larger world market than it did 20 years ago. It has a much more vibrant market with so many more quintas, but not much bigger. There are less than 100,000 cases of top house VPs made in a vintage year. That's less wine than the First Growths make every year, and prices aren't comparable.

Whew, long post!

I think people that know Port will get excited about the 2011s and buy, but I really don't expect the 2011 vintage to expand the Port audience. The general audience isn't going to jump in for something $80 a bottle that then is best aged. I think the chances for expansion are better with LBVs and reserves.

Bradley Bogdan wrote: As for Port, I don't think price has much of an issue. As far as the world's great wines go, it's very well priced. The regular cuvée of VP makers is in the $40-$90 range on release, with an extra $10-$30 bucks a bit after release. Bordeaux's best can't compare, California's best can only sometimes compare, Burgundy's best can't compare, Champagne can't compare, Italy's best only sometimes, Alsace and Germany are the only classic areas where you can buy the best producers consistently for under $100.

Classified Bordeaux, Burg, California and Champagne are priced as luxury goods though, not based on cost. I don't think it makes sense to say that VP is well-priced because it is cheaper than classified Bordeaux, because to me Bordeaux prices are ridiculous - a beverage costing $25 max to make selling for 10-100 times that. VP is sold based on its ability to age, so $100+/bottle is still a big sacrifice for most to set aside for 30 years. As far as beverages go, VP is still upper end in pricing, and it isn't helped when there is somewhat of a substitute in LBVs (for the general crowd, that is).

Maybe I'm just a cheapskate, and just prefer paying a price for something with some association to cost.

Bradley Bogdan wrote: Vintage Port doesn't always need 30 years to come around. There are big wines and big vintages that perfectly illustrate your point, to be sure. Vintages like '91, '82, '80, '75 and possibly '03 are all years with major declarations that have had (or could have) a lot of wines drinking well only 15-20 years post vintage, and presumably were very attractive as young wines. Single Quinta VPs allow for many more VPs that are tasty 10-15 years after vintage, which is no longer than people wait for big cabs to come around.

True, but what region is going to increase its following based on wines from inferior vintages (which essentially non-declared/non-universal vintages are)?

Bordeaux, Burgundy, etc, people jump on board with vintages like 2005, 2009, 2010...not affordable and shorter-term vintages like 2008.

Jon, excellent points, and I don't think you're wrong on any of them, actually, I just think there's more to it.

When it comes to VP pricing, good VP can be had for <$40, with great VP ('92s & '94s that is beginning to be ready to drink available for <$60 without too much trouble on the Internet. While I'm guessing labor in Portugal is cheap, Port involves substantially more hand labor than many high end wines. This would lead me to guess the price of putting out a VP in a given year is ~$15-$20 a bottle despite no real oak costs. Tack on import costs of $5-$10 a bottle and a profit margin of another $10 for importer and shipper, and an additional 20% for a retailer, all of a sudden retail of $40-$60 for a VP, especially a 15+ y/o one, looks logical instead of inflated for being a luxury good.

My point with the earlier drinking vintages I mentioned were that they WERE hyped, generally declared and just didn't have the stuffing to need 30 years. Many were drinking well after 15-20.

Im not trying to convince you that there isn't price inflation due to lack of supply for VP, or that $40-$60 a bottle is cheap for any wine. What I am saying is that it is reasonable compared to other high quality regions' best producers, especially regions where rampant inflation takes place.

Bradley Bogdan wrote:My point with the earlier drinking vintages I mentioned were that they WERE hyped, generally declared and just didn't have the stuffing to need 30 years. Many were drinking well after 15-20.

I think that 1980 gets a bit of a bad rep because it is surrounded by '77, '83, and '85. Is it on par with those three? No, not quite, at least not to me. But it's pretty close, and much better than the price comparison (especially with '77) would lead you to believe.

How did 2003 make your list? Those are beasts, or at least the ones I've had all have been. I think they'll need 30 years, easily, to mature. That said, many of them were also very approachable when very young. But that seems to be a change across the entire Port industry - probably due to improved processes - that really seems to have hit its stride in about 2003. It seems like just about every Port made these days is approachable while young.

All of this talk of port on the Madeira board. Get back over to your side!

Glenn E. wrote: How did 2003 make your list? Those are beasts, or at least the ones I've had all have been. I think they'll need 30 years, easily, to mature. That said, many of them were also very approachable when very young. But that seems to be a change across the entire Port industry - probably due to improved processes - that really seems to have hit its stride in about 2003. It seems like just about every Port made these days is approachable while young.

The fact they are approachable young I think is why the folks I used to drink wine with back in NY were all of the opinion 2003s wouldn't last a super long time. James Molesworth somehow got them started on the discussion on one of his visits to the area and it spilled over into our gathering. He held a similar belief that the early accessibility was a sign of a shorter aging curve on '03s. Port is certainly a different wine than the Rhone, Bordeaux and Finger Lakes that he reviews though, so the same principles may not apply with the winemaking progression in Port. I know a bunch of the people here would disagree, hence the ?. I can't say I've got a definite stance either way, but since it seemed a maybe, I threw it in.

And to bring this back to Madeira land again, has anyone else here had Madeirized bubbly that they thought still worked?

Barry, my apologies. I should have separated the questions to keep each of the topics in their respective forums. To refocus this topic, I'd still like to know why Madeira isn't more popular, when people who are exposed to "Madeira" flavor profiles seem to respond so positively. I have another example from tonight: I brought a 1996 white Bordeaux to a dinner tonight as a learning example because the wine was fairly "Maderized." I also brought the remainder of that Broadbent 5yr reserve so people could see how a "maderized" wine resembles Madeira. Funny thing; people not only enjoyed the "maderized" white wine, but also helped themselves to multiple glasses of the Madeira. Why isn't this enjoyment/preference of ordinary wine drinkers translating into Madeira sales? What would need to happen to bring Madeira back into the spotlight?

I also want to thank everyone for contributing such detailed responses to this topic so far. Jon, Andy, Glenn, Moses, Eric and Bradley: thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

I think there is a difference between aged, oxidized Champagne versus Madeira/Maderization. Some Champagne is deliberately made in a relatively more oxidative style, Krug is the one that comes to mind. With age, all Champagne develops that nutty, biscuty flavor that comes with slow gentle oxidation. I love it. Maderized Champagne is another beast. Usually from improper handling, it's dark colored and devoid of fruit.

Lindsay E. wrote:Barry, my apologies.

Lindsay, no problem. Just playing.

Eric Ifune wrote:I think there is a difference between aged, oxidized Champagne versus Madeira/Maderization. Some Champagne is deliberately made in a relatively more oxidative style, Krug is the one that comes to mind. With age, all Champagne develops that nutty, biscuty flavor that comes with slow gentle oxidation. I love it. Maderized Champagne is another beast. Usually from improper handling, it's dark colored and devoid of fruit.

Eric, I wanted to respond to your comment about oxidative styles. Since I posted my original message, I've consumed additional bottles from Charles Heidsieck, and I've talked to others who have had various vintages and NVs of C. Heidsieck. I've concluded that Oxidative style is indeed a hallmark of Charles Heidsieck. And while I was originally under the impression that the '73 C. Heidsieck La Royale's oxidative notes were a result of age and inconsistent storage conditions, I've since concluded that the '73 was perfectly preserved and the oxidative notes were just a result of the house style showing through. I've also had a bottle of Bollinger special cuvee in the interim. I was under the impression that Bollinger was a half step between C.Heidsieck and Krug, but the Bollinger was much less interesting, albeit more balanced than the C.Heidsieck. I'm now thinking I need to throw down for some Krug so I can taste what should be the ultimate in rich, oxidative NV styled Champagnes. I'm gonna look for a 375ml or try to find a retailer that's had a bottle in stock for a few years so I can get the best bang for my buck.

Lindsay,
Good luck with the Krug. If you really want the ultimate in oxidized styled Champagne, Selosse is the name. His Substance cuvee even uses reserve wine aged in a solera type system. Unfortunately it's now something of a cult item in the States and very, very expensive.

Eric Ifune wrote:Lindsay,
Good luck with the Krug. If you really want the ultimate in oxidized styled Champagne, Selosse is the name. His Substance cuvee even uses reserve wine aged in a solera type system. Unfortunately it's now something of a cult item in the States and very, very expensive.

They are cult wines everywhere unfortunately

Moses Botbol wrote:

Eric Ifune wrote:Lindsay,
Good luck with the Krug. If you really want the ultimate in oxidized styled Champagne, Selosse is the name. His Substance cuvee even uses reserve wine aged in a solera type system. Unfortunately it's now something of a cult item in the States and very, very expensive.

They are cult wines everywhere unfortunately

But you can find them at RWC once a year or so, and on par with other luxury brand champagnes price wise.

I realize we are WAY off topic at this point, but speaking of rare Champagne finds, I'm visiting my mom in Kentucky and I found a restaurant that had 1988 Pol Roger sir Winston Churchill on the menu for $99! I though it was a misprint for sure, so I ordered it an out it came. When I expressed my enjoyment, the waiter suggested I return on Monday when all wine is 20% off. I was pinching myself under the table to contain my disbelief and jubilation. I bought all three remaining bottles.

Lindsay E. wrote:I realize we are WAY off topic at this point, but speaking of rare Champagne finds, I'm visiting my mom in Kentucky and I found a restaurant that had 1988 Pol Roger sir Winston Churchill on the menu for $99! I though it was a misprint for sure, so I ordered it an out it came. When I expressed my enjoyment, the waiter suggested I return on Monday when all wine is 20% off. I was pinching myself under the table to contain my disbelief and jubilation. I bought all three remaining bottles.

Damn! That's incredible. Did you bother waiting until Monday? Haha.