For The Love Of Port

In terms of relevance in the marketplace, Crusted Port is not often seen ... should this category be expanded in terms of the number of bottlings or even done away with?

Roy Hersh wrote:In terms of relevance in the marketplace, Crusted Port is not often seen ... should this category be expanded in terms of the number of bottlings or even done away with?

This is a category that should be expanded indeed. Being able to mix vintages together has the potential to make some of most exciting port! I'll take a crusted port over an LBV any day.

I'd like to see more commemorative port bottling. The Rui Paula Colheita bottling was great, but how about a 2013 bottling (port of wine) in recognition of Rui Costa's road cycling world championship win? That is a Portuguese first and should be recognized/celebrated.

Moses Botbol wrote:how about a 2013 bottling (port of wine) in recognition of Rui Costa's road cycling world championship win? That is a Portuguese first and should be recognized/celebrated.

That would be fantastic! Sign me up for some :)

I too would take a crusted port over an LBV any day. Like to believe that your outcomes can be 89+89=93 at 91 pricing !! Or we might just get 85+85=89 at 87 pricing...

That could make a good question for the port trade, whether they see Crusted Port as something to try out, how to push it forward.

Crusted certainly deserves a wider audience - why it has never been seriously marketed in the USA is a little strange.

As a product category it hits a sweet spot for both the producers and the consumers - allowing the producers to blend and bottle leftover stocks that are too good to go into rubies, getting a respectable price in return; whilst for the consumers it provides an affordable alternative to vintage.

It was also Crusted that first drew my attention to the fact that good port is worth paying for - it's value as a stepping stone may be underestimated..

Expanded!

I think the market for Crusted is quite limited, mostly to geeks like us. One of the main advantages of (most) LBV and Ruby Reserve is that they are pop and pour without the need for decanting. Those who are prepared to decant are unlikely to have crusted port as the mainstay of their cellar and are more likely to go for vintage dated ports at the top end of the market. I think crusted would always suffer from being seen as a mid-range product with the inconvenience associated with top-end wines. For that reason alone I don't see it as a big growth opportunity for port producers.

Derek T. wrote:I think the market for Crusted is quite limited, mostly to geeks like us. One of the main advantages of (most) LBV and Ruby Reserve is that they are pop and pour without the need for decanting. Those who are prepared to decant are unlikely to have crusted port as the mainstay of their cellar and are more likely to go for vintage dated ports at the top end of the market. I think crusted would always suffer from being seen as a mid-range product with the inconvenience associated with top-end wines. For that reason alone I don't see it as a big growth opportunity for port producers.

I think Derek's comments are spot on.

- We are the minority. By that I mean we are part of a small group who buys Port to age for the long haul. The majority of the population in this world are not and do not want to cellar Port, or any wine, for decades.

- LBV's have largely replaced Crusted Ports. Unfiltered LBV's are around the same price or cheaper, they mature a little faster so no need to cellar them 15-20 years, and can offer a similar quality. Or one can chose a filtered LBV and enjoy it today for less money.

- I don't think Crusted will go away, as there will always be a few like us who would buy them. I just don't see the need for them when you can get a solid Unfiltered LBV.


- My personal opinion and buying habits; if I want a faster maturing VP, I'll buy a lower tier VP I know will be mature in say 15-20 years time that I can open to enjoy while the top dogs are still sleeping. Otherwise, I just buy unfiltered LBV's and get a similar satisfaction in a faster time frame.

Andy Velebil wrote:LBV's have largely replaced Crusted Ports. Unfiltered LBV's are around the same price or cheaper, they mature a little faster so no need to cellar them 15-20 years, and can offer a similar quality.

Would you be able to blend the juice that would go into several LBVs and get something closer to VP out?

Believe that is where the interesting part about Crusted Ports lies. By allowing blending you can supposedly create additional "value".

And if you are blending LBVs, then you can do without decanting just the same way that you do wo it for LBVs. No additional hassle for the consumer.

I would be happy to pay a little more than LBV pricing (i.e., $20-25 with LBV sub-$20) to get something that I deemed worth $25-35.

And the producer should be happy to do it as his opportunity cost was selling the volumes as LBV - and the cost of blending is minimal.

Guess it all rests w their ability to add value through blending.

Miguel Simoes wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:LBV's have largely replaced Crusted Ports. Unfiltered LBV's are around the same price or cheaper, they mature a little faster so no need to cellar them 15-20 years, and can offer a similar quality.

Would you be able to blend the juice that would go into several LBVs and get something closer to VP out?

Believe that is where the interesting part about Crusted Ports lies. By allowing blending you can supposedly create additional "value".

And if you are blending LBVs, then you can do without decanting just the same way that you do wo it for LBVs. No additional hassle for the consumer.

I would be happy to pay a little more than LBV pricing (i.e., $20-25 with LBV sub-$20) to get something that I deemed worth $25-35.

And the producer should be happy to do it as his opportunity cost was selling the volumes as LBV - and the cost of blending is minimal.

Guess it all rests w their ability to add value through blending.

But that is already being done. You can age LBV's in different formats of vats and barrel sizes to achieve a high quality product with a certain profile. And/or you can pick and chose grapes from various different vineyards to make your LBV. Which arguably is tantamount to picking different years and blending them together.

One could argue current unfiltered LBV's are better, or at least equal to, a Crusted Port. Crusted Ports can be referred to as "I've got some left over stuff not good enough for VP, what do i do with it, I know lets blend some together and get rid of it." Of course, that's a satirical comment but is it far off?

Unfiltered LBV's are often the second best grapes picked, after what goes into VP's. So instead of getting some left overs you've not been quite sure what to do with over a few years, you're earmarking certain grapes from the beginning to make a product. In that respect you've got way more quality control to make a better and consistent product. And lets face it, the vast majority of the wine buying public wants a consistent product. Even us uber Port nerds want that....

If they want to expand it in the U.S., I think they will have to come up with a different name.

Eric Menchen wrote:If they want to expand it in the U.S., I think they will have to come up with a different name.

True. Kinda like the Warre's "Nimrod" name. Probably not the best name to use, at least here in the states and I assume some other countries.

Eric Menchen wrote:If they want to expand it in the U.S., I think they will have to come up with a different name.

I'm off to register the patent for "Bottle Matured Reserve Ruby"

Andy Velebil wrote:[Crusted Ports can be referred to as "I've got some left over stuff not good enough for VP, what do i do with it, I know lets blend some together and get rid of it." Of course, that's a satirical comment but is it far off?

Yes, I think it is and I think by saying it you are doing the producers a dis-service. I would have said that it is more likely to be that the producers makes their major blends (and prestige cuvees) and has some lotes left over from the blending. Some of these might then go into the LBV blends but even after that there are some vintage port quality lotes left over.

What does the producer do? His choices are limited - he could transfer the port into small barrels and mature it for use in future tawny blends. Or perhaps there isn't enough to make that worthwhile so it could be kept for blending in with the ruby or ruby reserve.

But maybe it's too good for that. How does the producer get the best return for it? Perhaps blend it with similar quality stocks from the previous year or two and make a crusted port? A small quantity, just a few hundred bottles, but worth more than if it went into the ruby blends. And if the market for this type of port is only small, that's OK - there aren't many bottles to sell.

If what Alex says is true it is perhaps another reason why the category will not expand. There is only so much vintage-quality juice to go around and most will be used to produce VP, LBV and Colheita. The bits and bobs that remain would make very good components for Crusted but would always be of limited quantity.

I have to chime in and make a few comments on several comments that I think overstates or simplifies things to a degree that I think deserves clarifying.

First, 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.

Next, vintage does matter, otherwise we wouldn't have vintage declarations. If the selection from different parcels and the type of barrel aging were virtually the same as blending vintages then vintage port could be made every year. So I think we can throw out the idea that selecting from a number of vintages is the same as selecting wines from different parcels.

Unfiltered LBVs do age faster than VP but they may not be ready in 15-20 years as asserted. A '92 Warre's LBV (Traditional) that I had last year was sensational but still firm, structured and had years ahead of it. I admit that I have little experience in crusted port as the only one I've come across in Edmonton is the Churchill Crusted (bottled in 2002), however, compared to the 1992 Warre's I would say that the crusted was far more approachable and less tannic.

I think that a Traditional LBV, particularly from serious producers like Noval, Warre's, and Smith Woodhouse, are VP-like propositions that are further along in maturity but still need plenty of time. Crusted port, for whatever reason, probably the blending selection, offers a high quality vintage port experience in a plusher, earlier drinking style.

Just my two cents, which, now that Canada has eliminated the penny and everything is rounded up or down, means it's worth nothing.

Mahmoud.

Al B. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:[Crusted Ports can be referred to as "I've got some left over stuff not good enough for VP, what do i do with it, I know lets blend some together and get rid of it." Of course, that's a satirical comment but is it far off?

Yes, I think it is and I think by saying it you are doing the producers a dis-service. I would have said that it is more likely to be that the producers makes their major blends (and prestige cuvees) and has some lotes left over from the blending. Some of these might then go into the LBV blends but even after that there are some vintage port quality lotes left over.

What does the producer do? His choices are limited - he could transfer the port into small barrels and mature it for use in future tawny blends. Or perhaps there isn't enough to make that worthwhile so it could be kept for blending in with the ruby or ruby reserve.

But maybe it's too good for that. How does the producer get the best return for it? Perhaps blend it with similar quality stocks from the previous year or two and make a crusted port? A small quantity, just a few hundred bottles, but worth more than if it went into the ruby blends. And if the market for this type of port is only small, that's OK - there aren't many bottles to sell.

Alex,
What you just described is exactly what I said. I'm confused?
How am I doing them a dis-service? Because that is exactly what may be going on, and probably is. A bit of a sharp statement yes, but if you're taking your left over lots, blending them together over 2-3 years, your doing exactly as I said. Nothing wrong with that mind you. It's like a major chateau who has a second label. They take their left over or not so good lots, blend them together, bottle it, and make some decent money off it. More money than they would by selling it off in bulk to someone else.

Mahmoud Ali wrote: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

Andy Velebil wrote:

Al B. wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:[Crusted Ports can be referred to as "I've got some left over stuff not good enough for VP, what do i do with it, I know lets blend some together and get rid of it." Of course, that's a satirical comment but is it far off?

Yes, I think it is and I think by saying it you are doing the producers a dis-service. I would have said that it is more likely to be that the producers makes their major blends (and prestige cuvees) and has some lotes left over from the blending. Some of these might then go into the LBV blends but even after that there are some vintage port quality lotes left over.

What does the producer do? His choices are limited - he could transfer the port into small barrels and mature it for use in future tawny blends. Or perhaps there isn't enough to make that worthwhile so it could be kept for blending in with the ruby or ruby reserve.

But maybe it's too good for that. How does the producer get the best return for it? Perhaps blend it with similar quality stocks from the previous year or two and make a crusted port? A small quantity, just a few hundred bottles, but worth more than if it went into the ruby blends. And if the market for this type of port is only small, that's OK - there aren't many bottles to sell.

Alex,
What you just described is exactly what I said. I'm confused?
How am I doing them a dis-service? Because that is exactly what may be going on, and probably is. A bit of a sharp statement yes, but if you're taking your left over lots, blending them together over 2-3 years, your doing exactly as I said. Nothing wrong with that mind you. It's like a major chateau who has a second label. They take their left over or not so good lots, blend them together, bottle it, and make some decent money off it. More money than they would by selling it off in bulk to someone else.

My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying was that Crusted was made from port of less than vintage quality and I was trying to say what Derek has just put so much more clearly!

Al B. wrote: My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying was that Crusted was made from port of less than vintage quality and I was trying to say what Derek has just put so much more clearly!

Miguel Simoes wrote:

Al B. wrote: My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying was that Crusted was made from port of less than vintage quality and I was trying to say what Derek has just put so much more clearly!

Derek must not have had any Port that evening