A fine basic article on Port ... written by a good friend

[Roy Hersh]

I have known Dr. Randy Buckner and his wife (also a Dr.) for a decade now and he has not only a great palate, but a wonderful flair for writing. We have been to each other's homes and many a wine dinner/lunch together too. Enjoy his article on Port ... which he certainly enjoys and cellars including the Ferreira Duque de Braganca which I turned him onto years ago. He bought a case, because his wife loved it so much:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife ... 6827c.html

[Tom Archer]

Hmm..

A positive article, but repeats some classic errors....

Single quinta vintage port is vintage port. Period (.)

The two SQ names he pulls out were both active before 1986...

And he repeats the time honoured myth that the lesser beasts do not improve after bottling..

..if there is one thing this site has achieved, it is proving that mantra to be untrue!

- At least he didn't trot out the baloney about the '75 vintage being declared because of the revolution.. a small mercy!

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

Tom,

For the sake of those who are less experienced than you, why don't you elaborate about these points, explaining your position on them. My comments below are provocative ONLY for the point to have you respondand educate those that might not understand the points you are making. For instance:

Single quinta vintage port is vintage port. Period (.)

The typical Port enthusiast does believe that Single Quinta Vintage Port ... is a Vintage Port. So please explain your point here.

The two SQ names he pulls out were both active before 1986...

Please explain why this matters.

And he repeats the time honoured myth that the lesser beasts do not improve after bottling..

Many new people have signed up recently and are reading this. Could you please elaborateon exactly which types of inexpensive Port bottlings can and do improve with bottle aging in your opinion, for their sake.

- At least he didn't trot out the baloney about the '75 vintage being declared because of the revolution.. a small mercy!

So, please do share with us why you believe the inferior vintage of 1975 was generally declared and if you will, please note another example of any GENERALLY declared vintage in the 2nd half of the 20th century that was equally poor in quality ... where virtually ALL VPs failed to provide wines that reached 25 years of bottle age with any "significance", meaning: without a single one delivering 90 point quality range.

This is not meant as a challenge, but if you are to take specific points from an article and point to them as "classic errors" the least you should do is to provide counterpoints on what is the correct information, at least from your perspective. Thanks!

[*sweetstuff]

..is that he's dedicated many unbilled hours to helping folks who have medical issues related to wine consumption: i.e. allergies, effects of moderate consumption on health, wine-related headaches, and so forth. He often answers what seem to me to be complex questions in an attempt to clarify issues for wine consumers. While he of course cannot practice medicine in this way, his educational efforts are appreciated and are truly of the highest quality.

I don't know how much longer he's going to be able to do this, so don't abuse it!

[Tom Archer]

Roy,

To answer your gripes, try reading the article as someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject.

1) He refers to single quinta vintage ports as though they are not vintage port, but can sometimes rival it for quality - which is totally misleading.

For the benefit of any who may be confused, single quinta vintage ports originate from a single vineyard (known as a Quinta in Portugal). The wine may be the product of the vineyard as a whole, from a selected part of that vineyard, or a blend of wine from selected parts of the vineyard.

Other vintage ports are created by blending the wines of different quintas.

It is sometimes assumed that the single quinta vintage ports are inferior to the blends, yet the most prestigious vintage ports are from single quintas.

There is a certain similarity between the SQVP's and women drivers - they encompass both those who are safest on the road, and also the most dangerous

2) He refers to Vargellas and Bomfim in a manner that implies that they were not available prior to 1986, which is misleading.

3) He states - as a fact - that Ruby ports do not improve with bottle age.

Until relatively recently, I would not have challenged this assertion, as I had not given it much thought - but if I had been writing an article, I would have qualified the statement to reflect the fact that I had not personally checked it to be true.

I had one or two favorable encounters with old Rubies a long time ago, but given that it takes more than one swallow to make a summer, did not give them much weight. More recently, with the benefit of this site, I have become increasingly suspicious that there is a big myth here, and have been going out of my way to acquire old Rubies (mostly reserves) and tawnies.

As a result, I can say with confidence that a ruby or ten year tawny is much more likely than not to show better after ten years in bottle. For the older tawnies, I have an open mind, as I have not consumed enough samples to compare reliably, but I suspect that the amount of potential age related improvement lessens with the age of the wine at bottling time.

4) The '75 vintage was declared because of a run of indifferent harvests, and the commercial need to have a declared wine. Climatically, the '74 harvest season seems to have been quite favourable to a declaration, but it may be that the unfolding dramas on the political stage took everyone's eye off the ball.

When the '75 vintage was declared in the spring of '77, the revolution (and all the dire threats to nationalise the industry that attended it) - were history. The 76 vintage was not looking superior to the 75's, and although the '77's were eventually declared, the winter and spring weather preceding that vintage were not promisisng.

So '75 it had to be, but the wines did not get much critical acclaim, and proved early maturing and unremarkable, although a few are still very presentable.

This led to the great myth that the vintage was only declared because of the revolution - a theory that remains persistant despite the fact that it falls apart when subjected to the most cursory scrutiny..

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

To answer your gripes, try reading the article as someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject.

Dear Tom,

I don't know if I'd call them "gripes" necessarily, as I was looking to have you clarify some very broadly worded statements. But semantics aside, I'd like you to know this:

Tom, without you here on the FTLOP, this place would just not be the same. Although we frequently view Port topics from completely different perspectives, I want you to know here and now that I respect the heck out of your opinions and ALWAYS appreciate your participation. This has nothing to do with my following response to your post whatsoever. It is solely based on your posts since the day you registered. Thank you for your loyalty to our Forum community!

It is sometimes assumed that the single quinta vintage ports are inferior to the blends, yet the most prestigious vintage ports are from single quintas.

Taylor, Niepoort and Fonseca might not agree with the above statement ... but I do get the point you are making.

3) He states - as a fact - that Ruby ports do not improve with bottle age.
Until relatively recently, I would not have challenged this assertion, as I had not given it much thought - but if I had been writing an article, I would have qualified the statement to reflect the fact that I had not personally checked it to be true.

For me, the jury is still out. I have a problem believing that a wine that is stripped of its ability to age, when it is fined and filtered, can still improve in the bottle. Besides that, I guess the better question is not ... can it age, but can it IMPROVE with age and there, I have not read anything compelling to disprove the age old beliefs by those in the Port industry and guys like Mayson, Broadbent and Suckling.

Your specific assertion (I'll put the ruby/reserve aside for the moment) that 10 year old Tawny

I can say with confidence that a ruby or ten year tawny is much more likely than not to show better after ten years in bottle.

runs counter to every comment I have ever heard from the Portmakers themselves. I don't say that you are not right ... as I have ZERO personal experience in this regard, and am ONLY going on the heresay of the Port trade's cognoscenti.

So '75 it had to be, but the wines did not get much critical acclaim, and proved early maturing and unremarkable, although a few are still very presentable.

This led to the great myth that the vintage was only declared because of the revolution - a theory that remains persistant despite the fact that it falls apart when subjected to the most cursory scrutiny..

Your recounting of the entire time frame from 1974-1978 is very interesting and the conclusions you have drawn are fascinating to me, and this is why I was so much looking forward to you elaborating your points. I wonder if it was Suckling's book that first began the mindset about the '75 vintage and the revolution being connected events?

I also wonder how the Port trade views the choice of the '75 vintage? It would certainly make for an excellent article. I just might have to pursue that one angle. Thanks again Tom for your brilliant, provocative response.

[Tom Archer]

Taylor, Niepoort and Fonseca might not agree with the above statement ... but I do get the point you are making

I was thinking of wines like Taylor's Vinha Velha & Noval Nacional

~~~

With regard to the views of the portmakers on the aging of Rubies and Tawnies after bottling, it has to be borne in mind that it is not really in their interest for the consumer to believe that they benefit from aging.

Most of the old bottles I have unearthed have thrown some sediment, some of them, quite a lot (this despite them being filtered prior to bottling) - the volume consumer is averse to decanting, and tends to complain about cloudy wine...

Tom

[Roy Hersh]

I was thinking of wines like Taylor's Vinha Velha & Noval Nacional

Yes, but neither of these can actually be considered a Single Quinta Vintage Port. The Vinha Velha from Vargellas comes from a specific parcel on the property, and the Nacional vineyard is a segregated 2.5 ha plot just below the manor house at Noval. Only the latter case (of these two) can even be viewed as a Single Vineyard Vintage Port

[Tom Archer]

...beg to differ..

How many SQVP's use all the grapes from the quinta?

- very few I think.

If you crunch the numbers on Vesuvio, it's a very small proportion of the total that gets bottled as VP, and I doubt that each lagare gets filled with a random selection of grapes from the estate.

So the fact that NN and VV are made from selected parts of a quinta does not disqualify them as SQ's

- in my book, anyway!

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

With regard to the views of the portmakers on the aging of Rubies and Tawnies after bottling, it has to be borne in mind that it is not really in their interest for the consumer to believe that they benefit from aging.

Most of the old bottles I have unearthed have thrown some sediment, some of them, quite a lot (this despite them being filtered prior to bottling) - the volume consumer is averse to decanting, and tends to complain about cloudy wine...

Tom

A question on this comes to my mind, and I'm thinking out loud here. Tom, the bottles you tried were obviously older ones. I'm guessing bottled before the 1980's when modernization was starting in the Douro. I wonder if in todays newer high-tech world producers are able to better filter them. Whereas older bottlings may not have been and thus had the potential to age and/or throw a sediment.

If the latter is the case, I wonder how many producers have ever kept older bottles of the cheap stuff around to experiment with? I don't recall seeing any older bottles of cheap rubies and tawnys in the cellars of porducers.

[Tom Archer]

A question on this comes to my mind, and I'm thinking out loud here. Tom, the bottles you tried were obviously older ones. I'm guessing bottled before the 1980's when modernization was starting in the Douro. I wonder if in todays newer high-tech world producers are able to better filter them. Whereas older bottlings may not have been and thus had the potential to age and/or throw a sediment.

I don't know if the methods of filtration have changed much over the years, but I do know that if wine is filtered too aggressively, the end product will look and taste feeble. This is an issue with some mass market table wines.

My guess is that the degree of filtration is set to ensure that most of the wine will be sold and drunk before too much sediment is thrown.

If the latter is the case, I wonder how many producers have ever kept older bottles of the cheap stuff around to experiment with? I don't recall seeing any older bottles of cheap rubies and tawnys in the cellars of porducers

Neither have I, but if I were a producer, I would retain a bottle or two of each batch in case of complaints. That said, from a commercial standpoint, there would be little point in retaining those samples for more than five years.

Tom

[John Owlett]

Most of the old bottles I have unearthed have thrown some sediment, some of them, quite a lot (this despite them being filtered prior to bottling) - the volume consumer is averse to decanting, and tends to complain about cloudy wine...

Hi Tom,

I don't have enough tasting experience to be able to comment on the issue of whether filtered port improves as it ages; but my limited understanding of the processes involved lead me to believe that even a filtered port will throw a sediment.

That's because most of the tannins in red grape skins are water soluble and will pass through the filter. Then over time they will polymerize, cease to be water soluble, and precipitate out as sediment.

Now, where's a chemical engineer when you need one?

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

[Al B.]

I have very limited experience with drinking bottle-aged ruby ports. However, I did recently buy and drink a bottle of Fonseca Bin 27. I bought this from a wine shop that does a good trade in vintage ports (including Single Quinta ports) but does not sell a lot of ruby port. I found out later that the bottle I bought had been purchased by the retailer approximately 2 years before I bought it.

During those 2 years, the bottle had been lying on its side.

When I opened and decanted the bottle, two things became immediately apparent:
(1) there was a fine sediment at the base of the bottle and
(2) there was a thin layer of sediment on the inside of the bottle where the wine had been lying.

I haven't tasted many ruby ports in my time, and this Bin 27 was the best I have tried to date. I have only ever had the Bin 27 on one other occasion and it was not as good as this particular bottle.

On this straw poll of one personal experience plus my "gut feel" I personally believe that even cheap, filtered ruby ports will improve with bottle age.

But then you are reading a post from someone who buys and cellars non-vintage champagne for 2-4 years before drinking it in order to enjoy it at what I believe is its best.

Alex

[Derek T.]

I was thinking of wines like Taylor's Vinha Velha & Noval Nacional

Yes, but neither of these can actually be considered a Single Quinta Vintage Port. The Vinha Velha from Vargellas comes from a specific parcel on the property, and the Nacional vineyard is a segregated 2.5 ha plot just below the manor house at Noval. Only the latter case (of these two) can even be viewed as a Single Vineyard Vintage Port

I have to agree with Tom here - TVVV and QdNN are SQVP's - no doubt about it whatsoever. The classification relies on the fact that the wine is produced only from grapes grown on 1 Quinta, not that it is produced using a blend of or all of the grapes from that Quinta.

Roy, can you please explain why you believe that these are not SQVP's ?


Just to balance things up I will agree with Roy on the bottle aged ruby/tawny issue. I have tasted quite a few of these and entirely agree that they change/age/develop over time but have no evidence that they improve. From my general knowledge/experience of the expected colour, texture and taste of these standard issue wines I can be 99% sure that those I have tasted with significant bottle age were different to what they were when bottled but who knows if they are now better than when released.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

I think what Roy is getting at is Nacional comes from only one small section of vines at the Quinta. Thus, in reality, making it a single vineyard VP. As it only comes from one vineyard and is not blended with other grapes. Whereas SQVP's are a blend of various sections of the vineyard as a whole.

VVV, however, is a blend of various sub plots within the VV vineyards at Vargellas.

If you "split-hairs" technically neither are SQVP's, as Roy states. As they are not a product (blend) of grapes from the entire property.

[Al B.]

Hmm. I think I go with Tom on this one. I haven't gone back to the definition of a SQVP on the IVDP website, but I believe that the requirement is that the grapes used for the port must come from the same Quinta.

If the grapes simply happen to come from a particular part of the quinta - perhaps because the other grapes were destroyed by a hailstorm or perhaps because the other grapes come from grafted rootstocks, surely that doesn't disqualify the wine from being SQVP prvided all the grapes used come from the one property.

Of course, if there were single vineyard or single block releases then we could debate whether the Nacional and VVV would qualify as either of these.....

[Andy Velebil]

I think your last sentance hit-the-nail-on-the-head. Obviously, they are classified as a SQVP becuase they come from a single year, and a single Quinta, etc.

The point being made is VVV and NN ONLY come from a very tiny section of the quinta, EVERY TIME they are bottled. Whereas, a regular SQVP can come from grapes from totally different parts of the Quinta each year. Depending on what parts of the Quinta produce the best grapes for the blend in that particular year.

Like I said, it is really just splitting hairs and you are absolutly right about single block releases...as that would be the best definition to call them (of course the IVDP is giving us all that look right now, )

[Jay Powers]

I would go with Tom on the SQVP topic as well. SQVP fits both the definition and the spirit. To add on top, Nacional is bottled in some years when the "regular" VP is not, which seems to be in the spirit as well.

Something we touched on a little when we were at Crasto and Vargellas as well, was the use of specific plots to make both red wine (specifically, at Crasto) and Port. I would have to guess that at Vesuvio, given the huge size of the place and the relatively low number of cases made, that something similar goes on there and other places as well, where there are "preferred" plots which go into the SQVP, and other plots which are never used but have the wine sold as reserve or some such.

[Roy Hersh]

Jay,

Actually the Vargellas wine that does not go in the SQVP Vargellas or their Vinha Velha bottlings, all goes into the various Taylor Ports:
LBV
Ruby Reserve
Tawnies basic and aged
Taylor Fladgate VP

[Jay Powers]

Roy

Do you know where the Vesuvio wine that does not get into the Vesuvio bottle go? I seem to remember that they vinify all the grapes, but I could be wrong.

It would be great to know specific destinations of the wine that does not make it into the bottle for a variety of vinyards. For instance, if the VVV wine in years where it did not quite make the cut went to a specific lable each year, that would be a cheap way to get an "almost" VVV. Sadly your post has dashed my dreams for VVV. But maybe there are others?

SQVP or not discussion aside, I think the article that led to this series of posts is quite good. The more press Port gets the better. There was an article in the SF Chronicle (~1 year ago) that was very good as well. For both articles, the absolute correctness of the details, as set in IVDP bylaws, is not relavent to the average US reader who has probably never heard of Port in the first place, and are certainly not Port "geeks" like us.

Er...I should say that as long as the price of Ferreira Duque de Braganca does not go up in response to the article :!:

Jay