Last night a group got together to enjoy some nice port. An interesting situation came up as one member of the group brought an 85 Grahams VP he had recently purchased. When opening the bottle we noticed the cork was brand new , the bottom was hardly stained at all, but it did have 1985 Grahams printed on it. There is no way this had been in the bottle for very long at all. The general consensus in the group was that the port was fine and did in fact taste like the 85 should. strange indeed.
Anyone have any thoughts on why this might be??? Do some port houses re-cork bottles? I have never seen this before.
Just curious!
How long did the person who brought the bottle own this bottle before you opened and drank it?
To my mind, there are only two explanations. Mike has already suggested one and the other is that the wine was recorked at some point very recently. But 20 years is a pretty short time for a wine to require recorking assuming that it was a decent job in the first place. If it was recorked, then I would expect that the bottle would have to have been a late release from the Grahams cellars, say being released on the 20th or 21st anniversary of the vintage. It is possible that the bottle was spotted as a leaker by Grahams as it was being prepared for shipment and was recorked at that time. What was the ullage like in the bottle?
Standing its whole life could be a possibility if it was bought recently at a retailer...how was the sediment? was there a lot or a little?
Maybe the port houses released a whole bunch into the market recently? kinda like Graham's Millenium Magnum a few years ago...the question is did they bottle it then or back in 79' and just slapped on a new label.
I think I should see if I can get more info from the owner of the bottle. I was only at the tasting for a short while and didn't see the bottle until some time after it was opened.
I would think if the bottle was standing upright most its life the cork would have been a little dry. This was a clean new cork and still very supple not stiff and dry.
I will check on its fill and see if anyone noted this. Yes it also would be interesting to see about sediment as this could provide some insight. If it was a late release it would still have to have been bottled 2 years form harvest being it was a VP...correct? So this would lend itself to the re-cork theory as possibly a late release leaker.
I know re-corking at the winery can happen in the dry wine market, but I've never heard of it happening in Port (not that it couldn't though). Usually bottles are recorked because of a problem with corks drying out prematurly (Ridge Monte Bello had this happen not to long ago).
Without seeing the cork or bottle, we are only speculating here. Although maybe someone who has contacts in the Port Trade can help find out the answer.
I'm wondering if the answer is an original, but very tight and sound cork that proved impervious to the wine.
It's possible that this was a late ex-cellars release that showed a suspect cork, but this is so rare for a bottle of this age that I doubt the cellarmen in VNG would have messed around trying to sort out a new branded cork - more likely they would have taken the bottle home for dinner!
The possibility that the bottle spent it's life stood upright is credible, and at this age, might not be detrimental.
Alas the details are lost in the mists of time and drink, but I have seen the same bizarrely-dry cork thing before, in bottles in fine condition. Could that happen if the bottle were standing in a very damp cellar?
The last VP I had, the 1980 Warre's, had a cork that looked nothing like its 27 year age. Although a bit more saturated at the end than the one described here, it was not that far off. It was the best cork I have seen in an old VP. I am pretty sure that bottle was recent ex-cellars. It had new label, selo, outer capsule (the inner one was not as new), and a computer stamped number on the capsule from the bottling line (something I know was not around in 1982 when it was bottled).
I would guess the bottle was just very well stored.
jdaw1 wrote:Alas the details are lost in the mists of time and drink, but I have seen the same bizarrely-dry cork thing before, in bottles in fine condition. Could that happen if the bottle were standing in a very damp cellar?
Alan,
Yes, in the Ridge example, the bottles were stored in perfect conditions at the winery. It was a bad batch of corks and they started to dry out and get crumbly, so Ridge meticulusy hand-pulled and recorked all the remaining bottles in their stock.
Tom. the gentleman that purchased the 85 emailed Roy a photo. Roy's thoughts were that the lack of saturation into the cork most likely was a case of being stored upright but that it seemed to be ligitimate.
What we seem to have is a bottle stored in a very clean cellar in upright position.
Tom lurks here...maybe he will post the photo.
, the bottom was hardly stained at all, but it did have 1985 Grahams printed on it. There is no way this had been in the bottle for very long at all. The general consensus in the group was that the port was fine and did in fact taste like the 85 should. strange indeed. 
