For The Love Of Port

In about 18 hours I will be presenting four bottles of Port to 18 mostly first-time Port drinkers. This is an educational seminar to show just 4 categories of Port wine.

Here is what will be served:

a. 1996 Quinta do Crasto LBV
b. S. Leonardo 30 Year Old Tawny Port
c. 1985 Dow's Vintage Port
d. 2000 Quinta do Noval Colheita


In which order would YOU serve them and why?

I don't think there is a right or wrong order to this as it depends on what contrasts and similarities you want to showcase.

I think I'd be inclined to show them in 2 lots of 2 - The LVB with the 2000 Colhieta, then the 85 Dow with the 30 year old tawny.
The main reason I'd do it this way, is to show the contrast between the ruby and the wood aged ports of a fairly similar age. Doing it this way, you'd also finish with what I would consider to be the two better ports as well.

I suspect others will have a different answer though.

I would be more inclined to keep the Rubies together and the Tawnies together. I personally find it difficult to drink the two side by side--profiles are so different. Plus, I think you can really understand the subtle differences of aging within the class side by side. Since this is one event, you'll also be able to discern the differences in the tawny class vs. the ruby class.

For what its worth I'd do the Ruby set first, too.

Short story: d, a, c, b.

Longer story:

Of the four listed, the Noval Colheita is (to me) the "not best" of the flight. Pretty good flight, eh? Plus I have found that most newbies to Port prefer tawnies over rubies. Sometimes that preference doesn't last very long, but for a first impression I'd go with the bottle that more people are likely to like.

I follow that with the LBV and VP to show those same people (who at first preferred tawnies) that there's greatness available on the ruby side. The 1996 Crasto is superb bait to entice them over to the dark... er, ruby side, then the 1985 Dow should seal the deal for those who can be enticed. I also think that it's important to serve the LBV and VP next to one another because - for a newbie - the differences can be subtle so the immediate contrast is needed to make those differences stand out.

The S. Leonardo 30-yr old is the best Port of the group, so save it for last. It'll knock their socks off regardless of previous preference. It's also a vastly different Port than the 2000 Noval Colheita, so even with two rubies between them the quality difference should be obvious.

Just my

All different points of view on just serving four bottles. All make very salient points.

I am not so sure I agree with Glenn that the 30 year old S. Leonardo is the top wine of this flight or pair of flights. The 1985 Dow is a rather formidable VP in its own right. YMMV. Not that I disagree with Glenn, but it too makes for an interesting juxtaposition and discussion point.

So which order are you going to serve them in Roy?

I would agree with my friend John M, especially given the audience. They are probably more familiar with rubies and that is probably why I'd start with them. The LBV first in the ruby set, and for the tawnies I'd serve the colheita tawny first then the 30.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roy Hersh wrote:I am not so sure I agree with Glenn that the 30 year old S. Leonardo is the top wine of this flight or pair of flights. The 1985 Dow is a rather formidable VP in its own right. YMMV.

Indeed. But you don't call me Mr. Tawny for nothing.

Just to you do agree with me but it's pretty close. According to the TNDB you rate the Dow a 93 and the S. Leonardo a 94.1. The Members' disparity is wider, though: 90.9 for the Dow to 94.9 for the S. Leonardo.

I could go Crasto, Dow, Noval, S. Leonardo too. Do let us know which way you serve them!

Roy Hersh wrote:In about 18 hours I will be presenting four bottles of Port to 18 mostly first-time Port drinkers. This is an educational seminar to show just 4 categories of Port wine.

Here is what will be served:

a. 1996 Quinta do Crasto LBV
b. S. Leonardo 30 Year Old Tawny Port
c. 1985 Dow's Vintage Port
d. 2000 Quinta do Noval Colheita


In which order would YOU serve them and why?

I would have gone (a), (c), (d), (b) on the grounds of working from basic to best in each category in turn (always better to keep improving), and would do ruby before tawny both for personal preference and because I have found when doing similar events that a larger number of first-timers seem to prefer tawny (therefore see above regarding best-'til-last).

I realise that you will have already held your event several days ago, so wondered what order you chose (and why), how it went, and whether you would change the order were you to do it again?

I'm inclined to go along with those who preferred to go ruby first, followed by tawny, and within each category to move up the intensity scale. Also, the tawnies are sweeter so I'd prefer them second. So that means, in order: Crasto LBV, Dow's VP, Noval's Colheita, and S. Leonardo's 30 year-old.

I probably would have gone;

1996 Crasto
1985 Dow's
2000 Noval
30 Year tawny

In that order, with the ruby's paired side by side and then the tawnys paired side by side.

Here is the order in which they were poured:

1st: The Colheita
2nd: The Tawny
3rd: The LBV
4th: The Vintage Port

Roy Hersh wrote:Here is the order in which they were poured:

1st: The Colheita
2nd: The Tawny
3rd: The LBV
4th: The Vintage Port

I've recently come to the conclusion that sometimes it's best to put the tawny's at the end. The delicateness of older VP's often get lost after having a really intense older tawny.

Well...how did the event go? Were you pleased with the order of things?? I, too, would have gone ruby then tawny....so tell us your empirical knowledge here. Thanks

Andy Velebil wrote:

Roy Hersh wrote:Here is the order in which they were poured:

1st: The Colheita
2nd: The Tawny
3rd: The LBV
4th: The Vintage Port

I've recently come to the conclusion that sometimes it's best to put the tawny's at the end. The delicateness of older VP's often get lost after having a really intense older tawny.

Yeah, that makes sense too. I just call it "saving the best for last."