For The Love Of Port

The last time I had I think the same port, it was a 2005 bottling of 'Cockburn's 10 yr aged in wood," probably over 10 years back. This current bottle lacks the 'aged in wood' designation, but I think it may be the same thing; 2013 bottling About $30 at a wine store on Cole in Enumclaw, Wa. I'd thought the 2005 bottle was the best port I've ever tasted, even since then, and I might say the same about this bottle. The big thing is a tangy, sharp, resin like woody quality. No bright fruit flavors here, maybe a slight blackberry aftertaste. Nose--woody, maybe piney or cedary, slight citrus. Brownish color, like the Yalumba, or Buller's from Australia. I could say a maple flavor and color. Maybe not heads & tails above all others, but I'd highly recommend it. In looking up where it's for sale, they all say 'tawny,' a moniker not on this bottle, and the labels and bottles are not at all similar. Could be quite different wines?

dave berg wrote: In looking up where it's for sale, they all say 'tawny,' a moniker not on this bottle, and the labels and bottles are not at all similar. Could be quite different wines?

If they both say "10 year", I would say they are the same. There is no 10 year old ruby, vintage, etc. The only 10 year old is a tawny. (Yes, 2007 Vintage Port is now 10 years old, but it won't be labelled as such.)

dave berg wrote:In looking up where it's for sale, they all say 'tawny,' a moniker not on this bottle, and the labels and bottles are not at all similar. Could be quite different wines?

If it is a 10 year old tawny, which is what it sounds like from your description, it should say tawny Port somewhere on the label. That could be front or back label, though.

Post pictures of the labels if you want!

A few days later, I looked at the back label, and it does say both 'tawny,' and 'aged in wood.' It is the 2013 bottling. It just puzzled me some reviews I saw were less than glowing, and I could hardly be more brightly glowing about this bottle. I wouldn't think the year would make a lot of difference? But for instance, a post by I think David Spriggs I think from 2008 likened it to Warre's Otima, which I've always found to be a disappointment, and not similar at all to the Cockburn's 10 yr.

dave berg wrote:I wouldn't think the year would make a lot of difference? But for instance, a post by I think David Spriggs I think from 2008 likened it to Warre's Otima, which I've always found to be a disappointment, and not similar at all to the Cockburn's 10 yr.

The bottling year can make a difference in a non-vintage Port, but the producers try very hard to make sure that those Ports present a consistent profile year after year. So it would surprise me at least a little bit if two bottles from different bottling years were significantly different, unless the producer made a deliberate change.

I don't recall off the top of my head, so maybe someone else can chime in, but 2013 sounds like roughly when the Symingtons purchased Cockburn? I would expect them to try to keep the product steady after purchase, but maybe they tweaked it a little bit? Pure speculation on my part - I have no evidence or even rumor to that effect - just thinking out loud. (Which can be dangerous, I might sprain something.)

Glenn E. wrote:

dave berg wrote:I wouldn't think the year would make a lot of difference? But for instance, a post by I think David Spriggs I think from 2008 likened it to Warre's Otima, which I've always found to be a disappointment, and not similar at all to the Cockburn's 10 yr.

The bottling year can make a difference in a non-vintage Port, but the producers try very hard to make sure that those Ports present a consistent profile year after year. So it would surprise me at least a little bit if two bottles from different bottling years were significantly different, unless the producer made a deliberate change.

I don't recall off the top of my head, so maybe someone else can chime in, but 2013 sounds like roughly when the Symingtons purchased Cockburn? I would expect them to try to keep the product steady after purchase, but maybe they tweaked it a little bit? Pure speculation on my part - I have no evidence or even rumor to that effect - just thinking out loud. (Which can be dangerous, I might sprain something.)

Well, I doubt they tweaked it, as to me the 2005 and 2013 seem alike, but my tastings were years apart.

Glenn E. wrote:

dave berg wrote:I wouldn't think the year would make a lot of difference? But for instance, a post by I think David Spriggs I think from 2008 likened it to Warre's Otima, which I've always found to be a disappointment, and not similar at all to the Cockburn's 10 yr.

The bottling year can make a difference in a non-vintage Port, but the producers try very hard to make sure that those Ports present a consistent profile year after year. So it would surprise me at least a little bit if two bottles from different bottling years were significantly different, unless the producer made a deliberate change.

I don't recall off the top of my head, so maybe someone else can chime in, but 2013 sounds like roughly when the Symingtons purchased Cockburn? I would expect them to try to keep the product steady after purchase, but maybe they tweaked it a little bit? Pure speculation on my part - I have no evidence or even rumor to that effect - just thinking out loud. (Which can be dangerous, I might sprain something.)

The weak line up in the Symington stable was generally their age designated tawnys. This has been changing as the quality of them has been on the rise in recent years, perhaps coincidentally as their popularity has risen. They are doing a much better job now with them, at least from what I've been drinking over the past 12+ years. So it does not surprise me at all that this more current bottling is better than has been reported in the past. And as Glenn pointed out, why the bottling dates are very important for these types of Ports.