For The Love Of Port

As in the topic title, when were the Tawnies with indication of age first produced?

Before that, were most of Tawnies still done by blending different harvests?

Wow, I've never thought of that question. I have no idea. Does anyone know when the IVDP introduced the regulations for tawnies with indication of age?

Great question. No clue. Thinking about it I've never run across one bottle prior to WW2 that I can recall. Doesn't mean they weren't made before, just can't recall off the top of my head seeing any made prior to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andy Velebil wrote:Great question. No clue. Thinking about it I've never run across one bottle prior to WW2 that I can recall. Doesn't mean they weren't made before, just can't recall off the top of my head seeing any made prior to that.

+1, though the oldest I've seen was from the '70s, I think.

It would've been IVP back in the day.

Roy Hersh wrote:It would've been IVP back in the day.

Yes but do you know when they first came about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I do not.

According to the Taylor's website the IVDP created the categories in 1973.

In 1973 the Port Wine Institute created new regulations allowing the age of the wine to be stated on the label of old wood-aged Tawny Ports. Again, Taylor’s was the first major firm to take advantage of this with the release of a full range of 10, 20, 30 and 40 year old tawnies.

https://www.taylor.pt/en/what-is-port-w ... innovation

Thomas V wrote:According to the Taylor's website the IVDP created the categories in 1973.

In 1973 the Port Wine Institute created new regulations allowing the age of the wine to be stated on the label of old wood-aged Tawny Ports. Again, Taylor’s was the first major firm to take advantage of this with the release of a full range of 10, 20, 30 and 40 year old tawnies.

https://www.taylor.pt/en/what-is-port-w ... innovation

Thanks!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they also say they were the first to create an LBV and we know that is not the case.

Twice in a decade, they've changed the date of establishment for one of their Port firms. First Croft (in 2007)and within the past couple of years Fonseca from 1822-1815. Now I am not debating or questioning their hired historians, but others have. Regardless, there are people that can be contacted at the IVDP that can investigate, to determine when TWAIOA came into being.

Roy , in your article "the tenets of tawny" you talked with Peter Symmington.
His grand-father was blending tawnys in the 19th century
I guess this doesn't really solve the original question

The earliest date I've got for an indication of age tawny is a 40yr Ferreira with a bottling date on the label of 1962

Tom Archer wrote:The earliest date I've got for an indication of age tawny is a 40yr Ferreira with a bottling date on the label of 1962

So Taylor's owned Ferreira back then

Seems like a proper topic for "a question to the Port trade" would be curious to see everyone's point on view on the creation of the category, how , why and when they did it.

would be curious to see everyone's point on view on the creation of the category, how , why and when they did it.

The Why part is of greatest interest to me..

I detest the way the ages given on these bottles only relate to the 'style' of wine inside and not the actual - or average - age of the wine. It's a very deceitful class of product that I would dearly like to see redefined, where the style is left to the producers - but the average age has to be correct - or greater - than that stated.

Roy Hersh wrote:But they also say they were the first to create an LBV and we know that is not the case.

Twice in a decade, they've changed the date of establishment for one of their Port firms. First Croft (in 2007)and within the past couple of years Fonseca from 1822-1815. Now I am not debating or questioning their hired historians, but others have. Regardless, there are people that can be contacted at the IVDP that can investigate, to determine when TWAIOA came into being.

Taylor's state the year in which the IVP created the categories officially. Why would Taylor's change the date of that occurance in port history?

I get you are sceptical of they were the first to make these tawnies.

Thomas V wrote:

Roy Hersh wrote:But they also say they were the first to create an LBV and we know that is not the case.

Twice in a decade, they've changed the date of establishment for one of their Port firms. First Croft (in 2007)and within the past couple of years Fonseca from 1822-1815. Now I am not debating or questioning their hired historians, but others have. Regardless, there are people that can be contacted at the IVDP that can investigate, to determine when TWAIOA came into being.

Taylor's state the year in which the IVP created the categories officially. Why would Taylor's change the date of that occurance in port history?

I get you are sceptical of they were the first to make these tawnies.

As with most things IVP, things tended to be made first with little actual set-in-stone regulations. Heck, VP wasn't officially designated to be bottled between the 2 and 3rd year after harvest until the late 1940's. Prior to that it really could be just about any time frame the producer wanted. I'd have to assume these TWAIOA were the same. In that they were made for some time prior to current regulations being enacted back then.

I do agree with Tom. I hate that they've exploited the whole "average age" thing. I still hear some tour guides at Port Lodges say this and it drives me nuts. I get that it's easier to explain, but it's totally wrong. I've also had 10 year tawny's that are far more like a 20 or 30 in age and a 30 year that was more like a 10 in age. Not to mention styles that are 180 degrees different from each other. This is one place where I scratch my head at what the IVDP tasters are actually approving. I've even heard from a producer that the IVDP rejected their TWAIOA because they thought it was too old for the listed number on the bottle. Really, who cares so long as it's at least at or above the listed number on the bottle They should revamp the category to require the number on the label is a true minimum average age. For the vast majority of producers it's that case anyways, so it wouldn't be much of a change other than to a small amount of producers.

Andy Velebil wrote:I do agree with Tom. I hate that they've exploited the whole "average age" thing. I still hear some tour guides at Port Lodges say this and it drives me nuts. I get that it's easier to explain, but it's totally wrong.
...
They should revamp the category to require the number on the label is a true minimum average age. For the vast majority of producers it's that case anyways, so it wouldn't be much of a change other than to a small amount of producers.

+1 Absolutely agree, and wish producers would take note, step up, and push the IVDP to set this straight.

I think it is easier to explain the age is indication of how something that old should taste by an official panel that awards age indication. I don't care if it's the mean, minimum, or average... I just want to know that is going to taste at minimum of what the official panel has set as a bar. I don't see a need to change it.

For those who are advocating an average age of the contents of the bottle, are you taking a straight average (40 years + 20 years=30 year tawny)? Or, a weighted average (90% 40 years + 10% 20 years = 38 years)? And, in the weighted average, what goes on the label? In my example is it 38 years (actual calc), or 40 years (rounded)?

Of course, my bias would be a weighted average. I suspect either method would yield significantly different Ports than the current approach of "blending to a style like that of the age on the label." In other words, I suspect that 40 year tawnies would be (1) very different from what is on the market today, and (2) variations between houses would be more broad. Finally, I also suspect it would be very difficult under either method for a producer to consistently blend a "house style" consistently over long periods of time due to the finite nature of stocks.

Interesting thread ....