Bottle aging on Colheita's and Tawny's - good or bad?

[Mike K.]

If bottles of Colheita and Tawny were to linger unopened for an extended period of time (10-20 years or longer), how do they change over time?

I believe most folks here recommend drinking a wood aged port within a few years of bottling for maximum 'freshness'. But I recall a minority either don't mind older bottles or think they can even improve.

My question of chemistry and philosophy is triggered by a recent wine store visit. The shop had a number of port bottles in a glass case. I perused the colheita's and tawny's and was shocked to see bottling dates ranging from 2001 through 2010.

My initial reaction was to leave empty handed, but I grabbed a reasonably priced example for 'scientific study' and hoped I could start an interesting discussion.

Cheers, Mike

[Eric Ifune]

We've discussed the topic in the past. The general consensus is that wood aged Ports definitely change in bottle. The question is whether they improve or decline. It's most likely producer dependent. Niepoort has famously said that theirs do improve and I think most here would agree with them. Others do decline. One theory is those wines filtered before bottling tend to decline while those that don't seem to improve.

[Svein CE]

This is interesting. I have heard that only Niepoort and Kopke will improve in bottle, but have not any own experience with either. In my cellar, however, I do have some colheitas that have spent some time in glass.

[Andy Velebil]

Almost all Port producer's TWIAOA (Tawny With An Indication Of Age) where they do more heavy fining and/or filtering, or even cold stabilizing, will have a major affect on how they age or change in bottle compared to the rare producer who generally only decants off the sediment (such as Niepoort). Those who fine/filter/cold stabilize their Ports will not get better with age in bottle. They won't get worse, per se, but they won't be as good in the first couple years after bottling. They tend to go "flat" to use the descriptor. Or more aptly, they get rather cloying (sweet) as the sugar takes the forefront.

I've found over the years that single vintage tawny's (Colheita's) tend to hold up better in bottle than TWIAOA (10, 20, 30, 40, and tawny reserves) if they have been fined and or filtered.

So with a few exceptions aging most of them is not a good idea for best results. For me personally for most producers, I tend to put a 3-4 year limit on TWIAOA and 4-7 years for Colheita's.

[Mahmoud Ali]

One theory is those wines filtered before bottling tend to decline while those that don't seem to improve.

This sounds very plausible. Recently I had a Quinta do Ventozelo 10 Year-old Tawny that was bottled in 2008 and I feel certain that it had improved in bottle but that is only a guess since I've neither had this one before nor a Ventozelo tawny. What stood out for me was the dry, savoury aspect of the port, something that I sense increased with time in bottle.

Mahmoud.

[Glenn E.]

Port changes with time in bottle. That's a fact of aging.

Whether or not a TWAIOA improves in bottle is a matter of taste and likely varies from Producer to Producer. Note that it is not necessarily limited to something as simple as fining/filtering vs decanting, though that does seem to correlate for most people. Think of it more as a strong indicator than proof positive. Kopke, for me, is a counter-example. They fine/filter their tawnies, but I find that they do improve with age at least over the short term (~10-12 years).

The sweeter the Port to begin with, the more likely that it will "go flat" with time in bottle. I find that Graham's TWAIOA do not age well in bottle at all, and to me they're among the sweetest presenting tawnies around. Drier, and especially more acidic styles such as the aforementioned Kopke or even Sandeman, handle the age better and can even improve with time regardless of whether or not they've been fined/filtered.

I find that Colheitas tend to be more acidic to begin with, so can handle age in bottle more easily. They're also often more focused and tight than a blended TWAIOA, and time in bottle can help that mellow out a bit.

Andy's rule of thumb is too restrictive for me. I'd say more like 4-5 years in general for a TWAIOA and 8-10 years for a Colheita, but those numbers can double for some Producers. (Or in the case of Niepoort, throw the rules out the window because they just don't apply.)

[Moses Botbol]

Colheita will lose its freshness with time in the bottle. Whether the rest of the port has become simple or not depends on factors mentioned in this thread. I had bottles of 10 and 20 year Ramos that were like 15 years in the bottle and both were quite simple tasting. Same with a bottle of Taylor 20 that I had that was similarly old. Niepoort, Kopke, and Barros colheitas on the other hand really good with age. I don't see much benefit on bottle aging expect of price perhaps. A 1970 colheita bottled 20 years ago may cost less than a 1970 colheita bottled last week. I would much prefer the one bottled last week!

[Andy Velebil]

Colheita will lose its freshness with time in the bottle. Whether the rest of the port has become simple or not depends on factors mentioned in this thread. I had bottles of 10 and 20 year Ramos that were like 15 years in the bottle and both were quite simple tasting. Same with a bottle of Taylor 20 that I had that was similarly old. Niepoort, Kopke, and Barros colheitas on the other hand really good with age. I don't see much benefit on bottle aging expect of price perhaps. A 1970 colheita bottled 20 years ago may cost less than a 1970 colheita bottled last week. I would much prefer the one bottled last week!

+1

It is widely known that the vast majority of tanwy's won't benefit from aging in bottle. What "changes" are simply the tasters preference. That is far different!

However, the most important thing to remember is the winemaker doesn't want them to age in bottle as they won't be the same, or in the winemakers opinion "better", than when it was bottled. So while a person may prefer that taste of an older bottle aged tawny, the vast majority of the time that is not how the winemaker wanted people to enjoy it. It's important for people not to confuse what THEY like and what the WINEMAKER intended.

As a side, acidity in wine doesn't change in bottle over time. The perception of it does.

[Eric Menchen]

As a side, acidity in wine doesn't change in bottle over time. The perception of it does.

Unless there is bacteria involved, and some wild yeasts.

[Glenn E.]

It is widely known that the vast majority of tanwy's won't benefit from aging in bottle. What "changes" are simply the tasters preference. That is far different!

"Common knowledge" can also be wrong. And while a taster's preference certainly can change over time, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the wine changing to suit the taster's preference, which for that taster means that the wine has in fact benefited from aging in the bottle.

However, the most important thing to remember is the winemaker doesn't want them to age in bottle as they won't be the same, or in the winemakers opinion "better", than when it was bottled. So while a person may prefer that taste of an older bottle aged tawny, the vast majority of the time that is not how the winemaker wanted people to enjoy it. It's important for people not to confuse what THEY like and what the WINEMAKER intended.

Reminds me of the old adage about a person new to wine who asked an experience sommelier, "what makes a wine good?"

The somm thought for a moment and replied, "Do you like it?"

What the winemaker intended is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not you like the Port.

As a side, acidity in wine doesn't change in bottle over time. The perception of it does.

Yes, I know. I could have been more specific. Kopke's tawnies often present as more acidic when freshly bottled, and that perception often changes to a more mellow profile over time.

[Andy Velebil]

As a side, acidity in wine doesn't change in bottle over time. The perception of it does.

Unless there is bacteria involved, and some wild yeasts.

Then you have a whole other set of problems

[Mahmoud Ali]

However, the most important thing to remember is the winemaker doesn't want them to age in bottle as they won't be the same, or in the winemakers opinion "better", than when it was bottled. So while a person may prefer that taste of an older bottle aged tawny, the vast majority of the time that is not how the winemaker wanted people to enjoy it. It's important for people not to confuse what THEY like and what the WINEMAKER intended.

Without any disrespect Andy, I am going to take a different tack. I understand your point but am not convinced that the winemaker necessarily agrees that the colheita won't get better since he/she will maintain stocks of the same port to bottle at a later date. Clearly the colheita port will continue to age, differently in cask at the port house compared to the bottle the buyer may choose to cellar. The aging will be different of course but that is to be expected. Who is to say that the port house cellared colheita, bottled many years later, is better than the buyer cellared colheita opened many years later. Both have aged, as desired, but in a different fashion. The fact that the port house will bottle a colheita one year and bottle the same port further along the line implies that the port will continue to age in a positive fashion, if not necessarily the same way.

Mahmoud.

[Mahmoud Ali]

A double post error. Sorry.

[Andy Velebil]

However, the most important thing to remember is the winemaker doesn't want them to age in bottle as they won't be the same, or in the winemakers opinion "better", than when it was bottled. So while a person may prefer that taste of an older bottle aged tawny, the vast majority of the time that is not how the winemaker wanted people to enjoy it. It's important for people not to confuse what THEY like and what the WINEMAKER intended.

Without any disrespect Andy, I am going to take a different tack. I understand your point but am not convinced that the winemaker necessarily agrees that the colheita won't get better since he/she will maintain stocks of the same port to bottle at a later date. Clearly the colheita port will continue to age, differently in cask at the port house compared to the bottle the buyer may choose to cellar. The aging will be different of course but that is to be expected. Who is to say that the port house cellared colheita, bottled many years later, is better than the buyer cellared colheita opened many years later. Both have aged, as desired, but in a different fashion. The fact that the port house will bottle a colheita one year and bottle the same port further along the line implies that the port will continue to age in a positive fashion, if not necessarily the same way.

Mahmoud.

None taken...I love a good discussion! It's true they may continue to hold back in cask and years later release another round from the same vintage. The point I am trying to make is when the winemaker decides to bottle a tawny, the majority are bottled in a way where they are meant to be consumed within a few years of bottling to keep that same profile when it was bottled.

Releasing it again later is the same. At that time it is bottled is how the winemaker wants it to be enjoyed. Sure it will be different than a bottling of the same Port bottled 15 years prior. But at the time of bottling that is how it was intended to taste.

What a consumer prefers to do with it after bottling is different. Very different than say a Vintage Port that is produced with the intent to be aged in bottle.

I do agree that if someone prefers to age their tawny's because that is how they like them, go for it. It is what you like and that's the important thing. But I feel it's important to differentiate between what was intended by the producer and what is ultimately done by a minority of us crazy Port lovers.