For The Love Of Port

Last night 16 of us gathered to taste 11 2011 LBVs plus one ringer, a 2012 Quinta das Carvalhas. The Sammamish Port Club did something similar a few months back (their recap is Nov 2017 Newsletter), including the same ringer.

It was a fantastic night, we had 3 flights, each at a different table. We broke up into 3 groups and rotated around. Worked out well as each group was small enough to really facilitate conversation about the wine. All the Ports showed well, no flawed bottles. We also had a fair number of guests (non-members) which added something new. Everything was tasted blind and decanted 12 hours before the event.

Quinta do Crasto was the WOTN. 9 had it in their Top-Two and on a 3-2-1 basis did not garner a single Least Favorite point. Second place went to Fonseca (unfiltered).

The Least Regarded of the night was the Quinta Das Carvalhas. Surprising as the Sammamish crew had this in their Top-Two. 2nd Least Regarded went to Ramos Pinto on a 3-2-1 basis; by average Taylor Fladgate.

Couple of thoughts and observations:

1. I was surprised at how poorly the Niepoort showed. Had a 2012 LBV a month ago and also not the best. I have more and have to retry----or maybe just let them sit awhile.
2. Find it curious how the producers vary so much in cork/capsule layout. A couple had double seals, about 1/2 T Corks most of which are plain, but a couple have their logo. As to the Corks, all say LBV, but not always the year OR the producer. And those selos---some are super stuck on the rim of the bottle and I have to soak them to remove the paper.
3. I purchased the 12 at 10 different stores--all B&Ms.

Thanks for the easy overview of the results.
Crasto is a very good LBV-producer, and has showed that many times for differant vintages.

John M. wrote: 2. Find it curious how the producers vary so much in cork/capsule layout. A couple had double seals, about 1/2 T Corks most of which are plain, but a couple have their logo. ...

As a bit of a generalization, I'd say those with corks are more geared to aging, vs. T-corks for those intended to be consumed sooner after purchase.

Thanks for the write up!

Niepoort is definitively becoming an ''alien'' in its style of Port. For me it is a style I do really like but I can clearly see that brighter fruit, higher acidity, fresher style can definitively clash in comparaison with other riper rounder wines that easily impress. I did prefer their 2012 to their 2011. I just had a 2012 yesterday and loved it again.

Frederick Blais wrote:Niepoort is definitively becoming an ''alien'' in its style of Port. For me it is a style I do really like but I can clearly see that brighter fruit, higher acidity, fresher style can definitively clash in comparaison with other riper rounder wines that easily impress. I did prefer their 2012 to their 2011. I just had a 2012 yesterday and loved it again.

Niepoort not easy to find but I do have a 2009, 2011 and 2012 LBVs.....thought that would make a good casual tasting sometime.

That is really weird how your group didn't like the Carvalhas at all, and ours had it in the top 2. Makes me wonder if yours was an off bottle in some way? Did it get any comments that might tip off some sort of flaw?

John
Fantastic tasting! The scoring breakdown you posted is really fun and geeky to read over. The overall average scores aren't too far off from one another in reality. Basically between 89-92 points. Pretty typical spread with that many bottles of two typically different styles (driven cork vs. t-corks). What is more interesting though is the highs and lows. This is where styles of LBV's can play a role and the experience of the taster.

Some of the mid-tier average bottles got some pretty high marks from at least one. A good example being the Sandeman, which has really upped their game in recent releases. With a 94 high and 85 low score, that's a huge spread. That tells me there were issues with tasters experience or style preference more than the bottle itself being on the lower scoring side.

Regardless, the fun part of these tasting is to see what each person discovers they like in terms of styles and producers in that year. Thanks for taking the time to post it all for us. Now I need to find the Churchill as I've not had that one yet and it did quite well in your tasting.

Glenn E. wrote:That is really weird how your group didn't like the Carvalhas at all, and ours had it in the top 2. Makes me wonder if yours was an off bottle in some way? Did it get any comments that might tip off some sort of flaw?

Bottle seemed fine. I've had several of this brand and have never been impressed...i actually was taken aback by your scores. It was the last 2012 on the shelf way in the back fronted by 2013s... so possible was on the store too long.... can't get another so it'll be a mystery.

Andy Velebil wrote:John
Fantastic tasting! The scoring breakdown you posted is really fun and geeky to read over. The overall average scores aren't too far off from one another in reality. Basically between 89-92 points. Pretty typical spread with that many bottles of two typically different styles (driven cork vs. t-corks). What is more interesting though is the highs and lows. This is where styles of LBV's can play a role and the experience of the taster.

Some of the mid-tier average bottles got some pretty high marks from at least one. A good example being the Sandeman, which has really upped their game in recent releases. With a 94 high and 85 low score, that's a huge spread. That tells me there were issues with tasters experience or style preference more than the bottle itself being on the lower scoring side.

Regardless, the fun part of these tasting is to see what each person discovers they like in terms oyf styles and producers in that year. Thanks for taking the time to post it all for us. Now I need to find the Churchill as I've not had that one yet and it did quite well in your tasting.

The guests, or inexperienced tasters, have their initials in red if that helps. I am JJM...last one on right. I rated the Sandeman highly.... thought it was well done. Churchill was a nice surprise.

Taster experience or lack of confidence in scoring wines, can play a major role. But I think for the most part your group did a fine job!

Roy Hersh wrote:Taster experience or lack of confidence in scoring wines, can play a major role. But I think for the most part your group did a fine job!

Thanks Roy! To me its all good....I know there are some weak links and newbies can be all over the board but scores are personal and the groups were purposefully broken down with a couple newbies and a strong taster or two each to facilitate some direction. What I do find fascinating in that arrayed by average score, we rather line up with Roy's 2011 LBV assessments. Random quirk or omniscience? I'll let you decide. Also 12 Ports is hard to do if you're not used to it as well.

This is a quote from an email sent to the newbies mainly to educate but also to allay uncertainty so they score boldly: Scoring. The scale is kind of like grade school...that is 80 to 100 points is the usual range. An 88-90 is average; 91-93 is good, 94-97 is excellent and above 97 is outstanding—you can do the math the other way. For what we have to taste most scores should settle into the 86 to 93 range---but no worries, they are all relative to you so score as you see fit. There are no wrong answers.