For The Love Of Port

Hello portlovers,

A quick question about crusted port. Fonseca is bringing a new crusted port, bottled in 2015. I has no other dates on the label. On the website it says, aged for 4 years in wooden barrels and 3 year in the bottle. Can i say that the port is from the 2011 harvest? Because they also mention the term 'blend'.

Most likely not a vintage wine, but a blend of different vintages.

You can say that, but you would not be correct. A crusted should be a blend from several years, according to the IVDP regulations. I'm not sure exactly what they mean by "aged for 4 years in wooden barrels." Maybe that's an average? Or maybe it was all aged in barrels at least four years, with some aged longer, or some aged in something other than wood for some other amount of time. The three years in bottle is also required by the regulations (although you might be able to get away with 2 years 11 months?).

I'd just enjoy it for what it is not worry. The bottling date is the only sure thing. I like crusted port more than LBV FWIW which would be a good thread on its own...

Crusted is a blend of vintages, and my understanding was that it was always 3 consecutive vintages. Roy has since told me that it doesn't have to be 3, but often (perhaps even usually) is.

The year on the label is the bottling year. Since the contents are all VPs, that means that a 2015 can have as its youngest component a 2013. If this one contains 3 different vintages, then it's likely that they are 2011, 2012, and 2013.

But that's all just conjecture based on what I know about Crusted in general.

I'm aware of at least three "crusted" ports which were in fact single vintage wines (where the producer did not register a VP, and subsequently issued the wine as a crusted without blending with other years as there was no need). I don't know what the regulations require, but would imagine they allow for use of wines from any year subject to the barrel maturity requirements.

I am also aware of single vintages declared as crusted. The most famous was the un/now released Cockburn’s 1977 (that is now a VP). What the regs say and what is allowed are two totally different things.

Bottling date is always accurate. Pop it and please let us know how it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for al the replies. I will order some and let u know how it was.

Phil W wrote:I don't know what the regulations require ...

I linked to them--article 27 covers crusted Ports. The relevant text in Portuguese is "vinhos de diversos anos," meaning several years. But I'm not going to disagree with Andy's statement either.

I believe for the single vintage "crusted," the producer asked the IVDP for a special dispensation which was granted.

Crusted has to be a blend of minimum 2 years. But it is very difficult for the IVDP to valide this, this is why still some producer will put only one year in their crusted.

Andy Velebil wrote:I am also aware of single vintages declared as crusted. The most famous was the un/now released Cockburn’s 1977 (that is now a VP). What the regs say and what is allowed are two totally different things.

From what I recall reading in a wine magazine many, many years ago, Cockburn decided not to declare in 1977 because of their commercial interest in ensuring a suffient supply for the demand of their other ruby ports. In effect the "vintage port" juice was used in their other products. They one of a few port houses that did not decalre that year. It doesn't make sense that they would not declare the port and then bottle the very same vintage port as less expensive crusted port.

Mahmoud.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:I am also aware of single vintages declared as crusted. The most famous was the un/now released Cockburn’s 1977 (that is now a VP). What the regs say and what is allowed are two totally different things.

From what I recall reading in a wine magazine many, many years ago, Cockburn decided not to declare in 1977 because of their commercial interest in ensuring a suffient supply for the demand of their other ruby ports. In effect the "vintage port" juice was used in their other products. They one of a few port houses that did not decalre that year. It doesn't make sense that they would not declare the port and then bottle the very same vintage port as less expensive crusted port.

Mahmoud.

It actually makes perfect sense when you understand how something is registered with the (then IVP, now) IVDP and how it appears on a government and company register (inventory ledger). Yes, the large corporation who then owned Cockburn's wanted to increase the quality of Special Reserve and was making a huge push to market it. As we know that turned out to be the right decision as it was (still is??) the most popular Special Reserve Port sold. The wine making team was told not to make a VP. They knew the vintage was great so they did it anyways and didn't tell the corporate higher ups who told them not to make it. However, a big problem now arises. How does one go about hiding something that has to be registered with a government entity and will appear on ledgers every year from said entity and on your own in-house ledgers? You simply register it as something else....Crusted Port. A Crusted Port shows up on the IVDP's ledgers as a simple ruby Port and not as a VP. You've now hidden what you've been told not to make in plain sight. Pure genius on their part.

Hi Andy,

I decided to do a bit of sleuthing and found the following:

With regard to the crusted port argument Richard Mayson said this:

"A generally declared year, but not declared by Cockburn who were busy building up Cockburn’s Special Reserve at the time. Consequently this wine was bottled as ‘crusted’: mid-garnet with a pink - browning rim; open, fragrant, with a wild edge, a touch herbal with eucalyptus on the nose; delicate in style, cherry stone fruit with firm pepper

Mayson's comment about Cockburn being too busy "building up" their Special Reserve suggests they were too preoccupied to bottle a vintage port and that the unattended vintage port was made into crusted port. That didn't sound right because what I read in the magazine article said that demand for the Special Reserve resulted in a commercial decision to use the precious vintage port material for the Special Reserve. So there really shouldn't have been any vintage port to bottle as crusted. Going further I found the following on the Snooth website:

“Cockburn was an exception to the unanimous declaration of the 1977 Port vintage. While they did not declare 1977, they did quietly bottle 116 cases of it. It did not see the light of day until the Port house was purchased by the Symington family in 2006. The Symington's declared the Cockburn 1977 and it was approved by the Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e Porto, which makes this a very rare Late Declared Vintage”

This to me sounded more plausible. This seemed to confirm that but a small amount most of the vintage port was used elsewhere. Meanwhile the Wine Enthusiast wrote:

“The 1977 vintage was not officially declared by Cockburn's—this sample was from a small stock of 1,000 bottles that was not released commercially. According to Côrte-Real, the staff at Cockburn's felt that '77 was “not as great as people thought.” The company also had ample supplies of the 1975 in the market, which also may have influenced the decision not to declare. Based on the showing of this bottle, it was a big mistake.”

Although the amount of surviving vintage port was different the narrative is similar. However the full explanation came from the Vintage Port Wine Shop :

“Following the acquisition of Cockburn’s in 2006, the Symington family were surprised to find 116 cases of 1977 Vintage Port in a corner of the company’s cellars. Cockburn’s famously did not ‘declare’ a 1977 Vintage, although virtually every other Port house did so.

Cockburn’s had been under multinational ownership since 1962 and the head office strangely turned down the request of the company’s winemakers in Portugal to ‘declare’ the 1977 Vintage, apparently a vintage offer did not fit into the multinational’s global corporate plan, despite excellent weather conditions and the obvious quality of the wine. Fighting to keep the independent spirit of Cockburn’s alive, the winemakers in Portugal quietly ignored the head-office’s command and discretely bottled two barrels of this exceptional Vintage Port. The bottles were then hidden in a quiet corner of the vast Cockburn’s cellars in Vila Nova de Gaia, where they have remained undisturbed for 36 years.

When the Symingtons were preparing for the Cockburn’s bicentenary in 2015 it became clear that there could be no better way of celebrating this historic anniversary than by releasing this rare Vintage Port. Finally the covert plans of the Cockburn’s winemakers can see the light of day; each bottle of Cockburn’s 1977 Vintage Port reflects the independent and sometimes idiosyncratic spirit of this great Port house that never died under the long years of multinational ownership.”

This full blooded and detailed explanation turned out to be a direct quote straight from a press release by Symingtom Family Estates. Someone at the Port Forum posted the the 9th of November 2015 press release:

1977 Vintage Port Bicentenary Limited Edition

"Following the acquisition of Cockburn’s in 2006, the Symington family were surprised to find 116 cases of 1977 Vintage Port in a corner of the company’s cellars. Cockburn’s famously did not ‘declare’ a 1977 Vintage, although virtually every other Port house did so.

Cockburn’s had been under multinational ownership since 1962 and the head office strangely turned down the request of the company’s winemakers in Portugal to ‘declare’ the 1977 Vintage, apparently a vintage offer did not fit into the multinational’s global corporate plan, despite excellent weather conditions and the obvious quality of the wine. Fighting to keep the independent spirit of Cockburn’s alive, the winemakers in Portugal quietly ignored the head-office’s command and discretely bottled two barrels of this exceptional Vintage Port. The bottles were then hidden in a quiet corner of the vast Cockburn’s cellars in Vila Nova de Gaia, where they have remained undisturbed for 36 years.

When the Symingtons were preparing for the Cockburn’s bicentenary in 2015 it became clear that there could be no better way of celebrating this historic anniversary than by releasing this rare Vintage Port. Finally the covert plans of the Cockburn’s winemakers can see the light of day; each bottle of Cockburn’s 1977 Vintage Port reflects the independent and sometimes idiosyncratic spirit of this great Port house that never died under the long years of multinational ownership

The remaining 1,400 bottles of Cockburn’s 1977 Vintage Port will be available through fine wine merchants.
Vila Nova de Gaia, XX 2015"

http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10383

Despite Mayson referring to the 1977 as a crusted port, it seems that the real story is the subversive but prescient winemakers who decided to save two barrels of '77 vintage port from being used in the Special Reserve. Like Max Shubert of Penfold's who disobeyed his directors and continued to make Grange on the sly, the winemakers at Cockburn also decided to disobey their orders.

Cheers ......... Mahmoud.

1975 Cockburns VP was a pleasant surprise when I first tasted it, such that I recently purchased two more bottles.
Now I really want to taste the 1977.

People have known about the Cockburns 1977 for awhile. Technically it was a crusted Port. Only after the Symingtons petitioned the IVDP to change the designation to Vintage was it made official.
The winemakers at Cockburns knew the wine was good enough to be a Vintage. It was not forgotten or ignored. It was the corporate heads who consciously redirected the wine into the Ruby reserve. In retrospect, it was a good business decision as Cockburns became, and I believe still is, the leading selling Ruby reserve.

And to clarify as there are some incorrect things mentioned in those "reports". The Symington's were not "suprised" to find it. The entire trade has known about the '77 since it was made. It has been an open-secret for decades. Even the company exec's eventually found out. That is why the Sym's were able to have it re-registered from the IVDP and released as a VP.

I will post picks that I took in the company cellars of the label and of the bin where they were stored prior to the Symington's buying them, when I find them.

And there are people on this forum who have tasted the "Crusted" 1977 Cockburns before the reregistration with the IVDP.

Eric Ifune wrote:And there are people on this forum who have tasted the "Crusted" 1977 Cockburns before the reregistration with the IVDP.

Some more than once :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt that everybody in the trade initially knew about it since it was done surreptitiously. Of course over time word would have spread and, as Andy mentioned, eventually even the company executives who, lets not forget, were also in the trade. Similarly, it is also intuitive that the two barrels of the vintage port that were bottled would be marked and perhaps labelled otherwise they might have been forgotten or moved and likely never have been declared.

The story is that Cockburn did not declare the 1977 vintage because they made a decision to augment production of their Special Reserve. It is also about the winemakers disobeying orderers and bottling only two barrels of vintage port. Though the emphasis in on the Special Reserve, it is not inconceivable that they also used the vintage port material in their crusted port. Since crusted port only has a bottling year and not a vintage year one can only estimate and assume the vintage years that went into a crusted port. It is therefore quite feasible that many have tasted old bottles of Cockburn crusted port that may have based on the 1977 vintage. However the story is that the winemakers of Cockburn disobeyed instructions and bottled only two barrels of the 1977 vintage port and it is these bottles that were released by Symingtons.

Mahmoud.