Wine Reviewers, Hogwash and The Like

[Glenn E.]

That seems backwards to me. Bottling late is a way to play to the near release market, not the long haul. That's specifically what LBV is all about, after all.

Bottling late after storage in pipes tends to reduce the freshness of a newly released VP, which can count against it when less well informed critics taste the wine. However the added concentration resulting from the small amount of evaporation during that period bolsters the wine and tends to improve its long term aging potential.

LBVs are usually aged in large tonels or stainless tanks to avoid losing freshness.

VP is stored in pipes for those 18-30 months? That's news to me.

Regardless, if what you say is true then everyone - especially the big boys with the reputations for long-term aging - would bottle late. They don't, which tells me that what you're saying isn't true.

I think it is far more likely that late bottling is done to smooth and settle what would otherwise be a rough or disjointed VP.

[Tom Archer]

Regardless, if what you say is true then everyone - especially the big boys with the reputations for long-term aging - would bottle late. They don't, which tells me that what you're saying isn't true.

Among the producers there's a fair amount of debate about this. Bottling early plays well with modern critics and those who want to drink VP at release, but it's a very recent practice and they really worry about the impact on longer term aging. Dirk bottles later than most and splits his aging between pipes and tonels. He sets out to make a VP that will both age well and please early, but it's a tough juggling act.

I've had discussions with producers in the past who have told me they would really like to make a classic vintage port, but are constrained by the influence of mostly American critics, who will only judge a VP by its ability to drink well at release, and do not appreciate the potential of the brooding surly wines that used to be the norm for newly minted VPs.

[Andy Velebil]

Regardless, if what you say is true then everyone - especially the big boys with the reputations for long-term aging - would bottle late. They don't, which tells me that what you're saying isn't true.

Among the producers there's a fair amount of debate about this. Bottling early plays well with modern critics and those who want to drink VP at release, but it's a very recent practice and they really worry about the impact on longer term aging. Dirk bottles later than most and splits his aging between pipes and tonels. He sets out to make a VP that will both age well and please early, but it's a tough juggling act.

I've had discussions with producers in the past who have told me they would really like to make a classic vintage port, but are constrained by the influence of mostly American critics, who will only judge a VP by its ability to drink well at release, and do not appreciate the potential of the brooding surly wines that used to be the norm for newly minted VPs.

Total hogwash (underlined/bolded part). It is virtually all wine journalists, including those from the UK, who want a drink-good-now Port/wine.

With a couple noticeable exceptions, there are virtually no major wine journalists who are spending 3-4 days evaluating a bottle of VP (or dry wine for that matter) to see how they really are now and how they will evolve over time. They are served a small taste-and-spit sample, write their note in that 1 maybe 2-minutes, and they move on to the next bottle. The only time they'll ever have that VP again is if someone happens to serve it to them at another event, again most likely a pop-and-pour small sample. So if it doesn't happen to show perfect in that 1-2 minute window then it won't get a great score (excluding label bias, a whole other discussion...).

[Tom Archer]

Total hogwash

I thought you'd say that Andy..

But the producers definitely worry more about the pronouncements from your side of the pond - perhaps they shout louder..

[Moses Botbol]

Total hogwash

I thought you'd say that Andy..

But the producers definitely worry more about the pronouncements from your side of the pond - perhaps they shout louder..

I'd believe that about American influence. Most of the wine reviews I read end up being American journalists. Not that I am seeking them out individually.

[Andy Velebil]

Total hogwash

I thought you'd say that Andy..

But the producers definitely worry more about the pronouncements from your side of the pond - perhaps they shout louder..

That's because the two leading wine publications in the world, by a wide margin, are still Wine Spectator and The Wine Advocate (TWA). A good score or placement in their mag brings lots of sales.

WS is mostly an American staff. TWA, IIRC, is roughly half reviewers from other countries. TWA was sold to "Asian investors" back around 2016 IIRC. In 2017-ish Michelin Guide bought an almost 50% stake in it, then late last year they bought it all. Robert Parker retired from wine reviewing last summer, FWIW.

[Glenn E.]

Regardless, if what you say is true then everyone - especially the big boys with the reputations for long-term aging - would bottle late. They don't, which tells me that what you're saying isn't true.

Among the producers there's a fair amount of debate about this. Bottling early plays well with modern critics and those who want to drink VP at release, but it's a very recent practice and they really worry about the impact on longer term aging. Dirk bottles later than most and splits his aging between pipes and tonels. He sets out to make a VP that will both age well and please early, but it's a tough juggling act.

I've had discussions with producers in the past who have told me they would really like to make a classic vintage port, but are constrained by the influence of mostly American critics, who will only judge a VP by its ability to drink well at release, and do not appreciate the potential of the brooding surly wines that used to be the norm for newly minted VPs.

Virtually all of my Vintage Port - which "only" dates back to 1945 - was bottled 2 years after harvest. So if by "recent practice" you mean one that has been the norm for going on 80 years at least, then sure. But that "very recent practice" pre-dates every winemaker in the business, and likely many if not most of their fathers. To me, "very recent practice" is at its oldest the modernization changes that have taken place since the EU was formed, and this standard for bottling has existed far longer than that.

I think it is very well established that the current bottling standards hold up just fine for the long haul.

That's an entirely different question than approachability at release, but again I think that bottling late makes for a VP that is more approachable when young. That extra year in cask of whatever size does far more to smooth the wine and make it more approachable early in its life than it does to concentrate it and make it a bruiser.

I've had 4 different bottlings of TV67, most of them more than once - Oporto '69, England '69, Oporto '70, and England '70. Where it was bottled is far more significant than when it was bottled.

So no, still not buying that Infantado hasn't shown well for me because it was bottled late to give it a longer life. I think it hasn't show well for me because that's all it is.

[Roy Hersh]

i agree with Andy's assessment of "hogwash" when it comes to Tom's assertion about American reviewers and only looking at the current drinking of a VP. The ones I read, (WS. WA. WE) vary in their views and scores. a lot, but the first two of those 3 look at the long term as well as the short term. But the WE ... yes, that reviewer is all over the map and IMO, only looks at what is in his glass and not with much in the way of details, or the future. As for those that read my own reviews, I think they would likely say that I look more at the upside po, rather than the here and now. But whatever. I just write about what I taste.

By the way, I have in my glass the first glass from a 375 ml of 2011 Quinta do Crasto LBV. Loving it so far.

[Tom Archer]

Virtually all of my Vintage Port - which "only" dates back to 1945 - was bottled 2 years after harvest.

Officially so, but not always.

It is common practice today to bottle VP in the winter or early spring of the second year. When VP was mostly bottled in the UK, it would be shipped in cask, mostly I believe in the spring/summer of the second year, and then distributed to merchants to bottle. They then bottled at their leisure, sometimes soon after delivery, sometimes later. The corks were normally supplied with the casks, dated with the assumption that bottling would take place soon after delivery.

I have little doubt that when sales were slack, some casks were not sold to merchants until the third year, but nevertheless had corks supplied with the prior year's date on them, as English bottled VP with a third year bottling date on the cork is almost non-existent.

That aside, the fact remains that even when bottled promptly after shipment, the average age of bottling would have been around six months later than is common practice today.

[Roy Hersh]

The Wine Advocate, for the record:

Robert Parker did the Vintage Port reports from the 1980's up and through the 2000 vintage, when he began to allow others to do the regional reviews as he started to taper down the quantity of regions he reviewed and kept Chateauneuf and Bordeaux and I believe Australian wines too. My quibble with him was that he only went to PT once, and it was for his honeymoon which started in Lisbon ... and never made it north. I once called him out for almost 20 years of reviewing Vintage Ports and never having visited Port/Gaia or the Douro, (the latter of which I found a serious disservice to his reader) ... the ONLY region, of many, that he reviewed all major declarations and had not been to visit even once. My argument back then, was that how can you really do regular reviews for nearly 2 decades and not take the time to visit and meet the producers, learn of the many things you'd see in lodges, and the terroir or quintas, vineyards or any of myriad details that could never be shared when doing a review (picking one out of the sky) of Vesuvio and what their lagares are like, no less samples from cask, the beauty of the vineyards, etc. EVERY other place he reviewed back in the day, he had been to, many times.


The 2003 vintage: for the first and only "general declaration" that he covered, Pierre Rovani a Burgundy lover ... did a hatchet job on all but a dozen Ports he seemed to like. I have never been a subscriber to the WA, but on the old Squire's/Parker message board (on line) remember getting into it with Pierre, (and Squires) as a friend from Canada let me read his review from the paper version of the WA back then. I thought that on the right side of his 2 pages, there was a box in which he grouped all VP's that he rated like, "84 or less" and there were some top names in there and I believe that Niepoort was one of them and Portal too, both of which I thought were very strong for 2003, but there were plenty of others as well. I am sure someone here will likely have kept old WA reviews, (David Spriggs or Eric I.? and I know my buddy Richard in Edmonton does as I read this at his home back then. Pierre obfuscated and was defensive and I stuck to the Ports and was not attacking him, but the review itself ... which others chimed in, was very narrow in its scope. To be clear, I am talking about what received a full TN/rating.


2007, "Dr. Big J." (Jay Miller) was in Robert Parker's Maryland-based private tasting group, and they were friends for many years. He had never written about Port, but from what he told me, he was a huge Port lover. This was an important vintage at the time, with quite a few things changing and he asked me if he could join me in Portugal, to taste the wines together, as he had been told that I was going to Porto/Gaia in June '09 and arranged my own tasting area and bottles. My friend Richard in Edmonton, who was a lawyer (as was Parker) told me that I'd be crazy to let him join me, as there was "only a downside" and explained his thoughts in convincing detail. Anyway, it was the last t in which Peter Symington was responsible for crafting the VP's for the family. (Charles was present of course) and then retired a bit after the Ports were bottled in 2009. tMany other significant memories of 2007 (but I digress) and Parker was put in a pickle; as his very close friend was embroiled in scandal, not having to do with the review ... which quickly ended his coverage of Washington, Spain and Vintage Port (although IIRC the details, part of it had to do with accepting paid oeno-vacations in Spain and Australia which went against the long standing rules of the WA that were very public.

Bring on the next guy ... all under the umbrella of RP. The 2011, was the first Vintage reviewed by Mark Squires, who has done every major vintage since, including: '15, '16, '17 and will continue, until he wants to retire. IMO, he does an excellent job and actually did his tasting at IVDP and in front of producers at their quintas. Nowadays, respected by the producers, shippers and subscribers of the WA, post-RP ownership; he does get some bottles sent to the USA for him to evaluate ... which he does over 3 days ... but he first has Port folks bring a bottle for him to try at the IVDP or in Porto before retrying some back at home.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the 3(+) year rule discussion re: bottling of VP, Glenn is correct that 18-30 months was the last decreed IVDP regulation that specifically delineated when bottling had to take place. But in the 19th century and through much of the first half of the 20th, there were no hard fast rules ... and since VP was shipped in cask and bottling could take place in a wide variety of places across Europe; it was not something that could be closely monitored and recorded like nowadays. There are books that mention that bottling was known to take place 3-5 years after harvest. As Tom stated, I've never seen a CORK that showed a bottling date of 3 years from harvest, (UK or otherwise), however, I have seen paper labels on some OLD bottles that did have 3 years mentioned ... and I believe that in rare circumstances that continued until the practice of shipping VP in bulk and bottling outside of Gaia, (and later, the Douro as well) ended with the Revolution of 1974, which means likely the last real year for worthy VP's bottled elsewhere, was the 1970 VIntage. If any "escaped" PT before the scandal with 1972/1973 VP's aguardente ... I do not know.

[Glenn E.]

That aside, the fact remains that even when bottled promptly after shipment, the average age of bottling would have been around six months later than is common practice today.

Which could still be done today, legally, if it actually had the effect that you think it has. But it isn't done today, even amongst those producers whose reputations are for long-lived Ports.

Ergo, the effect - if it exists at all - is inconsequential at most. If it actually mattered, the large producers would be doing it.

[Luc Gauthier]

If I'm following you guy's correctly (and that's a big if)
If an lbv is bottled 4 to 6 yrs after harvest, would it not be possible to have some declared vp being labeled as lbv

[Tom Archer]

But it isn't done today, even amongst those producers whose reputations are for long-lived Ports.

Dirk bottles late - the sample bottles he sends out often pre-date the actual bottling.

[John M.]

There is a 1987 Offley at auction and label clearly says Bottled in 1990.

[Roy Hersh]

Figure out 18 months after harvest to 30 months after harvest and that makes sense!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Velebil]

There is a 1987 Offley at auction and label clearly says Bottled in 1990.

Niepoort's Pisca is also a "3rd" year bottling IIRC.

To counter what Tom has said, and to be correct. When it comes to VP being bottled for samples and when it is actually bottled for sale are almost always two different times. The samples are generally bottled earlier to be sent out to reviewers and to be opened at trade tastings and the like. Then a bit later (which could be months) the actual bottling runs are done.

That doesn't mean they are different blends. Remember, it takes time to ship samples around the world so they are all in place for the announcements/trade releases within a short time span. So the samples are (generally) hand drawn off the casks early to send out. If you all recall, VP declarations are normally announced in April/May and they typically don't start showing up in retail until the August/September time frame. Again, they are bottled later than the samples and take time to get shipped out, clear customs (if needed), received by importer, sent to distribution (if needed), then to the retailer's central warehouses (if needed), then to the market itself. That can take a lot of time.

[David Spriggs]

The Wine Advocate, for the record:

Bring on the next guy ... all under the umbrella of RP. The 2011, was the first Vintage reviewed by Mark Squires, who has done every major vintage since, including: '15, '16, '17 and will continue, until he wants to retire.

I think that you've forgotten about Neal Martin. He was the one that was reviewing Port for the Wine Advocate for many years. Mark was only reviewing table wines. I believe that he took over responsibility of reviewing Port wines in early 2015 with his review in Issue 217 on LBVs. Yes, there was an occasional Port tasting note from him prior to that time, but it wasn't his responsibility to review Ports at that time.

[Andy Velebil]

The Wine Advocate, for the record:

Bring on the next guy ... all under the umbrella of RP. The 2011, was the first Vintage reviewed by Mark Squires, who has done every major vintage since, including: '15, '16, '17 and will continue, until he wants to retire.

I think that you've forgotten about Neal Martin. He was the one that was reviewing Port for the Wine Advocate for many years. Mark was only reviewing table wines. I believe that he took over responsibility of reviewing Port wines in early 2015 with his review in Issue 217 on LBVs. Yes, there was an occasional Port tasting note from him prior to that time, but it wasn't his responsibility to review Ports at that time.

And Neal wasn’t all that great at it either. Better than previous but not great. WA had a dismal track record for Port reviewers for a long time.

[Glenn E.]

But it isn't done today, even amongst those producers whose reputations are for long-lived Ports.

Dirk bottles late - the sample bottles he sends out often pre-date the actual bottling.

Not for Niepoort. I have various Niepoorts in my cellar that were bottled in the 2nd year after harvest, including 1977 (which admittedly wasn't Dirk), 1997, and 2000. Plus their website indicates that all Niepoort VP back to 1985 was bottled in the 2nd year after harvest, most often in the spring. I believe one indicated that it was bottled in the fall of the 2nd year.

You're probably thinking of Biome or Pisca. IIRC one or both of those are bottled in the 3rd year.

There is a 1987 Offley at auction and label clearly says Bottled in 1990.

Yep. You do still see 30-month bottlings as Tom has pointed out, but these days the standard is overwhelmingly in the 18-20 month range. They look like 3 years and 2 years on the label, but are actually 30 months and 18 months after harvest.

[David Spriggs]

And Neal wasn’t all that great at it either. Better than previous but not great. WA had a dismal track record for Port reviewers for a long time.

Totally agree. Neal and I don't have the same palate at all when it comes to Port.