Basic Q on tawny vs VP and LBV

[Bryan H.]

My wife and I have been into Port for about 1/2 year (goes back longer but very infrequent). We tend to prefer tawnies and colheitas. My wife in particular does not care too much for rubies. I've purchased a few VPs over the past six months, mostly from vintages in the 90s and some 03s. But we've not yet opened a VP, except I had one glass of VP after a steak dinner in Chicago a few weeks ago, and thought it was good.

Anyway, we recently tried a Warre's 1999 unfiltered LBV. It was very fruity, particularly for someone typically drinking tawnies (Warre's Otima 10 year is our every day port). I let it decant for a few hours and it definitely softened a bit from some initial heat. Roy has a tasting note on this port, and I thought the tasting note was dead on (no surprise there given Roy's experience). My wife did not really enjoy the LBV at all, which seems consistent with her preference for tawnies over rubies. I enjoyed it, but so far also prefer tawnies and particularly colheitas.

Thus, the question, which is admittedly asking for a gross generalization: how does an LBV like that compare to a VP that is young or a VP that is old. I read alot on here about young VPs showing alot of fruit, and this is what I thought the LBV we tried was like. Old VPs are described as the fruit mellowing and other characteristics coming to the fore. Are aged VPs moving in the direction of the tawny style? My plan is to try an aged VP soon. Obviously, we need to try the variety of styles, ages, etc. to see what our tastes are.

The point of all this is how I'm going to allocate my Port purchases, particularly with the newsletter buying op coming any day now. I will emphasize less LBV and more tawny and colheita if that LBV was pretty typical of LBVs, and I'll not be inclined to open a VP young until we explore a bit more.

Anyone care to overgeneralize?

[Eric Menchen]

I'd say that LBV was typical. LBVs are meant to replicate VP, without the bottle aging time requirement as the 4-6 years in wood is intended to give oxidation equivalent to some greater time in the bottle. Generally, LBVs are meant to be consumed soon after bottling, and most are filtered so they won't change much in the bottle. Some, like yours, are not filtered, and they will change some in the bottle. We can debate whether they get better or worse, but that isn't really what you were asking about, so I'll leave that discussion aside. How does an LBV compare to a VP in terms of age? I'd say most LBVs I've had were like VPs 15 years or younger. The one exception was a 1996 Kopke LBV in a 375ml bottle. Of the ~10 LBVs I've had, that was the only one that seemed to have some hints of tawny.

A good VP will age and take on more of a tawny character with time. How much time is needed? I can't say with authority here like others, but the 1935 and 1947 I had were very tawny like. The 1960s and 1963s I've had were tawny-like as well, but not as much. (I can't remember the 1966s well enough to say.) The 1970s and 1980s have been more fruity, and everything I've had from the 1990s has been very fruity. So I guess I'm suggesting if you want a VP to be tawny-like, IMH and newbie opinion, you need to get something older than 1970. Of course different labels and vintages age differently, and every bottle can be different as well.

Without knowing the details, your buying plan sounds good to me given your collective tastes.

[Glenn E.]

I'll just echo what Eric said. Generally speaking, LBVs are intended to be consumed reasonably soon after bottling and are meant to approximate the flavors of a Vintage Port without the long-term aging. Also generally speaking, I find that LBVs are fruity and bold without being over-the-top powerful like a typical very young Vintage Port.

I, too, prefer Tawny Ports with an indication of age and Colheitas. So I tend to like my Vintage Ports either very old - at least 40 years old and generally older - or very young. The few 2003 Vintage Ports I've had have been very enjoyable up until now, but I think they're starting to enter their aging period and so I'll probably stop drinking them now in favor of 2007s so that they can have a few (read: 35 or more) years to mature.

The main problem, of course, is that fully mature Vintage Port can be rather expensive. So when you're looking to buy a bottle or two to try, I suggest looking for a decent "off" year, one of the lesser-known producers, or a single-quinta Vintage Port (SQVP). A 1970 Taylor or Fonseca is going to be pricey - that's a great year and a great producer. A 1967 Quinta de Vargellas - Taylor's flagship Quinta - will come in a about half that price and will still be an excellent Port. Or a 1970 Ferreira - a lesser-known but still very good producer - might be even less.

All that said, though... the upcoming newsletter offer is going to have some fabulous Colheitas and Tawnies in it. I don't think you'll be disappointed if you spend your money that way.

[Moses Botbol]

Most LBV's are "thinner" than their VP cousins. This is certainly a generalization, but that's what you want.

[oscarquevedo]

I would say that a young LBV is a ready for drinking/ easy-drinking Vintage Port, which you can probably enjoy more than a very young Vintage Port due to its balance. It's is smoother, with a good balance of tanins and not so demanding as a Vintage Port. But you'll hardly find a 50 years old LBV better than at the time of its bottling.