TAWNY PORTS - do they age in bottle

[Roy Hersh]

Andy and Glenn were discussing this in another thread and I thought I would share a recent post of mine from elsewhere which addressed this same topic. This by no means should end the discussion as it is just one man's opinion. I'd love to get others and hope that Oscar, Goncalo, Dan C. and others involved in Portugal will chime in too.

TAWNY PORT

Bottles with an indication of age, may improve in the bottle. A lot of that has to do with your definition of "improve" when it comes to a Tawny. It would make sense that those in the Port trade, even those like Dirk who espouse the virtues of Colheitas improving in the bottle ... have long been on the record as saying that Tawny Port is BEST when consumed as close to the bottling date as possible. However, is that just an opinion passed down the pipeline in the Port industry, or based on empirical evidence?

As I am in the midst of putting together an article on Tawny Port for Sommelier Journal that I occasionally write for, I made a careful study and tried a few dozen 10-40 year old Tawnies while over in Portugal last month. Having more current reference points on some that I had not tasted for several years was enlightening. I paid attention to the bottling dates. Some of these I have had many times in the past, others --only a few times, and there were only a few which were brand new to me.

From where I sit, I believe that Tawny Port definitely does change in the bottle ... (as will even a filtered LBV or basic Ruby over many years). Again, it boils down to your personal taste preferences. What I noticed <generalizing here> was that:

a. The aromatics declined on bottles that had more age. They just were not as vibrant as more currently bottled examples of the same genre.

b. Body weight & texture - it seemed that older bottles tended to have a more viscous mouthfeel and at times, appeared almost syrupy by comparison to younger bottles. Older ones also exhibited a smoother more round and silken texture. So, for those that like these characterisitics ... it would certainly be considered an "improvement."

c. Acidity level - although chemically speaking, acidity does not die down in an older wine ... Madeira being the greatest example of how piercing acidity can live on for 2+ centuries ... Tawny Ports in bottle longer, tended towards "flabby" or just plain fat in some instances. I realize the acidity was not the issue, but the lack of freshness that many in this thread have mentioned; is reality. I sensed this in a number of Tawny Port bottles that ranged between 6 and 14 years old since bottling. The palate impact and sense of the acidity was very different in the majority of the older bottles, and not for the better. I have a feeling the loss of intensity -- is the specific dynamic that the Port trade is most concerned about, when suggesting not to age Tawny Port "with-an-indication-of-age."

d. The end game - this is a tale of two distinctions. The finish and the aftertaste. While I found that the actual finish was smoother AND longer in Tawny bottles with more age, I also paid close attention to the aftertaste. Although theoretically "longer" on the finish, the aftertaste did not provide the same pleasure as younger bottles. There was a crispness that I sensed in younger bottlings, AFTER swallowing with more defined layers. In the older bottlings, the aftertaste seemed "dumbed down" if you follow my meaning; there was no zest and the more caramelized flavors were quite tasty, but very simplistic.

This is not easy to describe, so I hope I am being clear enough.

[Eric Menchen]

Roy, it sounds like you tasted enough of these to really get to this, but I do have a question about your method. It sounds like you tasted a number of different tawnies with indication of age that were in the bottle for different amounts of time, but you tasted them all at once. I'm assuming, therefore, that the tawny itself was bottled at different times, and thus each different amount of bottling time also represents different "batches" of juice. These are blended products and among other things the blending does is reduce variation from year to year, but does it reduce the variation to zero? My supposition here is that there are two variables involved, the time in the bottle, as well the source. Can we totally ignore the latter?

I don't think there is any perfect way to test this, but I can think of two different approaches to control for the source variation:
1) Use the same source, taste immediately, then taste again a year later, two years later, etc. Of course the obvious problem with this is that you don't really get the side-by-side comparison value. How did your palate change, and what else changed in that time?
2) Use the same source, let it age under different conditions, say in a 55 degree F cellar, and a much colder cellar, and then taste together. The idea here is for one bottle to show younger than the other. Of course we can't freeze time, and the various reactions won't all be changed by the same rate with a change in temperature; but I do think this would be an interesting experiment.

Yeah, those don't sound like great ideas. I guess I should get to work on the time-travel machine.

[Marc J.]

Very interesting thread. Over the course of a number of years I have had the opportunity to taste a number of Tawnys that have had a quite wide variation between the bottling date and the consumption date and I have noticed many of the characteristics that Roy has mentioned. From my experience the difference between a freshly bottled tawny & a bottle with 10+ years of bottle age isn't dramatic, but there is a difference and that difference is the strength of the nose as well the impact upon the palate. I've also noticed (to my palate) that Colheitas tend to show the effects of increased bottle age quicker and to a greater degree then blended tawnies. I do believe that Eric is correct that even among blended Tawnies, there is some variation (although slight) between years and this might also be a factor, that generally isn't considered, in the flavor profile/nose of a particular bottling.

[Moses Botbol]

a. The aromatics declined on bottles that had more age. They just were not as vibrant as more currently bottled examples of the same genre.

That is biggest thing I notice (on bottle aged Tawny) and one I would use to validate that Tawny does not improve with bottle aging.

[Glenn E.]

a. The aromatics declined on bottles that had more age. They just were not as vibrant as more currently bottled examples of the same genre.

That is biggest thing I notice (on bottle aged Tawny) and one I would use to validate that Tawny does not improve with bottle aging.

But aromatics are just one component of the experience. I, too, think that aromatics decline with time in bottle, but I think that other factors like taste can improve. As I commented in the other thread, the fact that the acidity seems to retreat a bit is a big plus to me and more than makes up for a slight decline in aromatics. I also prefer a heavier body weight and more viscous mouth feel, so that too is an improvement to me.

Also... we're talking about Tawnies with an indication of age here... Colheitas are a different story.

[Moses Botbol]

But aromatics are just one component of the experience. I, too, think that aromatics decline with time in bottle, but I think that other factors like taste can improve.

Aromatics may be one component, but it's a very important one. A port can never be called "great" without aromatics; it can only be "good" port at a best.

[Glenn E.]

But aromatics are just one component of the experience. I, too, think that aromatics decline with time in bottle, but I think that other factors like taste can improve.

Aromatics may be one component, but it's a very important one. A port can never be called "great" without aromatics; it can only be "good" port at a best.

Irrelevant to the point, however. A decline in aromatics may be made up for by an improvement in taste or mouth feel, thus allowing for the possibility that a tawny Port can improve with bottle age.

And I disagree with you anyway, unless you meant your statement literally. A great Port may only have good aromatics, but still be considered great due to other factors.

[Moses Botbol]

And I disagree with you anyway, unless you meant your statement literally. A great Port may only have good aromatics, but still be considered great due to other factors.

Yes, I was literal in that. If a port does not have good aromatics, it can never be considered great; just good at best.

[Glenn E.]

And I disagree with you anyway, unless you meant your statement literally. A great Port may only have good aromatics, but still be considered great due to other factors.

Yes, I was literal in that. If a port does not have good aromatics, it can never be considered great; just good at best.

Well... what you said literally is that a Port without aromatics - meaning none at all - cannot be considered great. If that's what you actually meant, then I agree with you. Just like a Port with no flavor cannot be considered great.

But I don't think that "great" aromatics are required for a great Port. Good is sufficient to me. A great Port is not defined by any one component, but by the whole experience which - or so the saying goes - is sometimes greater than the sum of the parts.

So in theory, a tawny Port could start out with great aromatics, have them decline with bottle age, and still be considered to have improved if its other components improved sufficiently to out-weigh the loss of aromatics. It could even, in theory, go from being a merely good Port to a great one if the changes aligned properly.

But of course, that alignment will vary from person to person. Roy likes vibrant acidity, so the perceived loss that he refers to is a bad thing to him. I prefer milder acidity, so that same loss might be a distinctly good thing to me depending on where the perception of acidity in the Port started.

[Eric Ifune]

I think that Tawnys do age in the bottle. The question is whether or not you like the changes with bottle age. I think Mannie Berk's tasting of Leacocks Madeiras makes a good analogy. These were oxidative wines which were in bottle for 50+ years. Mannie called them bottle aged Madeiras. In wood, the wines continue to be in an oxidative environment, concentrating, keeping a relative balance of extract, sweetness, acidity, ect. Once in the bottle, the environment changes to a more reductive one. Bottle stink can occur. The wines become less sweet, less rich, less generous; but other changes occur. More delicate, less forthcoming, but different never-the-less. Different aromas arise. My guess is that if you have a tawny in bottle a long time, you probably have to decant it longer than usual, just like Madeira. Just my

[Roy Hersh]

To be perfectly clear, I was ONLY really talking about Tawny Port "with an indication of age" (10/20/30/40 year old) and not Colheita. Those two types behave differently for a number of reason that we can discuss in a thread to follow.

To answer Eric M's questions:

It sounds like you tasted a number of different tawnies with indication of age that were in the bottle for different amounts of time, but you tasted them all at once. I'm assuming, therefore, that the tawny itself was bottled at different times, and thus each different amount of bottling time also represents different "batches" of juice.

Actually, no, that was not the case. I tried these over several weeks during my last visit to Portugal at different times and different bottles and venues. Therefore, this was not a controled scientific experiment and my observations were made solely on empirical evidence gained through numerous experiences at that time and over the past two and a half decades of consuming Tawny Port of all types.

These are blended products and among other things the blending does is reduce variation from year to year, but does it reduce the variation to zero? My supposition here is that there are two variables involved, the time in the bottle, as well the source. Can we totally ignore the latter?

No, it does not reduce the variation to zero. There is a mission held by all that produce Tawny Port (W-A-I-O-A) and that is to have a very consistent house style that is the same from one year to the next, one bottling to the next, one master blender to the next and one generation to the next. That does not mean that there are zero changes. Of course nothing in wine is absolute.

To your 2nd question, of course there will be a difference between bottles, (like the recent Kopke and Noval offerings) where you are getting bottles that have only been shipped twice, from bottling line and into the box ... to the importer and then to you. That precludes an extra shipping to a distributor and another shipping to a retailer where trucks probably are not at the perfect temperature. Regardless ... getting these sooner, fresher and with less handling, means that less can go wrong along the distribution chain. All positive outcomes. However, when you are buying ex-cellars and direct ... it is about as good as you can get without purchasing at the shippers facility in Gaia. Even then, you don't know what will happen in baggage or in the belly of the plane. Worse yet, how the bottles are stored at retailers who don't necessarily keep the bottles at proper temperatures, sometimes in improper lighting, standing up vs. laying down etc. So the variables loom large even though we typically never have a clue as to how they've been stored etc.

Provenance is everything, although some people would prefer a bargain and to take their chances and I can respect that way of thinking although unless the risk is supported by a significant savings, to me it is not worth it. I am happy to pay a few dollars more for ex-cellars bottles. If you search here you will find this excellent topic about "would you pay more for an ex-cellars bottle of Port" that I started at some point. But I digress.

Your point about bottle variation has a bit to do with the shipping/storage/handling and also what is done with the actual viticulture, winemaking and blending. Winemaking and viticulture certainly are not 100% constant as things will change, but more importantly is how the master blender corrects the minor variants and by correction, he does this through blending art and not through manipulation chemically. That is why I always have felt that the master blender is almost more important to a Port house than the winemaker as it is not rocket science to make Port ... just great Port.

Back to Tawny Port and their ability to age.

[goncalo devesas]

From what I read in this very helpful Roy´s explanation, for me.
I suppose that I´m able to make a nice apreciation in a tawnies tasting with different years in bottle and now I can say that I prefer a tawny with a few time in bottle and more vibrant and aromatic.
I think that of course they also become more cloudy (most of people don´t like it) and soft character, most of people don´t like it, altough they are more mellow, with a soft character and subtle.

Thank you Roy

[Andy Velebil]

I prefer Tawny's closer to the date of bottling. Mainly because I am an acidity freak and it's one of the main things I look for when tasting young Ports. Without the acidity Port can be a bit flabby and cloying sometimes. Nothing bad about that, if that is what you prefer. But I like the freshness a nice dose of acidity brings to the more recently bottled Tawny's.

[oscarquevedo]

I think a Tawny Port hardly ages in bottle. If it is young and still with some tannins, it can ages for some months in bottle and improve. But generally speaking, Tawnies are ready for drinking when in bottle. And I think as soon as possible. Let it just rest a couple of months after the bottling and enjoy it. I would say that when the blenders make the tawnies they don't think how the Port will evolve during the next x years but how good it is for immediate tasting.