Non-Portuguese port-styles - Growing market? Or diluted by truly dessert style wines

[Andrew E]

I figure I'll ask this one while I have a low post count and not a whole lot of ports under my belt, hehe. Think of this as not getting on a soap box as it's not a big issue, but maybe standing near it.

I'm wondering why many non-Portuguese style ports don't come as well regarded as the Portuguese variety. I understand there are differences simply by region, but the the way I see it the process can still be replicated and there are obvious productions that do earn some acclaim. The way I see it, though, is that it's sort of like Champagne and that rule that it can only be "champagne" from that one single region in France, where ten feet (should probably be in meters) over the border it's still the same grapes just it can't get the designation anymore.

I'm still picking up info here and there, but I have noticed that many non-Port's have started using grapes that differ from what has traditionally been used, but I would still say that they should be called port style (if maintaining that true ports can only be made in Portugal) because they're production differs significantly from typical wine. This probably sounds like a non-starter point as that's already an industry standard, but I've seen comments from port drinkers that believe non-Port ports should simply be called desert wines. The other thing being that when you switch up the grapes as much as some do, your flavor profile will be markedly different than a Port-port with it's specific guidelines.

Then you have your eggnog ports which admittedly, are kind of silly. These brands kind of seem to dilute the image of non-Port ports while still being made in a port style, but should that be reason enough to write off the quality brands as just another category entirely from Port-ports?

Anyways, this is sort of off the cuff and sometimes rambling, but let me know what you think!

Also, I have recently picked up what I believe is an excellent Tawny Port-style wine from San Diego that is blended with wines up to 60 years old and I wouldn't mind splitting a bottle (maybe 2 since stock is low and getting it again is very hard on the budget with travel) with some of the experienced Washingtonian palates to see what they think. I get that it's probably not going to be a true port experience because the grapes among other things are different, but I'm willing to bet it's just good drinking, haha.

[Glenn E.]

There are really at least two different things going on in your question.

The first is whether or not non-Portuguese fortified wines that are made with Portuguese grapes and using traditional production methods should be called Ports. The second is whether or not the rest of these quasi-port-like fortified wines can or should be compared to Ports.

For the first, I'm firmly in the camp that says no. The precedent has already been set by French, Italian, German, Hungarian, and who knows how many others that protected denominations of origin are here to stay. Port is rightfully part of that group - it's is the 3rd oldest in the world, after Chianti and Tokaji - and so should be recognized and obeyed just like the others.

For the second, I don't really see the point of comparing non-Port fortified wines with Port. I don't compare California sparkling wines with Prosecco or Champagne either, because they're not the same. An Australian "Tawny" is nothing like a Tawny Port despite the shared nomenclature. That doesn't mean that they aren't good in their own right, just that they're not Port.


The problem is that use of the word "port" on non-Port wines wasn't properly enforced for a very long time, so many wine producers now feel that their "port" deserves to use the name. Sorry, it doesn't. Just because you've been using it illegally for decades (or centuries) doesn't mean that you now have some right to continue using it. Pick some other name to use for your product. It's unfortunate that U.S. law prohibits the use of "fortified wine" due to Prohibition-era legislation, but that doesn't give you the right to continue to illegally use the word "port" on your label. Quit whining about it and find some other solution that works.

"Port style" is no more legal than "Champagne style" either. The generic name is fortified wine, not "port style" wine.

[Paul Fountain]

Hi Andrew,
While the production process can be replicated, the terroir can't so I think that while new world producers might be able to get 95% of what makes Port great, they will struggle with that last 5%. Having said that, I don' think there are many of the Australian producers that are approaching the 95% yet either. I don't get to see much from the rest of the world though so I can't comment on how it is in the US, South Africa or anywhere else that produces port style wines.
I'd be totally against labeling Port style wines as "desert wine". I'm not sure how it is in the US, but if somebody talks about a desert wine I'd immediately assume they were talking about as botrytis style white, something like a Sauternes.
Generally in Australia, we seem to be using "Vintage Fortified' for the vintage port styles. I've seen 'Fortified Shiraz' as a label as well but I think by law this would mean that 85% of the wine would have to be Shiraz.

[Andrew E]

There are really at least two different things going on in your question.

The first is whether or not non-Portuguese fortified wines that are made with Portuguese grapes and using traditional production methods should be called Ports. The second is whether or not the rest of these quasi-port-like fortified wines can or should be compared to Ports.

For the first, I'm firmly in the camp that says no. The precedent has already been set by French, Italian, German, Hungarian, and who knows how many others that protected denominations of origin are here to stay. Port is rightfully part of that group - it's is the 3rd oldest in the world, after Chianti and Tokaji - and so should be recognized and obeyed just like the others.

For the second, I don't really see the point of comparing non-Port fortified wines with Port. I don't compare California sparkling wines with Prosecco or Champagne either, because they're not the same. An Australian "Tawny" is nothing like a Tawny Port despite the shared nomenclature. That doesn't mean that they aren't good in their own right, just that they're not Port.


The problem is that use of the word "port" on non-Port wines wasn't properly enforced for a very long time, so many wine producers now feel that their "port" deserves to use the name. Sorry, it doesn't. Just because you've been using it illegally for decades (or centuries) doesn't mean that you now have some right to continue using it. Pick some other name to use for your product. It's unfortunate that U.S. law prohibits the use of "fortified wine" due to Prohibition-era legislation, but that doesn't give you the right to continue to illegally use the word "port" on your label. Quit whining about it and find some other solution that works.

"Port style" is no more legal than "Champagne style" either. The generic name is fortified wine, not "port style" wine.

I can agree with most of what you're saying, I think what I'm looking for is a middle ground. I'm really okay with Ports only being from Portugal since there is such a large precedence, but I just feel there's something to be said for different varieties of something. Really the only reason every grape/style hasn't been trademarked is because it's too late. The reason everyone can have merlot is because no one locked it down, or some other grape for that matter. It's why we call Windows and Apple OS operating systems, just in two different flavors of the broader classification of software, and they definitely get compared to each other.

With port and port-style you have a unique process to create the finished product which is different from other wines, so typical dessert wine obviously wouldn't fit. But like I said, I don't think it has to be called port, but I think what I would like to see is more acceptance of it because if more people took it seriously, you'd have a growing number of varieties that could introduce something new and exciting. Like Paul says, though, the best wines may only come 95% close to actual ports (obviously subjective and I have nowhere near the experience to judge), but even that's great if they just provide something in the same vein and quality, just different because of the differences that can't be overcome.

Like I said though, I'm not on a soapbox because I don't have the experience with ports that I'm sure many of you do. Maybe I'll just get it after enough tries, lol. Really I'm looking for a port+cigar experience, and I've found the port-styles work well in that aspect as well as most dessert wines are too sugary or the incorrect texture for what I'm looking for.

[Eric Menchen]

Vin doux naturel?

[Glenn E.]

Really the only reason every grape/style hasn't been trademarked is because it's too late. The reason everyone can have merlot is because no one locked it down, or some other grape for that matter.

Not at all - merlot is a grape, not a style or a PDO. You can't trademark a grape (ignoring genetically modified organisms for the time being) - that'd be like trying to trademark "computer" or "floppy disk" not Windows. Different countries have different rules for what is required before you can use the name of a variety on a wine label, but that's not the same thing as a PDO. (Or DOC in Portuguese, or AOC in French, etc.)

Port is a fortified wine. (Port = Windows. Fortified wine = operating system.) The process is called fortification, which is why those other non-Port wines should also be generically called fortified wines. (Not all dessert wines are fortified, and not all fortified wines can be classified as dessert wines. Those are separate types of wine that just happen to overlap quite a bit.) Unfortunately the use of the word "fortified" on a wine label is not allowed in the U.S. due to the previously mentioned archaic law that dates back to Prohibition. But that doesn't excuse the use of a protected name for the wrong purpose. If you really think that the other fortified wines need a PDO or trademarked name, then fine create one. Create a bunch of 'em. If Port is Windows, then we need a Unix and a MacOS and a DOS for the other fortified wines.

The way to get people to take non-Port fortified wines more seriously is to market them properly and educate consumers. Port had and still has many of the same difficulties with consumer education. Some of us do drink other fortified wines and enjoy them, and we even talk about them occasionally. But since this is a forum devoted to the love of Port, most of the talk here is about... Port.

FWIW, I've had a couple of very nice California fortified wines made using the same technique and the same grapes as are used to make Port. I tried one of them in a blind tasting once and it was pretty easy to identify it as the ringer. There really is something to this whole terroir thing, which is why PDOs are important.

[Jim R.]

I am solidly on the side of "Portugal only" labeling for Ports. The consumer's expectation is that their "port" will have a flavor profile similar to Portuguese ports. Since many fortified wines throughout the world use a variety of grapes the flavors vary just as widely. As pointed out above--even wineries that make fortified wines from the classic Portuguese varieties do not 100% replicate the Port experience. We will not mention zinfandel or cabernet ports found in California (and perhaps other areas as well). Most of the non-portuguese grape variety ports I have had did not come near the body or staying power the Portuguese have. Most of those copycats had a hole-in-the-middle of their tasting experience. Regards.

[Eric Ifune]

I'm OK with the term "port-styled" when using traditional Port varieties. Note the small case P. The problem for me is there really isn't any other way to describe them. I mean, how does this sound, fortified wines using traditional grape varieties using in making Portuguese Port bottled after two years in neutral cask. Doesn't really roll off the tongue. I have had some from California which might be difficult to pick out in a line up of real Ports.

[Roy Hersh]

I'm wondering why many non-Portuguese style ports don't come as well regarded as the Portuguese variety.

Er, maybe, because they're never quite as great as the real Ports are from Portugal? That would be my guess.

[Eric Menchen]

I like all sorts of dessert wines, but the non-Portuguese ports that I've tasted, while tasty, have not been all that Port-like. I think labeling them as such really is a disservice for all of us.

[Glenn E.]

I'm wondering why many non-Portuguese style ports don't come as well regarded as the Portuguese variety.

Er, maybe, because they're never quite as great as the real Ports are from Portugal? That would be my guess.

Precisely.

If they weren't trying to market themselves as Port and instead had their own name, then they might be highly regarded. But because they try to pass themselves off as Port they end up being compared to Port, and frankly they're just not as good. They don't deserve to be highly regarded as a Port.

[Todd Pettinger]

My own on the matter is that I am for Port being from Portugal. I have used "port style" (again, like Eric) to describe other fortified wines made using similar methods to those used on Portugal, and have not thought much about it.

One of my favourites is "Pipe," an offering by Sumac Ridge. Doesn't use the traditional grapes used in Port because I just don't think they grow alll that well, even in hot and ( regularly) dry Okanagen, BC, but is pretty tasty and ever bottle speaks of respect for the traditions and methods used in Portugal. (I had an opportuni to speak with one of the winemakers on a tour and it was quite obvious he enjoyed and respected real Port.). They do use the term fortified wine though on their bottles, so no attempts at false advertising their wines as something it is not.

[Roy Hersh]

Keep this going, it is one of the better new topics I've seen in awhile!

[Andrew E]

I can definitely agree that different regions produce different tastes, but I'm probably not so worried about calling it port style. Mind you, I'm more of a tawny port drinker than vintage because of bottle rarity and price. Something tells me a tawny port and tawny style can turn out to be very similar, you just don't have many non Portuguese wineries saving wine to make well aged tawnies. That's just me guessing, but if anyone can tell me otherwise I'd love to know.

[Glenn E.]

Something tells me a tawny port and tawny style can turn out to be very similar, you just don't have many non Portuguese wineries saving wine to make well aged tawnies. That's just me guessing, but if anyone can tell me otherwise I'd love to know.

I've yet to taste a non-Portuguese tawny non-Port fortified wine that could pass as Port. Most of my experience is with Australian stickies, but I have had a couple of California tawnies too. They just taste different.

I won't categorically rule out the possibility that some dedicated winery could come pretty close by using Portuguese grapes, well-aged neutral Portuguese oak barrels, and a carefully climate-controlled aging facility set up to mimic conditions in the Douro or in Gaia, but since I can usually detect California-made ruby non-Port fortified wines even when they're made with Portuguese grapes I have to believe that I'd still be able to detect them when aged into a tawny too.

But it still begs the question, why bother? Why struggle to produce an imitation instead of creating something of your own? I like Australian stickies for what they are, not because they're similar to Port (which, really, they aren't all that much).

[Paul Fountain]

There are a few Australian producers that do aged tawny styles so it isn't uncommon to find 10 and 20 year old tawnys on the market here. Mostly they come from the Barossa valley or Mclaren vale in South Australia, but as Glen rightly identifies, they don't taste like proper portuguese ports. Mostly the grapes used will be shiraz, grenache and maybe a bit of cabernet so they are never going to taste like a Portuguese tawny.

[Andrew E]

But it still begs the question, why bother? Why struggle to produce an imitation instead of creating something of your own? I like Australian stickies for what they are, not because they're similar to Port (which, really, they aren't all that much).

That's a good question, and having bought a bottle with 60 year old wine in the mix it could drive a quality but cheaper alternative. I don't know how it compares to 30 or 40 year old tawnies because I haven't tried any due to cost, but it did stand up just as well to some 20's I've tried. It has a good texture and a butterscotch + almond flavor that's just great. I have had port styles with petie syrah and all that and you're right, it will just never come close because the grapes are too different. They have similar characteristics, but typically have the trademark red wine tastes to them that you could get without fortifying them.

Since I don't have the experience though, the Cali tawny I've mentioned a few times in other threads (Ferrara Generation III) I've had might just be a good fortified wine that is really very different from most actual ports and costs about $40 which is close to a 20 year in price.

[Eric Ifune]

Glenn,
I'll have you try a Ficklin 15 year old or 20 year old tawny and see what you think. I think them a bit different from real Tawny Port; but blind, could easily pass for one.

[Glenn E.]

Glenn,
I'll have you try a Ficklin 15 year old or 20 year old tawny and see what you think. I think them a bit different from real Tawny Port; but blind, could easily pass for one.

I've had Ficklin's rubies before, but I don't think I've had their tawnies. Possibly their 10-yr old, but I'm pretty sure never their 20-yr old. Their rubies are good, but in a lineup along with real Ports I think they'd stand out. Perhaps not as "this is obviously from California" but more along the lines of "there's something not quite right about this one." I'm just guessing, but I suspect that their tawnies would show the same way.

[Roy Hersh]

Have to agree with Eric I. that Ficklin does an amazing job. I was on a judging panel of a prominent wine competition about the time that FTLOP was being conceived and had the good fortune to be moved to judge the dessert wine finalists, up for medals. We had some very good Rieslings, domestic Madeira, Icewine, Port and a white sparkling dessert wine from Muscat grape. The winner, and I was not the only one to think it was the best wine at the whole competition either, was the 10 year old tawny by Ficklin. Of course, it was all done blind. The only old Ficklin I've had is the 1991 (more than a handful of times and it was delicious each and every time.

I've also had some beauties from other producers in the USA, one from Virginia, two producers in Missouri (they rocked!!!), a worthy one from Texas, a not-too-bad one from Oregon. Also some fine examples from So. Africa, both vintage and tawny. That said, very few taste similar to REAL Port from Portugal. But if that's what I'm looking to drink ... then I do. I don't ever seek out these other "wannabes" for a cheap fix. Instead, I open them because I expect something different and want to see what they have to offer.

Terroir is not a sci-fi movie after all.