A n00b and his brief port experiences...

[lightning]

Hi everyone - glad to have found such a forum where people are so passionate about Port! I was been bitten by the Porto bug a few weeks ago, and I've been quaffing nearly a bottle a week on average...terrible on the hip pocket of a poor student!

Anyway, I've read quite a few of the posts thus far, including the Port 101. The first 3 bottles I tried were Tawny, and I loved the richness of the texture and well-rounded mellow fruits in it. Here are my vague recollections of some of the bottles:

Penfolds Bluestone (10 yr Tawny, Australian) - Very well rounded, little astringency and aftertaste which lingered for a long time after swallowing. Loved the apricot/caramel notes and the slightly viscosity as well.

Taylor's 10 yr Tawny - Wood notes were out of control in my opinion. But lovely subtleties and flavour development.

After this, I decided to try some Ruby Port, and nabbed a bottle of Taylor's LBV 1997 at a good price. I'm not sure whether it was because I was so used to the Tawny style, but I was greatly disappointed upon first tasting it. Very sharp fruitiness on the nose and pretty much nothing else, and the taste pretty much followed through on this.

A few days after, the fruitiness mellowed somewhat, but I'm wondering whether my experience is more a characteristic of Ruby Ports in general, or whether it's the 'poor' quality of the Taylor's LBV (I haven't seen anyone mention Taylor's in the LBVs of preference threads). Or perhaps I'm not used to Rubies after all the Tawnies I've tasted.

I've noticed that at the apex of port are the VPs - are they that clearly superior to the tawnies?

One last question - have many of you tried Australian-made ports before? I'm surprised to see them so under-represented in the port world - they are great value for money, and Bob Parker has dished out many high 90s (and at least one 100) for quite a few Aussie ports. Incidentally, the port which got scored 100 was one of the late 19th century Seppelt century old para-liqueur ports, which can be had for around $US400-500.

Anyway, looking forward to your responses. :)

[Andy Velebil]

As far as Australian ports go, i have had several bottles of Rosemonts "Old Benson" port. It runs about $25 US and is a decent tawney port. Off the top of my head that is the only Australian port that I have had.

[Jason Brandt Lewis]

. . . Penfolds Bluestone (10 yr Tawny, Australian) - Very well rounded, little astringency and aftertaste which lingered for a long time after swallowing. Loved the apricot/caramel notes and the slightly viscosity as well.

Taylor's 10 yr Tawny - Wood notes were out of control in my opinion. But lovely subtleties and flavour development.

After this, I decided to try some Ruby Port, and nabbed a bottle of Taylor's LBV 1997 at a good price. I'm not sure whether it was because I was so used to the Tawny style, but I was greatly disappointed upon first tasting it. Very sharp fruitiness on the nose and pretty much nothing else, and the taste pretty much followed through on this.

Welcome, Jon, to this forum.

I'm actually not surprised at all by your reactions so far.

Keep in mind that Port truly only comes from the Douro Valley in Portugal. What is made in Australia, California, ZA and elsewhere are wines produced in a Port-style. I know, it may sound like nit-picking, but it really isn't.

For instance, most people who are "new" to Port prefer Ruby Ports ot Tawny Ports. The reason is precisely because of the formers level of sweetness and fruitiness, normally significantly higher than those found in a true Tawny port.

It doesn't surprise me that you enjoyed the Penfolds from Australia. Australian Tawnies are often sweeter than the Tawny Ports made in Portugal, and as such can carry a higher level of the woody characteristics that you found "out-of-control" in the true Tawny Port from Taylor's.

A few days after, the fruitiness mellowed somewhat, but I'm wondering whether my experience is more a characteristic of Ruby Ports in general, or whether it's the 'poor' quality of the Taylor's LBV (I haven't seen anyone mention Taylor's in the LBVs of preference threads). Or perhaps I'm not used to Rubies after all the Tawnies I've tasted.

Late-Bottled Vintage Port is one specific type, or category, of Ruby Port. These are wines from a single harvest (in your example, 1997) that -- instead of being aged for two years (approx.) and then bottled, which would then be known as a Vintage Porto -- was aged between four-to-six years in wood prior to bottling. Thus the reason for the term "Late-Bottled." Most LBVs will improve with bottle age, whereas a wine like a 10-Year Tawny is pretty much "ready to go now," as it were.

Clearly an LBV is a better quality wine, but generally less ready-to-drink, than a "regular" Ruby Port (Portuguese to Portuguese -- let's keep Oz out of the equation for the moment). If you can find an older LBV from a good house -- Smith, Woodhouse, for example, often releases their LBVs after considerable bottle age -- try that. I think you'll find it considerably different than the 1997 Taylor LBV (never my favorite producer of this style Porto anyway, FWIW).

I've noticed that at the apex of port are the VPs - are they that clearly superior to the tawnies?

Vintage Porto is but a tiny fraction of Port's total production. They are very rare, not produced in every vintage, and will improve with bottle age -- often 50 years or more! Yes, it's considered the apex.

This doesn't mean they are "better" than Tawnies. After all, the best wine is the one you like the most, and many people I know actually perfer the subtle qualities of an old Colheita, for example, to Vintage Port. Or, at least, they prefer this Colheita to that Vintage. Let's put it that way.

Perhaps you should think of it this way: Vintage Porto is the apex of the Ruby Port world; Colheitas are the apex of the Tawny Port world. How's that? (Again, I'm just speaking of Portuguese Ports here.)

One last question - have many of you tried Australian-made ports before? I'm surprised to see them so under-represented in the port world - they are great value for money, and Bob Parker has dished out many high 90s (and at least one 100) for quite a few Aussie ports. Incidentally, the port which got scored 100 was one of the late 19th century Seppelt century old para-liqueur ports, which can be had for around $US400-500.

I've not seen the 100-year old Seppelts Para available in the US for that little. Taylor & Norton, for example, is offering the 1899 vintage for $899.99. At that price, I actually do not consider then "great value for money." But perhaps that's just me: I'd rather spend my $900 on acquiring several bottles of true Port, not one bottle of Australian Tawny. Then again, I've had the 1899 Para, so that may be part of the reason (though I doubt it).

In the same way, Jon, that your Penfolds Tawny tastes not so much like a "true" Tawny Port, but rather more like apricots and caramel, so, too, does a 100-year old Para taste nothing like a 100-year old "true" Vintage Porto. Rather, it's more like a thick, syrupy apricot & caramel liqueur, but with only 20 percent alcohol instead of 40-43 percent -- which is nothing like a well-aged Vintage Porto would taste.

Cheers,
Jason

[lightning]

Thanks for your response Jason.

My port education will be adjourned until next year, when I start working...hopefully I'll get my hands on a nice variety of ports and check out what all the fuss is about.

[Jason Brandt Lewis]

Good luck on your exploration, and REMEMBER: have fun!