1863 Taylor Fladgate....how long to hold?

[Andrew Kirschner]

Good evening-
I’ve asked A few people this question, including here- and I really can’t get a straight answer.

I have a bottle of the TF 1863 Single Harvest. I feel like sealed, it should be stable and last a long tiMe in the bottle prior to opening, but several people have suggested that it only has a limited window in which it should be consumed.

What’s the real answer? I’ve gotten conflicting responses.

Thanks for any assistance.

[Eric Menchen]

So that single harvest wine, or colheita, presumably has just recently been put in the bottle after spending all those earlier years in a pipa. It might have had some aguardente added to get it back to proper strength, or it might have been "refreshed." In any case, conventional wisdom is that it should be consumed soon, say within five to ten years from the bottling date. There are a few people that prefer some bottle age on a colheita, and one producer in particular that suggests a colheita can improve in the bottle. But Taylor is not that producer. And I've had a number of colheitas where the bottle age clearly did not improve them. I can't say I've had one from 1863, however.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

[Andy Velebil]

Really old Tawny's tend to hold up a little bit better in bottle since they've been exposed to oxygen for a long time. However, these old tawny's have also been topped up/refreshed (whatever you want to call it) over the years so they are not bullet proof. While exceptions always exist, generally speaking, I would also agree with Eric that around the 5-10 year range is about the max I would feel safe knowing that it would still taste at its best. And I'd keep it closer to the 5 year mark and 10 being the outlier.

[Andrew Kirschner]

Thank you for the input. I’d really like to enjoy this Port, but i feel like there aren’t going to be a lot of opportunities in my life to drink a bottle like this one- so I’m tempted to sit on it, waiting for the ‘right occasion’. I believe it was bottled about 3-4 years ago, so I’ll start thinking about what that occasion might be.
Best,
Andrew

[Glenn E.]

Even though I'm one of the people that Eric refers to who prefers a little bit of bottle age on my Colheitas (depending on the producer), I have to agree with both Eric and Andy in this case. The Taylor 1863 (which IIRC is actually from Krohn) is too great of a treasure to risk it diminishing in bottle. I would plan to drink it within 5 years to be safe, though as they've both said 5-10 years is probably fine for a Colheita with that much time in wood. There should be a bottling date somewhere in the documentation, perhaps even on the back label assuming there is one. Those come in very fancy decanters as I recall, so the bottling date would probably be recorded somewhere in a pamphlet or other insert in the fancy case.

Sadly, I missed the Port Harvest Tour where they got to taste this along side its younger siblings (the 1896 tawny and 1896 white) at Krohn. From everything I've heard, they were all spectacular and in the 98-100 range. You definitely don't want this one to stay in bottle too long and start to change.

[Eric Ifune]

I've been lucky enough to taste this twice when it belonged to Wiese&Krohn. It was registered with the IVDP and so can have the date labeled. We've debated whether or not it has been refreshed. There were two and a half pipes. No consensus. I agree with Glenn on the timing of opening.

[Bert VD]

i totally understand why you would wait for a special occasion to open a special bottle. i'm like that as well.

but sometimes i just feel like having a good bottle of port and i might invite some friends to make it an occasion.

don't you ever want to celebrate a good... tuesday? or a friday perhaps? if you want to drink it any day can be a good day

[Andy Velebil]

don't you ever want to celebrate a good... tuesday? or a friday perhaps? if you want to drink it any day can be a good day

Yes, every day ending in "day"

[Roy Hersh]

Mario and I both have had this specific wood-aged Port during three distinct and memorable Port Harvest Tours, when we were permitted in the the fenced in area of the old Krohn Port Lodge. None of our guests who have joined us, ever have forgotten the moment they first tried these very special wines directly from cask. I know I never will. I believe my scores added to 298 points for the three combined. I was not the highest scorer either. I still have photos of the casks in there. I And, I do not remember anyone scoring the 3 aforementioned Colheitas below 97 points and there were lots of 100 scores being bandied about and with good reason.

Jose Falcao Carneiro, the former co-owner of Krohn's, knew he was going to have no choice but to sell the company. He sold it to Taylor's in the summer of 2013, and I was there in Porto sampling 2011 VP's when the deal took place. I was asked to NOT mention or write about it until it was made public by Adrian Bridge.

Here is where speculation about such wines, is fraught with MIS-information. Truth: Krohn was established in 1865 (not a good year for Pres. Lincoln!) so the 1863 {not a good time in Gettysburg) definitely was NOT a Taylor nor a Krohn product. While even Jose had no idea where this Port originated there were two things he did know. It was not made by his family, that he was aware of and it was NOT refreshed, and likely not even topped off. The latter he could not prove, but there was no family record that it had ever been topped off. The Carneiro family was not for refreshing and Jose mentioned his family did not do so with their Ports.

Some time in 2014, Taylor's did a very limited and very expensive small release of the 1863 with 1600 crystal decanters produced and also a very small lote of the 1863 and a 1896, boxed together. I do not remember if they were released at the same time and for some reason, I have it in my head that one of those two issues happened in 2015, but I certainly may be wrong about the order. I do know it was nearly a year after Taylor's deal was announced.

Given that this Port was registered with the Port Wine Institute, it was able to be considered a Colheita but of course Taylor's does not use that term as most of you realize. There were some aggravated that Taylor's did not bottle this under the Krohn name, but since Krohn purchased the wine and did not make this Port; they felt it was more than fair to just call it Taylor's.

Lastly, given its time in bottle now, I would recommend drinking this in the next three to five years while it is as vibrant as it is; which will be tasted while still within a decade of bottling. My two cents from a fortunate and grateful person to have tasted this thrice ... albeit, all from cask.

[Andy Velebil]

Here is where speculation about such wines, is fraught with MIS-information. Truth: Krohn was established in 1865 (not a good year for Pres. Lincoln!) so the 1863 {not a good time in Gettysburg) definitely was NOT a Taylor nor a Krohn product. While even Jose had no idea where this Port originated there were two things he did know. It was not made by his family, that he was aware of and it was NOT refreshed, and likely not even topped off. The latter he could not prove, but there was no family record that it had ever been topped off. The Carneiro family was not for refreshing and Jose mentioned his family did not do so with their Ports.

Call it whatever name you want, topping up/refreshed. It is physically impossible not to touch a Port sitting in a wood barrel for well over 100 years and have it in the perfect liquid state and perfect ABV that it is when it was bottled for release. Period.

Let me link you to a study on wine loss from evaporation. I'm gonna assume their cellar hasn't had mechanical humidity control for well over 100 years. That means their evaporation rates would most likely be similar to the link (table 1), which is between apq 2%/year at constant 85% relative humidity all year to about 4% without (granted Gaia is more humid than the Douro so Gaia would be a lower evap rate). Even if you said a very low .5%/yr evap rate that's 50% over 100 years. Sugar doesn't evaporate like water or alcohol, you'd have molasses...

https://www.cross.com.gr/wp-content/upl ... 1.2010.pdf

[Glenn E.]

Some time in 2014, Taylor's did a very limited and very expensive small release of the 1863 with 1600 crystal decanters produced and also a very small lote of the 1863 and a 1896, boxed together. I do not remember if they were released at the same time and for some reason, I have it in my head that one of those two issues happened in 2015, but I certainly may be wrong about the order. I do know it was nearly a year after Taylor's deal was announced.

I recall Krohn doing a side-by-side release of the 1863 and 1896 (for an eye-watering $8000 per pair), but I don't recall Taylor doing one. I don't recall the year, but it was right before the sale and obviously before Taylor did the crystal decanter release of the 1863. Mark Squires refers to the eminent release in a March, 2013 article so it was likely done right before the sale of the company.

[Eric Menchen]

Even if you said a very low .5%/yr evap rate that's 50% over 100 years. Sugar doesn't evaporate like water or alcohol, you'd have molasses...

Actually, at 0.5% per year, you would still be above 60% after 100 years. It is a compounding math problem. In this case, the 0.5% is on a decreasing volume. The first year you lose 0.5%, but the next year you lose 0.5% of 99.5%, which is slightly less ...

[Glenn E.]

Call it whatever name you want, topping up/refreshed. It is physically impossible not to touch a Port sitting in a wood barrel for well over 100 years and have it in the perfect liquid state and perfect ABV that it is when it was bottled for release. Period.

Let me link you to a study on wine loss from evaporation. I'm gonna assume their cellar hasn't had mechanical humidity control for well over 100 years. That means their evaporation rates would most likely be similar to the link (table 1), which is between apq 2%/year at constant 85% relative humidity all year to about 4% without (granted Gaia is more humid than the Douro so Gaia would be a lower evap rate). Even if you said a very low .5%/yr evap rate that's 50% over 100 years. Sugar doesn't evaporate like water or alcohol, you'd have molasses...

https://www.cross.com.gr/wp-content/upl ... 1.2010.pdf

Without reading this study, many of them seem to assume that the barrel does not change over many decades, while I have heard directly from producers that the barrels do change and that the loss from evaporation lowers dramatically over time. While it may start as high as ~3%, after several decades in barrel the sugars left behind by evaporation mostly seal the barrel from the inside and the loss can drop to 1% or 0.5% or lower.

Doesn't change your point, though. 50% loss of liquid from evaporation over 100-150 years would still result in a product closer to molasses than wine, and while some of these very old Ports have quite heavy texturally, they're not molasses. So something has been done at some point along the way to end up with a drinkable Port.

[Eric Ifune]

The other thing to remember is that they may have topped up with the same wine. Again, there were two and a half pipes when we visited. I'm undecided what to think. I believe Mr. Carneiro, but he's not 100% sure. They did keep many wines in demijohns for topping up in their lodge. This wine had huge concentration but fabulous balance as well. Other wines I've had, supposedly in pipe for over 100 years, were on par as far as concentration goes. And these pipes were in the Krohn lodge in Vila Nova where they were meticulous with humidity and the like.

[Eric Menchen]

Without reading this study, many of them seem to assume that the barrel does not change over many decades, while I have heard directly from producers that the barrels do change and that the loss from evaporation lowers dramatically over time. While it may start as high as ~3%, after several decades in barrel the sugars left behind by evaporation mostly seal the barrel from the inside and the loss can drop to 1% or 0.5% or lower.

I couldn't get to the study--some connection error. But I can say that I've seen concentration of sugars seal up a leaking barrel with beer in it. Sometimes you have this slow drip, and if it is slow enough, the evaporation gives you a sugar seal and the leak stops. This is not quite the same situation, but it makes me believe that there could be some self-sealing going on.

[Andy Velebil]

Some time in 2014, Taylor's did a very limited and very expensive small release of the 1863 with 1600 crystal decanters produced and also a very small lote of the 1863 and a 1896, boxed together. I do not remember if they were released at the same time and for some reason, I have it in my head that one of those two issues happened in 2015, but I certainly may be wrong about the order. I do know it was nearly a year after Taylor's deal was announced.

I recall Krohn doing a side-by-side release of the 1863 and 1896 (for an eye-watering $8000 per pair), but I don't recall Taylor doing one. I don't recall the year, but it was right before the sale and obviously before Taylor did the crystal decanter release of the 1863. Mark Squires refers to the eminent release in a March, 2013 article so it was likely done right before the sale of the company.

Correct. Krohn released the 2-pack just before being sold to TFP.

[Andy Velebil]

Even if you said a very low .5%/yr evap rate that's 50% over 100 years. Sugar doesn't evaporate like water or alcohol, you'd have molasses...

Actually, at 0.5% per year, you would still be above 60% after 100 years. It is a compounding math problem. In this case, the 0.5% is on a decreasing volume. The first year you lose 0.5%, but the next year you lose 0.5% of 99.5%, which is slightly less ...

Correct. But one also has to take into account racking loss as well. Everyone forgets about this. You can't just leave a wine in barrel and forget about it in the corner for decades. You have rack and clean the barrels or all sorts of bad things start happening. During that process you will lose some due to the lees settling out (which is less over time, but will still do so to some degree) and a little here and there being lost during the transfer back and forth. It all adds up...

[Andy Velebil]

The other thing to remember is that they may have topped up with the same wine. Again, there were two and a half pipes when we visited. I'm undecided what to think. I believe Mr. Carneiro, but he's not 100% sure. They did keep many wines in demijohns for topping up in their lodge. This wine had huge concentration but fabulous balance as well. Other wines I've had, supposedly in pipe for over 100 years, were on par as far as concentration goes. And these pipes were in the Krohn lodge in Vila Nova where they were meticulous with humidity and the like.

For sake of argument, if they used the same wine from demijohn's they are refreshing. It may be the "same" Port by vintage, but it isn't really the same Port anymore. You're effectively adding a vintage port stored for decades in glass to a port being stored for decades in barrel. Simply put, that is refreshing.

And humidity in a building that is not controlled is not "meticulous". Gaia is quite good but it also gets quite warm in the summer. That's why the floors are soil so that in the summer they can water them to add cooling and humidity themselves. A bit controversial, but it's also why VP's stored in the UK (and other cold areas) tend to show a bit better than those aged in bottle in Gaia (excluding modernized storage spaces of course). So evap rates in Gaia are not 100% stable (again, excluding modernized spaces). You only achieve that in a completely temp/humidity controlled space. Not being stable, your evap rates will go up in the warmer drier months and down in the winter wetter months.

[Glenn E.]

Even if you said a very low .5%/yr evap rate that's 50% over 100 years. Sugar doesn't evaporate like water or alcohol, you'd have molasses...

Actually, at 0.5% per year, you would still be above 60% after 100 years. It is a compounding math problem. In this case, the 0.5% is on a decreasing volume. The first year you lose 0.5%, but the next year you lose 0.5% of 99.5%, which is slightly less ...

Correct. But one also has to take into account racking loss as well. Everyone forgets about this. You can't just leave a wine in barrel and forget about it in the corner for decades. You have rack and clean the barrels or all sorts of bad things start happening. During that process you will lose some due to the lees settling out (which is less over time, but will still do so to some degree) and a little here and there being lost during the transfer back and forth. It all adds up...

Yes but losses from racking wouldn't increase concentration because they're loss of wine, not just moisture.

[Eric Ifune]

Andy,
I'd disagree with topping up with the same wine albeit aged in glass rather than wood. To me, it's topping up and not refreshing. Is a Colheita 10 years in wood and 10 in glass different than 20 in wood? Yes, of course. But the label is the same other than the bottling date. It still has the legitimate date of harvest.
I'd call refreshment the use of a younger harvest wine. Akin to a solera.
And don't diminish the wetting down of the soil floor to control evaporation. Over long periods of time, it would lead to big differences. With Madeira, according to Ricardo Freitas, the lodge humidity is important as well as temperature.