Tawny’s True Age Under Fire

[Eric Menchen]

In reality, how is it possible for a 2 yr. old Port, (the age of every VP) able to approximate the color, smell and taste of any 10 Year Old Tawny Port?
At 4 years of wood aging, as claimed in the article, you have an LBV that was initially aged in wood. Yes of course that category can also be aged for five or six years, but generally four is pretty typical. So have you seen any newborn LBV bottling that can show or fool one into believing that it is a 10 Year Old TWAIOA? Yeah, me neither!

Well, two years in a giant stainless steel tank is a lot different than two years in a 26 gallon barrel. And as Andy mentioned, there are lots of ways to artificially age a wine. And I've tasted 2000 Kopke VP in a 500 ml bottle that tasted more like tawny and 1977 SW that tasted twenty years younger than that. And I've sampled two different bottles of the same VP with vastly different tastes. Clearly conditions of storage can make a difference. Heat it up, shake it about, expose it to air ...

[Glenn E.]

The simplest solution for the industry would be to simply drop the "Years Old" part of the label. Just call it a "Tawny 10" and then on the back label describe what it means.

[Eric Ifune]

So for a 10 year old blend, if 50% is say 7 years old, 30 % 8 years old, and 20% 15 years old, how would that calculate out for the carbon 14 measurements? 7 and a half?

[Glenn E.]

So for a 10 year old blend, if 50% is say 7 years old, 30 % 8 years old, and 20% 15 years old, how would that calculate out for the carbon 14 measurements? 7 and a half?

If averaged by volume, that would be 8.9 years old.

(0.5 × 7) + (0.3 × 8) + (0.2 × 15) = 8.9

[Andy Velebil]

However, Burghoorn said: "There is a discrepancy between EU law and Portuguese law over labeling, which needs to be resolved."

In my humble opinion:
This should have been clarified as to what the difference is between EU laws and IVDP regulations. To ruin centuries old reputations of Port firms, with studies allowing for a margin of error of two years — seems to be plain wrong.

These NL studies have to be vetted closely are a “nothing burger” but may tie tighter the difference between EU and IVDP regulations. The former, more specific about dates on labels; the latter using different nomenclature and organoleptic testing procedures acceptable for samples provided and approved.

In reality, how is it possible for a 2 yr. old Port, (the age of every VP) able to approximate the color, smell and taste of any 10 Year Old Tawny Port?
At 4 years of wood aging, as claimed in the article, you have an LBV that was initially aged in wood. Yes of course that category can also be aged for five or six years, but generally four is pretty typical. So have you seen any newborn LBV bottling that can show or fool one into believing that it is a 10 Year Old TWAIOA? Yeah, me neither!

If they are trying to prove that EU rules and I VDP regulations are not perfectly in sync, then that should have been stated more clearly, which it was not. But, the Port trade has long been exceptionally transparent, for as long as I’ve been around Port. (1983). If I understand the difference clearly, and I can’t claim to be an expert on EU regulations and law; here is the discrepancy … For a stated age, say “20 Year Old” on the label, it is a specific AVERAGE AGE. That’s EU, if my understanding is accurate.

IVDP (paraphrasing here) regulations state: that the age designation of a Tawny, must deliver the organoleptic qualities: color/appearance, smell, taste, etc. of a Port of that age. These are independently tested for all batches of Port, produced by the IVDP’s human tasting panel of experts, (all of whom are peer tested for accuracy and consistency) that utilize computers for chromatography (and other facets) and to enhance their individual tasting regimens.

So the Port trade is going by IVDP, which are regulations NOT the same as EU. There is way too much to lose, to even attempt cheating. But we have seen other industries, bend the rules. That said, I do not believe that there is any intention to defraud the consumer going on, whatsoever!
Back when agencies within governmental control, (Casa do Douro?) bulk purchased “aguardente” were responsible for procurement of fortifying spirit for Port, in 1972-1973 there were REAL and dangerous chemicals found by a German lab in many Ports back from those two vintages. I will let Eric M. expound on that point if he would like. But it is very easy to find on FTLOP or Google about this terrible two years for Port.

I have personally observed the tasting panel of IVDP a couple of times way back when, and a simulation of that process in more recent years, as the head of that panel allowed, when doing this with a group. But far more importantly ... I have spoken to the head of the IVDP Tasting Panel many times and we remain in touch. These guys taste so much Port, they make me look like I am a rank beginner. The ongoing peer testing reviews of the IVDP panelists is tough and thorough. It rarely happens, where a taster’s palate is off and that individual is temporarily removed from the panel while their palate regains acuity. This can be someone having a cold, or their palate It is a heck of a process and these tasters are super professionals.

Is it possible for a mistake to be made? Certainly. When humans are involved, it is always possible. However, if you saw the specificity of the computerized methodology employed, combined with the human inspection and the evaluations utilized, it is safe to think/believe that this system is pretty close to fool proof.

IF the main point is to close the gap between the IVDP regulations about the age of Tawny Port With An Indication Of Age, (TWAIOA) and the EU laws … well that is possibly worth reviewing. But again, given a 2 year acceptable difference stated as the “margin of error” that would put most of the claims against certain producers, in a realm that is far less egregious. There is too much to lose and the current Port trade would NEVER jeopardize their reputations, company-by-company to obfuscate their methodology in blending, and the subsequent IVDP approvals or trying to short change consumers, with intent by using 2-4 years olds and calling them Port. No way, do I believe this to be even remotely the case.

But if this ONLY serves to bring interested parties at the laboratory and NL scientists, (along with NL importers, distributors and agents) and the Port trade to have discussions; that is not a bad thing. Nonetheless, I do not see this having huge long term impact on Port as a category. I am certain that groups mentioned, Sogevinus, RCV, Niepoort, and others ... are not jeopardizing all that they have built trying to hurt themselves by using non-natural aguardente or producing Ports that are of sub-par age and quality.

We shall see!

Roy,
So you are telling us every single Port producer is 100% on the up and up, for every single regulation? Perhaps pull your head out of the sand. There will always be some company that will take short cuts. Of course, the majority don't want the bad press and are genuinely good folks so they will stay above board. As the saying goes, the minority ruins it for the majority.

So have you seen any newborn LBV bottling that can show or fool one into believing that it is a 10 Year Old TWAIOA? Yeah, me neither!

Roy, you like Madeira, how do you think they age those cheap ones so fast. They even admit to how it's done. Just saying...

The bigger issue here is truth in advertising. The trade has used "average age" as the easy explanation to the general public. Trying to explain the real regulation and definition is difficult for the masses to understand. Most companies have kept their blend "average" above the stated age for many reasons, but it is clear some don't because the IVPD rules don't require it and it saves them money by artificially aging younger Ports and using those instead of older ones. So either change the labeling and how you sell it (don't call it an average age), or change the regulations to state it must be an average age and keep labels and the story the same.

This isn't a new issue, it's just now front page news world wide. It should have been addressed by the IVDP a long time ago.

[Eric Menchen]

So for a 10 year old blend, if 50% is say 7 years old, 30 % 8 years old, and 20% 15 years old, how would that calculate out for the carbon 14 measurements? 7 and a half?

If averaged by volume, that would be 8.9 years old.
(0.5 × 7) + (0.3 × 8) + (0.2 × 15) = 8.9

I agree with Glenn's math. But one question I raised earlier, is how linear is the atmospheric carbon 14 decrease from year to year? Reading the study, it kind of sounded like they computed a carbon 14 number and tried to fit it to a year, not taking into account the fact that the wine is a blend. If the carbon 14 is pretty linear, then their method still works reasonably well. If there is a fair bit of variation, I'm not so sure.

[Moses Botbol]

Do you want your 10 year tawny to be chemically averaged 10 years old or do you want your 10 year tawny to taste at least 10+ years old not care so much how they did it?

Does it have to be both?

[Glenn E.]

So for a 10 year old blend, if 50% is say 7 years old, 30 % 8 years old, and 20% 15 years old, how would that calculate out for the carbon 14 measurements? 7 and a half?

If averaged by volume, that would be 8.9 years old.
(0.5 × 7) + (0.3 × 8) + (0.2 × 15) = 8.9

I agree with Glenn's math. But one question I raised earlier, is how linear is the atmospheric carbon 14 decrease from year to year? Reading the study, it kind of sounded like they computed a carbon 14 number and tried to fit it to a year, not taking into account the fact that the wine is a blend. If the carbon 14 is pretty linear, then their method still works reasonably well. If there is a fair bit of variation, I'm not so sure.

My understanding is that the decrease is very linear - half life is a very stable computation - but the uptake can vary significantly from year to year. (Note that when we're talking about extremely small numbers, something can be significant while still an even smaller number. It's all relative.) So yes, the number of wines in a blend as well as their exact years is important to the calculation, and not knowing those things would contribute to the calculated result being incorrect. I do not know how incorrect it might be, but that might be part of the reason that they've provided a +/- 2 year calculated age.

I also believe that I've read that the variation in atmospheric Carbon 14 is sufficient that two different years can appear to have the same age. The atmosphere is not homogenous, so region also plays into the calculation.

[Andy Velebil]

My understanding is the method used and all the data was sent to the IVDP. They also plan to put it in publication for peer review. I'm going to assume since the IVDP hasn't come out and said "Ah, ha, this is where they went wrong in their study", that they are sending it out for peer review, and that it came from a major university, that it is pretty much going to be on the up and up.

[Eric Ifune]

I agree with Glenn's math. But one question I raised earlier, is how linear is the atmospheric carbon 14 decrease from year to year? Reading the study, it kind of sounded like they computed a carbon 14 number and tried to fit it to a year, not taking into account the fact that the wine is a blend. If the carbon 14 is pretty linear, then their method still works reasonably well. If there is a fair bit of variation, I'm not so sure.

This is what I was thinking.

[Eric Menchen]

My understanding is that the decrease is very linear - half life is a very stable computation - but the uptake can vary significantly from year to year. (Note that when we're talking about extremely small numbers, something can be significant while still an even smaller number. It's all relative.) So yes, the number of wines in a blend as well as their exact years is important to the calculation, and not knowing those things would contribute to the calculated result being incorrect. I do not know how incorrect it might be, but that might be part of the reason that they've provided a +/- 2 year calculated age.

I also believe that I've read that the variation in atmospheric Carbon 14 is sufficient that two different years can appear to have the same age. The atmosphere is not homogenous, so region also plays into the calculation.

Half life is very stable, and the above ground nuclear testing is a all done. But there is a still a solar contribution making new carbon 14, and that varies based on solar cycles. But yeah, I think it is probably pretty linear and the data pretty accurate. From my reading, the greatest uncertainty contributing to that two year range came from not knowing the details of the aguardente additions.

[Frederick Blais]

A few interesting points worth replying or mentionning...

- Until the 60's Tawny with indication of age did not exist. It was a brand and you had to know which brand from each company was more or less what you were looking for. Some companies keep those brand, a quick example, Burmester 40 years old is still named Tordiz.

-To make a Tawny 10 years old according to the IVDP style, you can't age a vintage for 10 years, it will not have the style. But you can definitively age some Morisco or bastardo grapes for 3-4 years in 225l cask in the Douro and I'm sure it will look like a possible and plausible Tawny 10 years old that can fool the panel. It is not the pannel not being competent, but the system being cheated here.

-If you are into Scotch Whiskey you probably remember Macallan dropping their age mention on the blends and creating brands like Platinum or whateveer to express the quality over the age, the idea behind this came because they did not have the stocks to maintain their aged blend and they needed a shortcut to keep the volumes and the cash flowing... it did not work.

Is the regulation makes it complicated for producers to maintain the cash flow of their business so they have to cheat?
Did they just cheat to make more money by managing to create a cheaper product to cut on prices and get shelves access over the competion?

[Glenn E.]

Is the regulation makes it complicated for producers to maintain the cash flow of their business so they have to cheat?
Did they just cheat to make more money by managing to create a cheaper product to cut on prices and get shelves access over the competion?

Is it really cheating if the requirement is not for an actual age, but for a Port that has certain taste/organoleptic characteristics?

If you can achieve those characteristics with a 3 year old Port... is that really a problem, objectively? Or is the actual problem more that it's being marketed as a 10 Year Old when it isn't actually 10 years old? I.e. the problem is the label not the Port itself.

The reality is that Portugal should have corrected this back when they first came into conflict with EU law, because if they'd done so back then they could have easily explained it as a change mandated by EU law. Now that they've been doing it wrong for 30+ years it's going to be embarrassing to change because that will mean having to admit that they haven't been complying with the law for all these years.

[Frederick Blais]

Come on Glenn! We all know(consumers and producers) that when the category got created and named 10 year(s) old Tawny, it was not intended to sell 2,5 years old Port.

[Glenn E.]

Come on Glenn! We all know(consumers and producers) that when the category got created and named 10 year(s) old Tawny, it was not intended to sell 2,5 years old Port.

It was intended to sell Port that tastes like it is 10 years old.

I mean, it would have been trivial to write the law to require it to be 10 years old... on average, at minimum, or whatever other way you want to measure it. But they didn't do that, so one must assume it was intentional, which means they didn't actually care how old it was. Because if they'd cared, they could have trivially ensured that it was however old they wanted it to be.

Did they expect anyone to be able to do that with a Port that is only 2.5 years old? Probably not. But they could have prevented it, and didn't, so one must assume that it is okay from the Portuguese law point of view.

It's clearly not okay from the EU law point of view.

[Eric Menchen]

Well what do you think of this 20 year old tawny?
-----It doesn't taste like a 20 year old tawny; tastes nothing like that at all.
It doesn't? Are you quite sure?
-----Quite sure; tastes like piss.
Then we shall make a great office that shall judge the tawny, and twenty shall be the number thou shalt taste, and the number of the taste shall be twenty. Thirty shalt thou not count, neither count thou ten, excepting that thou then proceed to twenty. Forty is right out.

[Mike J. W.]

Well what do you think of this 20 year old tawny?
-----It doesn't taste like a 20 year old tawny; tastes nothing like that at all.
It doesn't? Are you quite sure?
-----Quite sure; tastes like piss.
Then we shall make a great office that shall judge the tawny, and twenty shall be the number thou shalt taste, and the number of the taste shall be twenty. Thirty shalt thou not count, neither count thou ten, excepting that thou then proceed to twenty. Forty is right out.

Sounds like the Holy Grail.

[Frederick Blais]

Come on Glenn! We all know(consumers and producers) that when the category got created and named 10 year(s) old Tawny, it was not intended to sell 2,5 years old Port.

It was intended to sell Port that tastes like it is 10 years old.

I mean, it would have been trivial to write the law to require it to be 10 years old... on average, at minimum, or whatever other way you want to measure it. But they didn't do that, so one must assume it was intentional, which means they didn't actually care how old it was. Because if they'd cared, they could have trivially ensured that it was however old they wanted it to be.

Did they expect anyone to be able to do that with a Port that is only 2.5 years old? Probably not. But they could have prevented it, and didn't, so one must assume that it is okay from the Portuguese law point of view.

It's clearly not okay from the EU law point of view.

I don't agree there Glenn, if you open a Port company today and in 5 years you ask the IVDP to approve a 10 years old Tawny, you might pass the tasting panel, but you won't be able to sell it because you don't have the stocks to produce it.

[Will W.]

If the resources are to hand, it would be ideal if the team which did the analyses to this point tested the equivalent ports produced, say, thirty years ago. Assuming the accuracy of the carbon dating, it would quickly be determined whether there are substantial differences betwixt what is passed off nowadays as a ten, twenty and so forth against the earlier product. If the results were comparable, then this would go to Glenn's point that the tawnies were from the start meant to taste like a blend of the indicative age. Evidence of a diminution of the age of the actual contents between today and thirty years ago would arguably suggest a deviation from the original intent.

Alternatively, one could simply find surviving members of the IVDP from the period at which the rules governing tawnies with an indication of age were established and ask what was the intent of those who drafted same. For what it's worth, it makes no sense to me that the drafters of the rules in the 1960s (or whenever it was) were of the view that wine to be labelled as a twenty year old need only taste as such, irrespective of the age of the wine. As I understand it, demand for tawny decades ago was limited relative to the available stocks, so there was no requirement for a 'tastes like/indicative age' standard let alone chicanery of one form or another.

[Andy Velebil]

Come on Glenn! We all know(consumers and producers) that when the category got created and named 10 year(s) old Tawny, it was not intended to sell 2,5 years old Port.

It was intended to sell Port that tastes like it is 10 years old.

I mean, it would have been trivial to write the law to require it to be 10 years old... on average, at minimum, or whatever other way you want to measure it. But they didn't do that, so one must assume it was intentional, which means they didn't actually care how old it was. Because if they'd cared, they could have trivially ensured that it was however old they wanted it to be.

Did they expect anyone to be able to do that with a Port that is only 2.5 years old? Probably not. But they could have prevented it, and didn't, so one must assume that it is okay from the Portuguese law point of view.

It's clearly not okay from the EU law point of view.

I don't agree there Glenn, if you open a Port company today and in 5 years you ask the IVDP to approve a 10 years old Tawny, you might pass the tasting panel, but you won't be able to sell it because you don't have the stocks to produce it.

Fred,
Not true. If I open a port company and buy older stocks from someone else I can make a 10 yr tawny my first year.