For The Love Of Port

I tasted a Noval 2001 LBV March 21, 2010. This was unfiltered, bottled in 2007. $21.99/bottle.

I decanted 3.5 hours before drinking. The last 4 oz of the wine had significant sediment in it. Additionally, a goodly crust of sediment adhered to the inside of the bottle and came off in slabs or lozenges as I rinsed the bottle with water. I poured half the contents of the decanter back into the bottle and corked it for consumption the next day.

The color was a deep garnet. The bouquet was pleasing but modest and shy. The taste was medium to lightly sweet; good fruit flavor -- pretty and rich tasting. Flavors of licorice, plum, raspberry, and mint. There was some tannin in the taste, and it seemed to me this wine could improve further with more age -- perhaps improving for 5 years. The after taste had medium length. 87/100. (I'm a little uncomfortable providing score, but Roy prefers this. I thought this was about average LBV quality --I've had better and I've had worse.)

(after completing remaining 1/2 bottle on March 22, 2010). I was more pleased with the Port this evening. More of the same, but the bouquet seemed a little more alive and the taste was as good or better. I have also increased my score, perhaps more in response to Roy's comments than a different evaluation on my part of the Port. After my final tasting, I would say that this LBV was slightly above the average of the LBVs I have tasted. See my comments on Roy's response below.

After I dispatch the remaining 1/2 bottle of this tonight I may supplement this tasting note with any further thoughts or comments I may have. My wife shared about 2 oz with me and decided that this was not to her liking -- I would guess not as sweet as she would have liked. Too bad, I had to consume her remaining share of the 1/2 bottle I had decanted!

Unfortunately, while retrieving my decanter from the refrigerator (I cool my decanted Port for a brief interval, as I find that Port at 72 degrees room temperature is a bit harsh) I crunched the edge of the opening and broke the glass edge of the decanter. I rescued the port by pouring through one of those stainless steel funnels with a fine wiremesh funnel into another decanter. Time to replace my decanter, as I do not like the "other decanter" I used last night: smallish and having crude glass molding pattern and red coloration on the lower half of the pineapple shape.

Sorry for your loss w/ the decanter Michael.

I am not going to tell you what to score your Ports and truly appreciate you doing so. I would however, suggest you take a look at what others score a moderatly good to very good LBV. I only say this because tyically an 82 point Port would never be something I would buy with the intent to drink. Your mileage may vary. Just sayin' ... please do not take ANY offense to this. More than anything, I am pleased you're now scoring your Ports.

Roy:

I appreciate your guidance on scores. As I said above, I am nervous giving scores. I understand that scoring wines is inherently a norming process. This process works best, I think, when you have a broad experience with the subject wine type -- in this case Port wine -- so that you understand what the norms are! As a neophyte, I do not yet have that broad experience of Port to be comfortable pronouncing where a given Port should be ranked with reference to those norms.

Even before I read your comment, I went back and looked at some of my recent scores on other LBVs I have tasted -- Ramos Pinto 2001 LBV (85/100) and Fonseca 2003 LBV (87/100) -- and realized that my original score of 82/100 was not appropriate for the Noval 2001 LBV. After my second sampling of the Noval 2001 LBV last night, I feel it is somewhat better than the average of LBVs that I have sampled and have kicked it up to 87/100. Even these scores may be low, but I guess I would prefer to be conservative rather than over rank. All of these LBVs were pleasing, and I have bought the better part of a case of both the Ramos Pinto 2001 LBV and Fonseca 2003 LBV to store for 5 years on the basis of my satisfaction with those Ports. My hope and expectation is that they will improve and be even more satisfying -- and perhaps develop a more penetrating bouquet than I found drinking them recently (in my experience bouquet seems to be closely coupled with greater age, but maybe that is poppycock and is rather simply a matter of the original quality of the wine) -- with some further modest aging.

I very much appreciate your guidance. I expect that my scoring will continue to evolve as my sense of the norm improves. That actually leads me to a follow up question: what range of scores would you associate with three quality points in LBVs -- average LBV, slightly above average LBV, and slightly below average LBV? I'm just asking for an approximate range. I know you may be accustomed to some other more involved scoring system -- perhaps scoring appearence, bouquet, taste, and after taste separately. My guess is that an outstanding LBV may score 90/100 and that this may substantially equal a sound but not entirely satisfying VP that could also score 90/100. I guess I'm asking for some sort of further guidance on scoring LBVs -- which I do tend to drink most often -- without knowing precisely how to articulate the question.

Roy Hersh wrote:Sorry for your loss w/ the decanter Michael.

Thanks for your condolences, Roy. I confess that I have already callously discarded my former consort and replaced her with a bright new model with the kind of firm curves that I like. May we have a long and satisfying relationship!

I was pleased to find something at Sur la Table that was almost exactly like what I broke. Interestingly, they said this decanter has titanium in it and that it is substantially stronger than ordinary glass decanters (implying that the decanter I had broken and which I brought in to assure I got the right size and approximately the same shape was of lesser stuff). Marketing hype? I dunno. This decanter -- as did the discarded, broken babe -- has a moderately flared mouth and a deep belly that is not so wide and flattened out as a ship decanter style. The volume is adequate to receive a full bottle of Port at well below the narrow neck of the decanter, thereby leaving ample surface area for interacting with the air.

Your new decanter sounds great and Sur La Table is a fine source for decanters. I like decanters that provide for plenty of surface area contact with oxygen. I am not a fan of narrow decanters unless using it for a v. old bottle where you are merely racking the juice off the sediment. Otherwise, a wider profile on the bottom is preferable ... at least for me.

Thanks for not taking my post defensively and it sounds like you definitely understood my missive. Let me try to be helpful by answering your excellent question:

what range of scores would you associate with three quality points in LBVs -- average LBV, slightly above average LBV, and slightly below average LBV?

:

For me an avg. LBV score is typically in the range of: 84-87 points (therefore 83 or less is below average)
For me a good LBV score (one I'd consider buying again) is typically in the range of: 88-90
For me an excellent LBV score would typically be in the range of: 92-93 with a mindblowing LBV at 94 points. I've never given a higher score for an LBV.

This is a very subjective scale, but scores are just that, one man's opinion and the way an amateur or pro goes about scoring will typically vary.