Ever had a port you didn't like?

[Glenn E.]

I'm not at all familiar with the process so this is just a purely subjective guess, but if I were running an organization like the IVdP the standards for each grade of Port would be entirely different.

Vintage Port and Colheita would be held to the highest standard. If you submit something for approval as a VP, it might very well be perfectly capable of being approved as a (for example) LBV yet still get rejected as a VP.

On the other end of the scale, the standards for a basic Ruby are probably pretty low. But a big name company is going to put out something significantly better than that low standard because they want to make a good impression and earn a good reputation.

Just a guess.

[Derek T.]

A good portion of all ports submitted to the IVDP get rejected at least once or more.

Andy,

Are you sure they are "rejected" - i.e. the producer is told that it will not be permitted to sell the wine. Or, are they just rated against a miriad of quality criteria and a report sent beack to the Producer that he then uses to decide for himself what to do next?

This seems to be a process that would make a fantastic addition to one of Roy's trips. A visit to a producer who is preparing his blends for submission to the IVDP followed by a visit to the IVDP lab where those blens are tested, rated and the results fed back to the producer. Given the number of different Ports produced in a year this must be a daily occurrence so timing shouldn't be much of an issue unless you wanted to see it applied to VP.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

Yes, as rejected simply means they were not approved to be sold as their intended product. Its a common thing and a sore spot for many producers. From what I've gathered, it really is a roll of the dice to see if your product gets approved the first or even second time around. It's really a bit silly if you ask me, as its more of a cat-and-mouse game between the IVDP and producers.

[JacobH]

Yes, as rejected simply means they were not approved to be sold as their intended product. Its a common thing and a sore spot for many producers. From what I've gathered, it really is a roll of the dice to see if your product gets approved the first or even second time around. It's really a bit silly if you ask me, as its more of a cat-and-mouse game between the IVDP and producers.

Andy, is this something that affects all producers, or only the smaller shippers? I'd be surprised to hear that, for instance, Quinta do Noval, are required to submit their VP several times, in different blends, before it gets approved. I'm also curious about which types of Port it affects the most. Is the IVDP particularly noted for rejecting VPs, whilst letting almost anything through as Ruby, or visa versa?

I can see the importance of some sort of quality assurance at the Ruby/Basic Tawny end of the Port market, where drinkers may be less well informed and could easily buy something that would put them off for life. However, I wonder whether there is there much point in the IVDP taste-testing VP and Colheitas where the target market is usually well informed and where there is a certain expectation of variation between different shippers and vintages.

Presumably another affect of the taste-testing is that vintage declarations are not really in the hands of the producers, as the IVDP could veto a vintage if it choose.

-Jacob

[Todd Pettinger]

Just like Andy, I once made the mistake of Visiting the Vasconcellos lodge. Horrible stuff.
At the moment I have a bottle of Cockburn Special Reserve in the fridge. A pain to the palate.

Although I will admit to finishing my bottle of Cockburn Special Reserve, I too, agree with Ronald - there was literally nothing about this particular Port that I liked or found as a "bright side" to an otherwise horrible offer.

This thread has intrigued me... I may have to end up revisiting the Cockburn SR just because... but this time, I have all sorts of creative ideas in mind just in case the Port ends up being as horrible as I remember it...


Taylor's First Estate started out this way as well... it was only thru laziness (someone mentioned this way up in the thread) that allowed me to keep it in a decanter (must have had no other use for the decanter... which is weird, since I only have one decanter adequate for Port consumption... in two weeks...

Does this mean I have to leave the Cockburn Special Reserve in a decanter for two weeks too??? I'm gonna have to buy some more (cheap) decanters just for this purpose........

Todd