For The Love Of Port

Seems most of us rarely if ever buy leakers anymore, and if we do it's more "If the price is right" then maybe. Buying any bottle that has leakage is a gamble....some times you win but some times you lose.

It's probably safer to buy current leakers than bottles that show past signs of seapage. Past signs give a higher likelyhood of being baked than a slow recent leaking bottle.

A "new" leaker may be from a recent move of the bottle rather than imperfect storage.

Or as a result of a bottling line mistake...ala '97 Niepoort

Andy Velebil wrote:Or as a result of a bottling line mistake...ala '97 Niepoort

Would you mind elucidating a bit further on this one? I’m curious as to why they didn’t re-botttle if something went wrong (unless it wasn’t apparent until a few years later?).

Jacob,
Its been discussed before, even with a reply by Dirk, I'm just to tired after a long hot day at work to search for it right now :help: What happened in '97 was the bottles were not kept upright for a short time right after coming off the bottling line and placed into cases. As a results the corks had not expanded and sealed properly yet, so most 97 Niepoorts have signs of seepage issues. This wasn't noticed at the time as the bottles were already sealed in cases when the leakage happened. The down side is there is almost no way to tell what bottles that are currently for sale have old signs of seepage from the bottling line (which is no big deal) and what may have come from an improperly stored bottle.

Typically bottles are left standing upright for a short time after bottle to allow the corks to reexpand and totally "seat" themselves. That was a little on Niepoorts part.

Andy Velebil wrote:Jacob,
Its been discussed before, even with a reply by Dirk, I'm just to tired after a long hot day at work to search for it right now :help: What happened in '97 was the bottles were not kept upright for a short time right after coming off the bottling line and placed into cases. As a results the corks had not expanded and sealed properly yet, so most 97 Niepoorts have signs of seepage issues. This wasn't noticed at the time as the bottles were already sealed in cases when the leakage happened. The down side is there is almost no way to tell what bottles that are currently for sale have old signs of seepage from the bottling line (which is no big deal) and what may have come from an improperly stored bottle.

Typically bottles are left standing upright for a short time after bottle to allow the corks to reexpand and totally "seat" themselves. That was a little on Niepoorts part.

Thanks for the explanation! Having had a look with the search engine, I’ve seen various references to “the first time we discussed the Niepoort 1997” but the actual first thread remained elusive!

The thread Andy is talking about could be here, here or here.

Derek

Search was "Dirk 1997"

Considering my tight budget and small-scale consumption (compared to many posting here), I also stay away from 'leakers'; they just aren't worth the risk. However, I still often take a chance on 'good deals' on bottles with lower fills where there aren't obvious signs of leakage, even though these can also be risky. I would be more likely to take the latter risk with a dessert wine, esp. a fortified one like port, than a table wine.

Terrance L. wrote: However, I still often take a chance on 'good deals' on bottles with lower fills where there aren't obvious signs of leakage, even though these can also be risky. I would be more likely to take the latter risk with a dessert wine, esp. a fortified one like port, than a table wine.

Terrance,
I think the same way, as I am much more concerned about a fill level on an older bottle of dry wine than on a bottle of very old Port, as long as there is no seepage signs. I've had far more bad bottles of dry wine with slightly low fill levels than with Ports. Port is a little more hardier than dry wine and that can make a large difference. I still try to avoid them as much as possible, unless the price is very lucrative.