For The Love Of Port

http://www.foodista.com/blog/2013/06/03 ... -beginners#

I'm going to have to say Reserve Rubies are the way to go for someone with no port experience. My first port was 6 Grapes, and it probably helped that it wasn't too tannic, complex, or oxidative when it came to being able to wrap my head around it.

Bradley Bogdan wrote:I'm going to have to say Reserve Rubies are the way to go for someone with no port experience.

I'd say a 10 or 20 year tawny; either one from Taylor is a sure thing to start off with. With tawny there's less mystery; just pop and pour. Taylor is easy to find as well.

It's hard for many consumers to get something that is twenty years old "tasting" without worrying about storage, the cork, etc... Also, the tawny's are more consistent and we want their first experience to be a good one.

Moses Botbol wrote:I'd say a 10 or 20 year tawny;

I agree, and lean toward the 20 year old tawny. Granted, a $50 bottle might seem pretty pricey to people who are just starting out, but in my experience people who are new to Port tend to like tawnies better than rubies. So why not start them out at the peak of the QPR curve?

As a relative beginner here I would have to say Reserve Ruby, especially Six Grapes. Not sure I would like port as much as I do if I had started with Tawny. I think it is much more an acquired taste whereas the ruby seems to be just a step up from a nice red wine. But then, what do we beginners know.

I think 20 year is too steep a price for someone introducing themselves to port. For introduction, it has to be a ten year.

LBVs can be as cheap as a good Ruby Reserve and still be a quality drink. And they won't be hesitant to buy it again ( on concerns of price).

Michael T wrote:As a relative beginner here I would have to say Reserve Ruby, especially Six Grapes. Not sure I would like port as much as I do if I had started with Tawny. I think it is much more an acquired taste whereas the ruby seems to be just a step up from a nice red wine. But then, what do we beginners know.

I totally agree, the average novice wine drinker doesn't have much reference for oxidative flavors in wine, or if they do, associate them with a flaw, as most novices don't start out with older wines. From what I've seen, the fact that reserve rubies can be more obvious on average than LBVs helps someone with no reference to port link the flavors back to familiar things, even if the wine as a whole is very different. I would sooner go with an LBV over a 20 year though for a newbie on price alone, as $40-$50 is plenty enough to induce sticker shock in someone probably not used to spending more than $15-$20 as most folks just getting into wine are.

Now, if someone has a lot of experience with wine, and just not port in particular, I think starting with a 20 year is a great idea, as they probably have some reference for the flavors and won't be thrown off by the price

The wine that did it for me was a Taylor's LBV in early 2002.
Hence, at least from my experience, LBV seems to do the trick.
Would take a reserve ruby over an entry level tawny for a standard intro to port. Ruby seems to have more of the fruitiness that people associate w red table wine.

What got me hooked on Port many years ago was a 1966 and 1970 Taylor's VP. So I'm probably not the best one to answer this question

I think Michael T. make a ton of sense here!

Michael T wrote:As a relative beginner here I would have to say Reserve Ruby, especially Six Grapes. Not sure I would like port as much as I do if I had started with Tawny. I think it is much more an acquired taste whereas the ruby seems to be just a step up from a nice red wine. But then, what do we beginners know.

The people I have introduced to Port who were already drinkers of dry red wines were attracted to tawnies because they were different. An acquired taste, as you put it. To them, rubies were just a very sweet red wine. Tawnies were something new and different because they had very little or no prior experience with oxidation in wines.

Now there are also people out there who like sweet wines, but have only tried sweet whites before. Maybe they're fans of Sauternes or Riesling Ausleses. For those people, a sweet red wine like a Port is something new and different, so they very well might take to rubies immediately.

The moral of the story: know your audience.

Glenn E. wrote:

Michael T wrote:The moral of the story: know your audience.

Six months ago I was the audience, just my perspective, yours may differ.

Michael T wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

Michael T wrote:The moral of the story: know your audience.

Six months ago I was the audience, just my perspective, yours may differ.

Yeah, I was the audience almost 9 years ago. Still a relative newbie compared to most of the experts on this forum!

Most people here push rubies over tawnies. I just try to provide the counter-perspective.

I often wonder, though, if the general preference for rubies isn't maybe a self-fulfilling prophecy? I tend to prefer tawnies, so when I introduce people to Port I introduce them to tawnies. Those people tend to develop a preference for tawnies. It may be relevant that I was, in my turn, also introduced to Port via a tawny - the Porto Rocha 20-yr old. So could it be that people tend to develop a preference for whatever they're introduced to first?

Glenn? Tawny Port? who are they? Ok just kidding. I love both and drink a lot of both types. But if push came to shove and I had to pick one type to drink for the rest of my life it would be rubies (LBV, SQVP, VP). There is a pleasure in drinking them that tawny's just don't provide. Just my

Glenn E. wrote:

Moses Botbol wrote:I'd say a 10 or 20 year tawny;

I agree, and lean toward the 20 year old tawny. Granted, a $50 bottle might seem pretty pricey to people who are just starting out, but in my experience people who are new to Port tend to like tawnies better than rubies. So why not start them out at the peak of the QPR curve?

Similar to Glenn, my introduction to Port was via an amazing glass of Taylor 20 Year Old. I must say that it took awhile before I developed an appreciation for the ruby varieties of Port. A well stored, mature VP can deliver a sensory experience that is second to none. Although I must say that I rarely drink LBVs or basic rubies and the vast majority of my Port consumption are tawnies of sort or another. If I could only drink one type of Port, it would probably be Colheitas. In my opinion, they tend to be reflective of the year of harvest and it is that variability, along with the skill of the winemaker that when combined with the notes that develop over long- term oxidative aging produces a smooth, complex wine.

As for a beginner, perhaps the tawny vs. ruby decision should be based on what the person otherwise likes and drinks. Does the person like big fruity red wines, or cognac, or sherry, or ... Of course these things are all different and the candidate may like them all, but if there are clear preferences and dislikes, this could be a guide.

I am not sure that in the early stages of drinking Port wine, that any decision has to be made. For most of us, it has taken years to learn which is our preference when it comes to Port. Some have figured it out early on, but I'd say, let the beginner experiment and their palate will eventually go in one direction ... or maybe not.

How many here were started on port wannabe's, aka non-Portuguese fortified wine?