For The Love Of Port

http://networkedblogs.com/EcKyE

Is there really much of a difference between grapes done by the human food and robotic feet now that have been utilized since SFE first put them in use in 1998?

The quality/constancy of wines and ports has improved over the last 20 years, not by accident

Roy Hersh wrote:Foot trading vs. robotics"

Can I keep my own feet please? I don't want to trade.

Me neither, typo fixed, thanks Phil.

YES.... There is a diffrents

Have tasted 3 bottels at Grahams . bottel A, B and C
Then place them after what best... All at the tasting placed them the same - B,C and A

B - foot
C - Robotic
A - Smashed

There is a small diffrents between B and C....
My opinion - BACK TO NATURE... FOOT

Anders C wrote:YES.... There is a diffrents

Have tasted 3 bottels at Grahams . bottel A, B and C
Then place them after what best... All at the tasting placed them the same - B,C and A

B - foot
C - Robotic
A - Smashed

There is a small diffrents between B and C....
My opinion - BACK TO NATURE... FOOT

I have done a similar blind tasting with some from this forum. While a little mixed in terms of what people liked best, the overwhelming picked either foot treading or the robotic foot press the best. The plunger being a far off third.

In this taste test, my favorite ended up being the foot treaded sample, then the robotic foot second, and a distant third was the plunger. The plunger had the lightest weight, shortest finish, and the brightest red fruit. While the foot treaded was the most elegant, darkest, best acidity, bolder tannins, and longest and most complex finish. The robotic was similar to the foot treaded one the only main difference was it wasn't as concentrated and didn't show the same level of acidity.

So I say keep those human feet stomping when it comes to making the top VP's.

Proven to be the best over numerous centuries, why change now?

In a robotic lagar of stainless steel, the silicon padding might be a good mimic to the human foot, but the stainless stell container is nowhere close to be similar to a granitic lagare that has that abrasive texture that help crush and extract from the skins and stems.

I did also try the robotic/traditional lagares and plunger from the 2004 vintage at Graham's and my favourite was traditionnal method.

+1.

I forget which year I did the same test mentioned above, but for me, even blind, picking a favorite turned out to be the foot treading. Don't remember the exact tour/year this was done, but the results were varied by taster, so YMMV.

Roy Hersh wrote:+1.

I forget which year I did the same test mentioned above, but for me, even blind, picking a favorite turned out to be the foot treading. Don't remember the exact tour/year this was done, but the results were varied by taster, so YMMV.

It was 2007 IIRC

Roy Hersh wrote:+1.

I forget which year I did the same test mentioned above, but for me, even blind, picking a favorite turned out to be the foot treading. Don't remember the exact tour/year this was done, but the results were varied by taster, so YMMV.

We also did that test blind on the first tour (2005) in the blending room at Dow's. I might have some pictures!

Roy Hersh wrote:Proven to be the best over numerous centuries, why change now?

Because you can't find people willing to do 6 hours treading after picking grapes for 12 hours at prices which the producers can afford?

Roy Hersh wrote:Is there really much of a difference between grapes done by the human food and robotic feet now that have been utilized since SFE first put them in use in 1998?

Are there any years where a side-by-side comparison using the 'same' grapes were split with one half being foot-trodden and the other half mechanical, for comparison? I imagine if so that (at least one half) would be library stock only, but such a direct comparison would be very interesting (and if so, I wonder if any of the producers would be prepared to release a small number of bottles to allow us to perform such a test at a tasting).

Phil W wrote:Are there any years where a side-by-side comparison using the 'same' grapes were split with one half being foot-trodden and the other half mechanical, for comparison?

There was an interesting Malvedos blog article on this topic when they did this with the 2008 harvest - see here. Paul Symington's comment at the bottom of the article is also interesting.

Perhaps i'm reading too much into the article, but their description of the differences between the two methods also gives a sense as to why the "traditional" method may show more favourably when tasted as a young port, but may not ultimately be better in the long term.

The move back to foot treading by many producers, for their Vintage Ports during the past fifteen years is pretty telling. Lots have gone in that direction; while many never moved away from it in the first place.

I'm assuming that the costs of hiring treaders are much more in the long run than the robotics. I'm sure the participants here on the forum would gladly pay more for an improved product; but what about the mass of buyers out there?

Eric Ifune wrote:I'm assuming that the costs of hiring treaders are much more in the long run than the robotics. I'm sure the participants here on the forum would gladly pay more for an improved product; but what about the mass of buyers out there?

And more so, trying to find people to do it. It's getting harder and harder to find a work force that will work all day in the fields then tread for a few more hours after dinner. It is a real issue facing the Douro. I'm sure paying them more helps them in their decision to come back after dinner for some additional work, and I for one have no issues paying a tad more if it keeps VP at the high level it's at.

Then again, even auto-vinification CAN make a fantastic VP. Dow's is proof of that