For The Love Of Port

For those who are just beginning with Port wine exploration or even for the serious enthusiast, this is a very solid category of Port. Here are 3 good reasons for buying this type of Port regardless of your level of wine knowledge or discretionary income:

1. Value for money - Between a basic Ruby Port and LBV, comes this fine category of what used to be called "Vintage Character Port". It was ultimately deemed by the trade to be too confusing to consumers. In 2005, nomenclature changes took place and the IVDP renamed this category Ruby Reserve (and/or Reserve Ruby). Pricing on these Ports is quite reasonable and provides a LOT of drinking pleasure in a Port that should sell at retail within the $12-$18 range. On a given evening or at a time when Vintage Port, TWAIOA (Tawnies with an indication of age) or a fine glass of Colheita is not possible, or even something less expensive is desired -- these Ruby Reserve Ports make for very easy sippers and are also great to cook with.

2. Quality - Why open a Reserve Ruby when you can get a far more serious Port by opening a Vintage Port or 20 year old Tawny, (to name just two other great categories of Ports)? It is simple. you don't eat steak every night because it would lose its speciality and become routine. Diversity is good. Same with this category of Port too, mix it up on a weeknight after a rough day at work, or pour a glass to enjoy with your dinner. What is better than just having a glass of Port while surfing the web, watching a fun flick on TV or listening to some fine music?

3. Convenience - On a moment's notice you can pick up a bottle at a wine shop or even most grocery stores that have a wine section. Then again, you may keep some bottles of Ruby Reserve/Reserve Ruby (terms are interchangeable) at home as "cellar defenders." Within this category of Port you really don't have to worry about sediment unless you've forgotten a bottle for a decade or more, at which time there may be some small amount of sediment that has precipitated out. Regardless, this is the kind of Port you can open any time you'd like, without any prior thought or preparation. It is best served just a few degrees cooler than room temp, so I suggest putting it into your refrigerator for 5-10 minutes, (unless it was removed from a temperature controled wine cellar). If you prefer and/or time does not permit prior planning at all, simply serve it at room temp. These Ports don't need much air time, although I have found that some can be slightly spirity early on. By the 2nd or 3rd day nearly all will improve slightly, often gaining a little more body weight and they may seem more well-balanced and with greater depth.

Here are a half dozen tried and true bottlings to seek out, in no particular order:

* Warre's Warrior
* Taylor's First Estate
* Graham's Six Grapes
* Sandeman Founder's Reserve
* Fonseca Bin 27
* Cockburn's Special Reserve

Interesting - I'd not really considered these.

Although now, looking through my records, I've enjoyed the Bin 27, Quinta do Infantade and Dona Antónia which the labels seem to indicate to be this style.
Here in the Portuguese supermarkets, they're a similar price, or slightly more, than some LBVs (Pingo Doce 2008 "own brand" made by Symington is 8.49 euros, and eminently drinkable).

I've added those you suggested to my (ever growing) list of things to try - so thanks.

I use the Warre's Warrior Port for making an excellent sauce for grilled lamb chops. I like to drink the Fonseca Bin 27 and the Cockburn's Special Reserve. I sometimes take a bottle of one of those ruby reserves when I am traveling on the road so I have something pleasing to drink in my hotel room.

Taylor's First Estate ran away with the overall title during the Ruby Reserve Taste-Off in 2012. It won (or tied for the win) at every event where it was tasted, which is pretty impressive. It's a very solid Port that's reasonably priced and easy to drink!

I've just tried a Krohn Ruby. I've never had it before. It does seem to have a bit of age on it, like a mix of Ruby Reserve and Tawny Reserve. Nice and a buy at $9.75 where I got it. I'm going to get the rest.

I enjoy many of the Ruby Reserves mentioned here but I think it would be doing them a disservice to categorise them as cooking Port. Using the odd splash in an impromptu sauce when it is simply what is available is fine (I've done it with very fine Vintage Port so can't criticise anyone for doing it with these), but I think these Ports deserve a better intended end than sizzling away in the bottom of a sauce pan.

If you want to cook with Port as a regular ingredient buy basic Ruby at half the price

Derek T. wrote:If you want to cook with Port as a regular ingredient buy basic Ruby at half the price

I would if I could but I can't.

Stupid WA liquor taxes. Basic ruby, when you can find it, is normally about $15/bottle. Reserves are $18-$20. LBVs are $20-$25.

Derek T. wrote:I enjoy many of the Ruby Reserves mentioned here but I think it would be doing them a disservice to categorise them as cooking Port.

When it comes to cooking with wine, many chefs will tell you that if it isn't good enough to drink, it isn't good enough to cook with. That's especially true if you are cooking Keith Floyd style (not sure if he was known in the US, but the UK contingent will be familiar with him).

Unfortunately for me most of the ruby reserves are either hard to find, or very expensive. I've never seen the Taylors first estate or the Sandeman, while the 6 Grapes and Fonseca set me back close to AU $50 (which is odd as I can now buy the Graham's LBV much cheaper. while the Taylors LBV is still the cheapest port I can buy)
On a positive note the Cockburns seems to be getting a wider distribution in my area these days... the local supermarket bottleshops now stock it which is only a very recent development.

Considering I don't cook much where I would need more than a small amount of Port, I don't worry to much if I use some Ruby Reserve. If I am going to use a lot, say for a reduction or to saute with, then I'll go get a $7 basic Ruby at Trader Joe's.

But I too enjoy a nice Ruby Reserve and I think the quality of many of them have gotten better over the years.

Paul Fountain wrote:When it comes to cooking with wine, many chefs will tell you that if it isn't good enough to drink, it isn't good enough to cook with.

Cook's Illustrated (America's Test Kitchen) tested that old wives' tale and proved it wrong.

They made a couple of different dishes using a couple of different red wines. I don't recall too many specifics, but it was something like a fancy French red wine, a mid-range California red, and two buck Chuck. The dishes were something like a Bolognese, a boeuf bourguignon, and... something else... sorry, can't remember what it was.

Two buck Chuck won every dish. The fancy French wine and the mid-range California red couldn't touch it. The taste-testers reported that the dishes made with two buck Chuck were just more flavorful and lively.

In their conclusion they theorized that the nuances that make a "good" wine so tasty to drink just disappear when you cook with it. You need something really, really fruity to survive the cooking process.

So a standard Ruby might actually be the best Port for cooking.

Because two buck chuck probably has a tad bit of residual sugar added (stirring the pot there lol)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Generally we do not cook with wine so I cannot comment intelligently. But sometimes the cheaper brands of anything do better; for instance, when it comes to a gin & tonic, hands down the best gin is Gordon's. The nuances and refinement of a top shelf gin are lost in the mix; those rough edges of the cheaper brands add depth that a refined gin cannot. Perhaps it is the same with wine.

John M. wrote:Generally we do not cook with wine so I cannot comment intelligently. But sometimes the cheaper brands of anything do better; for instance, when it comes to a gin & tonic, hands down the best gin is Gordon's. The nuances and refinement of a top shelf gin are lost in the mix; those rough edges of the cheaper brands add depth that a refined gin cannot. Perhaps it is the same with wine.

I completely agree. I think the only spirits that are capable of showing marked differences in quality are those that can be enjoyed neat or with water.

Glenn E. wrote:

Paul Fountain wrote:When it comes to cooking with wine, many chefs will tell you that if it isn't good enough to drink, it isn't good enough to cook with.

Cook's Illustrated (America's Test Kitchen) tested that old wives' tale and proved it wrong.

They made a couple of different dishes using a couple of different red wines. I don't recall too many specifics, but it was something like a fancy French red wine, a mid-range California red, and two buck Chuck. The dishes were something like a Bolognese, a boeuf bourguignon, and... something else... sorry, can't remember what it was.

Two buck Chuck won every dish. The fancy French wine and the mid-range California red couldn't touch it. The taste-testers reported that the dishes made with two buck Chuck were just more flavorful and lively.

In their conclusion they theorized that the nuances that make a "good" wine so tasty to drink just disappear when you cook with it. You need something really, really fruity to survive the cooking process.

So a standard Ruby might actually be the best Port for cooking.

Rule number 2, is don't use anything with big oak for cooking, particularly if you are reducing the wine. While I'm aware of 2 buck chuck, I've never tried it, so I don't know how bad it is, but I am guessing that it has a lot less oak influence than the other two they used. So yes, there is nothing wrong with Ruby in cooking but it is probably still drinkable too.

Since I'm being contrarian tonight, I'm going to partially disagree on the gin too.... I do agree that the nuances and refinement can be lost when mixing, but the botanicals can still stand out. Personally I'd be happy enough with Gordons over Tanqueray (or the much more expensive Tanqueray 10) , but I much prefer a Bombay Sapphire over them in a Gin and tonic because of what the botanicals bring. In Porto in 2011 I tried a gin that had used rosemary as a botanical (Were you there for that Andy?) and that certainly stood out in a gin and tonic. There is lots of interesting stuff happening in the world of gin at the moment... Lots of small batch artisan stuff happening in the US, the Sipsmith gin has been well received in London, that Rosemary gin was French and in my part of the world producers have been playing around with native botanicals

Paul Fountain wrote:

Since I'm being contrarian tonight, I'm going to partially disagree on the gin too.... I do agree that the nuances and refinement can be lost when mixing, but the botanicals can still stand out. Personally I'd be happy enough with Gordons over Tanqueray (or the much more expensive Tanqueray 10) , but I much prefer a Bombay Sapphire over them in a Gin and tonic because of what the botanicals bring. In Porto in 2011 I tried a gin that had used rosemary as a botanical (Were you there for that Andy?) and that certainly stood out in a gin and tonic. There is lots of interesting stuff happening in the world of gin at the moment... Lots of small batch artisan stuff happening in the US, the Sipsmith gin has been well received in London, that Rosemary gin was French and in my part of the world producers have been playing around with native botanicals

I'm a gin drinker and I agree with Paul. Lots of small producers popping up here in the States who are making some amazing things that mix really well. Though I'm mostly a gin and tonic kinda guy, the botanicals make a gin when mixing.

Interesting commentary on the gin. About 5 years ago I did a blind tasting of G&Ts and the Gordons won handily. Tanqueray came in last. Bombay Sapphire (my favorite in a true martini, or just on the rocks) did OK. 2nd place went to Calvert's, another cheap one. Others in the mix were Beefeater's and Hendricks, both of whcih I like in martini's/on the rocks. The Hendricks, being so floral, was odd with the lemon and lime and tonic.

As to Glenn being so contrary---not at all really; just your preference---if you ever visit I will happily make you one with Bombay Sapphire....

Paul Fountain wrote:While I'm aware of 2 buck chuck, I've never tried it, so I don't know how bad it is, but I am guessing that it has a lot less oak influence than the other two they used. So yes, there is nothing wrong with Ruby in cooking but it is probably still drinkable too.

I think it depends on what "drinkable" means to you.

I'm not a wine drinker, but even I find two buck Chuck to be awfully pedestrian. (Hey, I'm trying to be kind.) But I was just at a BBQ competition that's put on in conjunction with a big party/fundraiser for the local high school's sports programs, and there were three kinds of two buck Chuck flowing freely all day. The ~500 people attending are reasonably well-off - they paid $40/head to attend - but they were drinking it happily.

I think you're right about the oak influence in two buck Chuck, though. My dim recollection from long ago is that it's overly fruity, pretty sweet for a "dry" wine, and very simple. Cook's Illustrated said that their testers liked the fruity flavors that it gave to the food, and that the "better" wines just seemed bland in comparison.

Because two buck chuck probably has a tad bit of residual sugar added (stirring the pot there lol)

One cooking tip my Mom taught me, add a pinch of salt to a sweet dish and a pinch of sugar to a savory one.

I guess our equivalent to 2 buck chuck is Yellow tail. On the one and only occasion I tried it, I found that very sweet too

Eric Ifune wrote:
One cooking tip my Mom taught me, add a pinch of salt to a sweet dish and a pinch of sugar to a savory one.

good advice