For The Love Of Port

I've been surprised by the great quality of various LBVs, and have some questions (particularly regarding Dow's 2011 LBV):
1) Is it true that often the raw LBV wine is similar to the raw VP wine, aside from the additional aging the LBV receives?
2) How well do LBVs age compared to VP? I've read that most LBVs won't improve with age, but will excessive age harm a LBV? (I'm considering stocking up for 5-20 years.)

Peter Handel wrote:I've been surprised by the great quality of various LBVs, and have some questions (particularly regarding Dow's 2011 LBV):
1) Is it true that often the raw LBV wine is similar to the raw VP wine, aside from the additional aging the LBV receives?
2) How well do LBVs age compared to VP? I've read that most LBVs won't improve with age, but will excessive age harm a LBV? (I'm considering stocking up for 5-20 years.)

1. I think that is rarely the case. There is no comparing the Dow vintage 2011 with the LBV 2011. The same counts for Fonseca and many more. There is a big difference in quality. The Quinta do Crasto 2011 comes close to the vintage.
2. A aged LBV can be nice, but i think always less then a VP. Aging a LBV should only be done with unfilterd versions in my opinion.

I've drunk a lot of aged LBVs and can tell you that they age extremely well. That holds true for both filtered and non-filtered versions. A couple of cases in point::

* - 1978 Sandeman. This bottle was drunk at Bern's Steakhouse a couple of years ago, so it was decanted and poured with no time given to air in the decanter. The wine was primarily a tawny color, showing a good deal of sweetness and decent acidity. I assume the wine was filtered when bottled as there was no statement otherwise.

* - 1991 Dow. I've drunk several of these over the past few years and have a few left in my cellar. This is filtered. The wine is amazing, showing little color loss. It requires a few hours in the decanter to show its best. A far amount of sediment has developed over the years. About a year ago I did an informal blind tasting with some wine-savvy friends where I had the 1991 Dow LBV in one decanter and the 1991 Dow VP in another. I asked the to pick out the VP. Everyone picked the LBV. Now, both wines had been in the decanter about five hours, so the VP may have needed more time to develop, but I think you get my point.

I would never shy away from buying well stored old LBVs.

Peter Handel wrote: 1) Is it true that often the raw LBV wine is similar to the raw VP wine, aside from the additional aging the LBV receives?

I'd say that isn't necessarily true as different producers will have different priorities and factors that influcence their production.
Some might also prioritize tawny stocks or even table wines these days over their LBVs. I'd think the producers would be extremely lucky if they had the same level of grape quality across enough fruit sources to make all their LBV and Vintage port, then there are questions on whether the producer has the infrastructure and labor capacity to make fruit destined for LBV in the same way as the Vintage Port.
What can be said about 2011 is that it was an exceptional vintage, so the overall quality of the grapes was higher across the board which has made for some excellent LBVs.

Peter Handel wrote: How well do LBVs age compared to VP? I've read that most LBVs won't improve with age, but will excessive age harm a LBV? (I'm considering stocking up for 5-20 years.)

There is no question that unfiltered LBVs can age for quite a long time and I'd say that a high quality LBV has similar staying power to that of some of the lesser quality VIntage Ports. I'd be comfortable with 20 -30 years for many, but some of the better ones will go for much longer.
I'm going to disagree slightly here with John on the filtered LBVs. There is certainly no immediate need to drink up the 2011s, but as an example I bought quite a lot of the Taylors 2003 LBV which was both filtered, and an exceptionally good release. My last couple of bottles of that were consumed in 2014 and were still good, but not nearly as good as the many previous bottles I had consumed, so personally, I am going to be a bit more cautious on the filtered LBVs. I can't comment specifically on the Dow's LBV as it hasn't made it out my way for a number of years now, but given the quality of the vintage and track record of the producer I'd expect it to be very good.

Paul Fountain wrote: I'm going to disagree slightly here with John on the filtered LBVs. There is certainly no immediate need to drink up the 2011s, but as an example I bought quite a lot of the Taylors 2003 LBV which was both filtered, and an exceptionally good release. My last couple of bottles of that were consumed in 2014 and were still good, but not nearly as good as the many previous bottles I had consumed, so personally, I am going to be a bit more cautious on the filtered LBVs. I can't comment specifically on the Dow's LBV as it hasn't made it out my way for a number of years now, but given the quality of the vintage and track record of the producer I'd expect it to be very good.

As with most things, YMMV. However, I would caution making a judgement using the 2003 vintage. I've stayed away from the 2003 vintage in Port due to the issues of other 2003 wines from other areas of Europe, all of which were thought to be great vintages at the time. 2003 was the year when there were searing temperatures across Europe for the entire summer. Many wine areas of France, such as Bordeaux and Sauternes (a sub-area of Bordeaux) were judged to have created fabulous wines. However, by 10 years later, many of those wines were starting to come apart because of the atypical growing season.

So with that as a backdrop, I'm not sure that the "great" ports of 2003 will actually hold together.

Peter Handel wrote:I've been surprised by the great quality of various LBVs, and have some questions (particularly regarding Dow's 2011 LBV):
1) Is it true that often the raw LBV wine is similar to the raw VP wine, aside from the additional aging the LBV receives?
2) How well do LBVs age compared to VP? I've read that most LBVs won't improve with age, but will excessive age harm a LBV? (I'm considering stocking up for 5-20 years.)

Peter,
Good questions.

#1: Yes and no. Before I get into an explanation it needs to be said this is a really broad, I mean really broad, generalization. As it will differ for different producers. Ok, here I go....It is similar in that it is grown, picked, fermented, fortified, and later sorted in a similar fashion. What will be different is what quality of grapes are used, what blends of grapes are used, where they came from, what they were aged in, etc. Of course that also affects if the grapes end up being foot trodden, mechanical trodden, or some combination.

The simple explanation is that a producer who knows their vineyards and sources can earmark ahead of time what they plan to use for LBV. Other times they vinify a bunch of top quality stuff originally meant for VP that later doesn't cut the muster and gets "declassified" for use in other things, sometimes that's an LBV. On rarer occasions a producer may plan to make a VP to only later realize it's not up to snuff so they decide to simply not make a VP that year and instead make an LBV out of it, or something else.

#2: This really depends on the producer, type of LBV (unfiltered/filtered), and the quality of grapes used. Typically, an unfiltered LBV will age nicely around the 10-20 year range. Sure they will go longer without issue. However, in my experience when you start putting a lot of age onto these unfiltered LBV's they become very simple and linear. A good example is to put a late 1970's Warre's LBV side by side against a 1977 Warre's LBV. By itself the LBV is very nice, then when you taste the VP you immediately realize the LBV's short comings.

Filtered LBV's won't improve with age. They are made in a way that will including fining and/or filtration, and sometimes being cold stabilized as well. That prevents it from aging in the traditional sense of a VP or even an unfiltered LBV. It won't harm them to age these filtered LBV's, but why would anyone want to. That is not how the producer intended them to be consumed and they won't get "better", though they will change slightly due to age. Often they end up like dried cherry cough syrup from my experience. You have a glass and go "Well, this is drinkable but I don't want a second glass."

In short, you can age unfiltered ones for your listed time frame but don't age the filtered ones. Use the filtered ones to buy and drink while your unfiltered LBV's age.

I totally agree with Andy on point #1. He sums it up nicely.

On your second question, I totally agree with the general sentiment given before me that they can improve for 10-20 years if unfiltered. While Andy's point is valid with most producers, that the VP for a given year will outstrip the LBV in complexity, especially 20+ years down the road, I'd also argue that some of the top LBVs would trump many low to mid tier VPs of the same age, especially in lesser vintages. "Sound and relatively straight forward" to the tune of a high 80s score sure beats a decent number of the lesser houses in the horizontal tastings I've been to. So while Warre '77 LBV may be a step or two behind Warre '77 VP, it will still probably match or beat out a producer like Feuerheerd or Quarles Harris' VP. (Just coming up with two off the top of my head)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bradley Bogdan wrote:I totally agree with Andy on point #1. He sums it up nicely.

On your second question, I totally agree with the general sentiment given before me that they can improve for 10-20 years if unfiltered. While Andy's point is valid with most producers, that the VP for a given year will outstrip the LBV in complexity, especially 20+ years down the road, I'd also argue that some of the top LBVs would trump many low to mid tier VPs of the same age, especially in lesser vintages. "Sound and relatively straight forward" to the tune of a high 80s score sure beats a decent number of the lesser houses in the horizontal tastings I've been to. So while Warre '77 LBV may be a step or two behind Warre '77 VP, it will still probably match or beat out a producer like Feuerheerd or Quarles Harris' VP. (Just coming up with two off the top of my head)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, hence my statement of "...this is a really broad, I mean really broad, generalization." I'm sure we can all find instances of certain LBV bottles that have held up exceeding well and have out shown a VP. But is it fair to compare a top notch LBV to the lowest tier VP from a different producer? I'd argue it is not fair. Compare apples to apples. That is, compare a given producer's LBV to their VP.

Andy Velebil wrote: Filtered LBV's won't improve with age. They are made in a way that will including fining and/or filtration, and sometimes being cold stabilized as well. That prevents it from aging in the traditional sense of a VP or even an unfiltered LBV. It won't harm them to age these filtered LBV's, but why would anyone want to. That is not how the producer intended them to be consumed and they won't get "better", though they will change slightly due to age. Often they end up like dried cherry cough syrup from my experience. You have a glass and go "Well, this is drinkable but I don't want a second glass."

In short, you can age unfiltered ones for your listed time frame but don't age the filtered ones. Use the filtered ones to buy and drink while your unfiltered LBV's age.

I don't agree on this Andy, or at least it hasn't been my experience. I don't see how fining and filtering equates to the wine won't improve with age. Pretty much every Bordeaux wine is fined, and most experience filtration, yet they certainly age and improve over time. Why would Port be any different?

I agree that the same wine that is not fined and filtered will age differently than the same wine that is subjected to those steps. But I disagree that fining and filtering equals not improving with age.

John Danza wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote: Filtered LBV's won't improve with age. They are made in a way that will including fining and/or filtration, and sometimes being cold stabilized as well. That prevents it from aging in the traditional sense of a VP or even an unfiltered LBV. It won't harm them to age these filtered LBV's, but why would anyone want to. That is not how the producer intended them to be consumed and they won't get "better", though they will change slightly due to age. Often they end up like dried cherry cough syrup from my experience. You have a glass and go "Well, this is drinkable but I don't want a second glass."

In short, you can age unfiltered ones for your listed time frame but don't age the filtered ones. Use the filtered ones to buy and drink while your unfiltered LBV's age.

I don't agree on this Andy, or at least it hasn't been my experience. I don't see how fining and filtering equates to the wine won't improve with age. Pretty much every Bordeaux wine is fined, and most experience filtration, yet they certainly age and improve over time. Why would Port be any different?

I agree that the same wine that is not fined and filtered will age differently than the same wine that is subjected to those steps. But I disagree that fining and filtering equals not improving with age.

John
All wine, Port included as well as all VP too, has some level of filtration. Otherwise we'd all be drinking bugs, stems, leaves, rocks, etc in our glasses. However, There are different levels of fining and filtrating. What levels used really make a huge difference in the finished product. You can do a very light filtration, as in the case for VP, that doesn't do anything to the wine's ability to age, or you can do a very aggressive filtration that strips it of a lot of things so it's stable and doesn't drop sediment. Typically, in filtered LBV's it's a fairly aggressive fining/filtration (and sometimes cold stabilized as well) so that product doesn't change in bottle when shipped and stored. That is so the customer gets the same experience in every bottle, among other reasons.

As for filtered LBV's. They are not designed to age. They are designed to be consumed in rather short order after bottling. As such they are typically aggressively filtered and possible fined/cold stabilized as a result. That removes the ability to age in the classic sense. Now, that said, of course they will change. Anything changes with age. But changing and aging are two very different things.

A filtered LBV may change, but that doesn't mean it gets better. Simply as it was not produced in a way in which it was meant to get better with age. They are made in a way to capture how they are right now and keep it there. A good example is to set a McDonalds hamburger in the fridge for a week. It will change but it won't age and get better during that time.

Of course there are exceptions as I've already mentioned. And it's worth noting that it's hard to compare some wine making practices from 30+ years ago to what is going on today. What was done back then may not be what's done today. I think it's far easier to find old examples of filtered LBV's that will hold up better over time than what is being produced today. Simply, technology has changed and so has what focus and markets a given company has.

Andy, I believe you're considering "ageing" and "getting better" as the same thing. They're not.

Ageing is exactly that, the act of getting older and changing however it changes. That's an act of science and there isn't any level of filtration that can prevent that. All red wine will change and throw sediment over time because the sediment will be caused by the color change and components of the wine (sorry, can't think of the official name for these right now) coming out of solution. The wine maker's design for the wine can't overcome the science.

"Getting better" is subjective, a matter of opinion based on someone's taste. The terms "secondary" and "tertiary" flavors come from that. There are people who prefer young wines and any change due to ageing is considered bad. There are also people who like the secondary and tertiary flavors in wines. It doesn't make those flavors better or worse, just different. Frankly, that's the fun in letting wines age, to see what happens over their lifespan.

It sounds like you don't like the flavor changes that occur in filtered LBVs over time. That's fine, it's a free country. But make no mistake, those changes absolutely do occur. Asserting that they don't can't be supported factually.

John Danza wrote:Andy, I believe you're considering "ageing" and "getting better" as the same thing. They're not.

Ageing is exactly that, the act of getting older and changing however it changes. That's an act of science and there isn't any level of filtration that can prevent that. All red wine will change and throw sediment over time because the sediment will be caused by the color change and components of the wine (sorry, can't think of the official name for these right now) coming out of solution. The wine maker's design for the wine can't overcome the science.

"Getting better" is subjective, a matter of opinion based on someone's taste. The terms "secondary" and "tertiary" flavors come from that. There are people who prefer young wines and any change due to ageing is considered bad. There are also people who like the secondary and tertiary flavors in wines. It doesn't make those flavors better or worse, just different. Frankly, that's the fun in letting wines age, to see what happens over their lifespan.

It sounds like you don't like the flavor changes that occur in filtered LBVs over time. That's fine, it's a free country. But make no mistake, those changes absolutely do occur. Asserting that they don't can't be supported factually.

In wine the term aging generally refers to the act of getting better with time in bottle or cask. The term changing doesn't mean it gets better with age. Hence why I pointed out the different terms; Aging and Changing. I probably should have explained that better earlier so you'd understand what I meant.

And you are not totally correct though. Not all wine will throw sediment with time. If you heavily fine/filter and cold stabilize any wine you've, for ease of understanding, put it into a type of suspended animation. You've stripped it of almost everything that is capable of precipitating out of it. It's one of those things of wine making they don't talk much about...like adding caramel color in Whiskey's so all the bottles have the same color sitting on the shelf. But again, that also depends on the level of fining, filtration, and/or cold stabilization used.

And I never said filtered LBV's don't change. I said they do, they don't "age" though. Two very different things. Some people don't mind drinking something many years after it was intended to be consumed. I generally don't like filtered LBV's that have aged several decades or more. They haven't gotten better IMO, they've simply changed a little. Nor do I see the point of aging something not intended or manufactured to age. IMO these filtered LBV's are as I said, a perfectly good drink to enjoy while ones unfiltered LBV's age.

John Danza wrote:I don't see how fining and filtering equates to the wine won't improve with age. Pretty much every Bordeaux wine is fined, and most experience filtration, yet they certainly age and improve over time. Why would Port be any different?

Vintage Port is meant to to be aged. With that in mind, the production is typically geared for maximum extraction of tannins and other components from the skins of the fruit. These provide much of the aging potential of the wine. How is Port different from Bordeaux? There are a multitude of ways, but if the wine is meant to be consumed sooner rather than later, one might start by not expending so much effort to get maximum extraction during trodding/pressing/whatever. Then one could filter, more or less. I suspect there are variations within Bordeaux as well, with inexpensive table wine being filtered more than the first growths that will age for years.

Ageing is exactly that, the act of getting older and changing however it changes. That's an act of science and there isn't any level of filtration that can prevent that. All red wine will change and throw sediment over time because the sediment will be caused by the color change and components of the wine (sorry, can't think of the official name for these right now) coming out of solution. The wine maker's design for the wine can't overcome the science.

Sure it can. If I use enough filtering and fining (DE, pearlite and settling tanks, reverse osmosis, ...) I can eventually get pure water. Will that change much with time in a sealed glass container? (Plastic bottles themselves eventually leach into the contents.) Building on what I wrote above, you can extract more or less of the components of the grapes, and you can filter out more or less. Oxidation and reduction reactions occur with time, but these chemical reactions require inputs. If you filter out the inputs, the reactions can't take place.

Andy Velebil wrote:

Bradley Bogdan wrote:I totally agree with Andy on point #1. He sums it up nicely.

On your second question, I totally agree with the general sentiment given before me that they can improve for 10-20 years if unfiltered. While Andy's point is valid with most producers, that the VP for a given year will outstrip the LBV in complexity, especially 20+ years down the road, I'd also argue that some of the top LBVs would trump many low to mid tier VPs of the same age, especially in lesser vintages. "Sound and relatively straight forward" to the tune of a high 80s score sure beats a decent number of the lesser houses in the horizontal tastings I've been to. So while Warre '77 LBV may be a step or two behind Warre '77 VP, it will still probably match or beat out a producer like Feuerheerd or Quarles Harris' VP. (Just coming up with two off the top of my head)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, hence my statement of "...this is a really broad, I mean really broad, generalization." I'm sure we can all find instances of certain LBV bottles that have held up exceeding well and have out shown a VP. But is it fair to compare a top notch LBV to the lowest tier VP from a different producer? I'd argue it is not fair. Compare apples to apples. That is, compare a given producer's LBV to their VP.

I guess I was just intimating one of my favorite points: Really good LBVs can be great value, and can outshine low to mid tier VP that cost substantially more, especially after a decade or three. I don't think it's apples to oranges, maybe more like one kind of apple to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love this thread and hope others will also put in their here.

I want to, badly in fact. But I can't spend that time ... until newsletter #91 is in your hands, and I just came back from a week of family time in snowy MI, for Christmas. So now, it is back to work on the newsletter for me. I don't see a lot of sleep ahead in the next 36 hours. Fortunately, I worked on this one a lot after CA and before Christmas.

But like Arnold said, "I'll be back!"

Keep this fabulous thread going!

Bradley Bogdan wrote:
I guess I was just intimating one of my favorite points: Really good LBVs can be great value, and can outshine low to mid tier VP that cost substantially more, especially after a decade or three. I don't think it's apples to oranges, maybe more like one kind of apple to another.

I agree with you that some top tier unfiltered LBV's can outperform some sub-par VP's. And the best part is the LBV's are generally WAY cheaper than the lower tier VP's. That's a double win for sure!

Though I'm not sure they outshine mid tier VP's. I'd probably put them on par with each other. Though as I mentioned previously, the LBV is generally a far better QPR value of the two for a similar quality. A good unfiltered LBV tends to be around the $25-30 (USD) mark here in the states and most VP's are in the $50-90 range on release. Not hard to do the math on that one

In September 2015 I had the pleasure to take part in a tasting at the winery of Oscar and Claudia Quevedo. The topic of the night was "Vintage vs. LBV; same year; same producer".
We tasted blind LBV versus Vintage. These were some of the wines we had (we had a total of 18 wines):
Ramos Pinto 1982 LBV and Vintage
Nieport 1992 LBV and Vintage
Fonseca LBV 1996 vs Fonseca Guimaraes LBV 1996
Vieira de Sousa 2011 LBV and Vintage
In addition we had a few other Vintage vs LBV couplings of the same producer but different years.
We tasted these blind, always 4 wines in a flight; two were LBVs and 2 were Vintages from the same year and same producer.
It was real fun - and guess what? In each and every pairing the Vintage Ports got more points! Yes, some of the LBVs were quite nice - but if you look for quality, then you have to stick with Vintage Port. The price difference is justified!
Unfortunately we didn't have a Quinta do Crasto in our tasting - everybody speaks so highly about their LBV - I still have to taste it against their Vintage... it's on my bucket-list for 2017.

Rupert Symington, Joint Managing Director of the Symington Family Estates

I think the question of LBV’s that you raise must be taken in the context of the size of shipper in question as the scale of operation makes an enormous difference.

This quote from Rupert seems to sum it up quite nicely. Check out the rest of the article just posted on the home page.

great article. and i think a lot of it has to do with personal taste as well. i personally like LBV's a lot. also aged ones. but i've also tasted more LBV's than vintage ports. and both in LBV and vintage i have had ports that i didn't like so much. it's hard to compare.

Andy Velebil wrote:Though I'm not sure they outshine mid tier VP's. I'd probably put them on par with each other. Though as I mentioned previously, the LBV is generally a far better QPR value of the two for a similar quality. A good unfiltered LBV tends to be around the $25-30 (USD) mark here in the states and most VP's are in the $50-90 range on release. Not hard to do the math on that one

But you can find mid- and lower-tier VPs for a lot less than $50-90. Here are some bottles from my cellar:

From retail:
$20 - 2004 Quinta da Romaneira Porto Vintage
$20 - 2005 Quinta de Roriz Porto Vintage
$23 - 2000 Quinta do Crasto Porto Vintage
$25 - 1999 Quinta de Roriz Porto Vintage
$25 - 2006 Dow Porto Vintage Quinta da Senhora da Ribeira
$26 - 2007 Quinta do Noval Porto Vintage Silval
$27 - 2003 Quinta do Crasto Porto Vintage
$27 - 1989 Warre Porto Vintage Quinta da Cavadinha
$29 - 1995 Quinta do Crasto Porto Vintage
$30 - 1997 Quinta Vale D. Maria Porto Vintage
$30 - 1999 Quinta do Crasto Porto Vintage
$30 - 2001 Quinta de Roriz Porto Vintage
$30 - 2003 Cockburn Porto Vintage

From auction:
$20 - 1994 Quinta do Passadouro Porto Vintage
$23 - 1994 Rozès Porto Vintage
$23 - 2003 Smith Woodhouse Porto Vintage
$23 - 1996 São Pedro das Aguias Porto Das Aguias Vintage
$23 - 2000 São Pedro das Aguias Porto Das Aguias Vintage
$25 - 1997 Smith Woodhouse Porto Vintage
$27 - 1998 Quinta do Vesuvio Porto Vintage
$29 - 1985 Smith Woodhouse Porto Vintage
$29 - 1997 Quinta do Vesuvio Porto Vintage

And I left out some.