For The Love Of Port

Mayson subtitles his review of the '85 vintage with the Latin "caveat emptor" - 'buyer beware'. A phrase that is as embeddeded in British law as "habeas corpus" or "de minimus non curat lex" (to name but two..)

Latin aside, the shippers got a shot across the bows in '85 when several found their precious VP turning to vinegar in the bottle.

Cockburn are cited as prime offenders, and, (as Roy knows) had problems with the '83's as well. Bringing up the rear, Niepoort's '87's are also said to be suspect.

Calem, Churchill, Quarles Harris, Ramos Pinto and Sandeman are also cited as problematic.

At 21 years, these wines are now poised for mainstream drinking, so the question is: How bad is the problem?

My limited experience to date has been trouble free, and merchants are selling Cockburn '85 at a price that suggests there is no issue.

- Do problems occur in some cases and not others, or do duff bottles crop up randomly?

- Overall, what percentage of bad bottles are there?

Experiences, please!

Tom

In the past 18 months I had 3 corked bottles (from my cellar) of Cockburn's 1983. The most recent was a stellar bottle of that wine though. I am not home to see my Decanter and assume you are talking about a new article by Richard and if so, does he mention cork as the main culprit or what type of issue with the '85s?

I DO consider VA to be a major problem with the '85's. The only '85 left in my cellar are Fonseca's (yum!) and Kopke (a very good VP for this producer).

I drank quite a few bottles of Niepoort '87, but never encountered a problem. The '97 is a different story though...

Roy,

I was referring to Mayson's book, not an article.

From what I can make out, the problem arose from a cocktail of bad habits - poor sterilization heading the list. A hot sticky harvest seems to have been the catalyst that brought things to a head.

Tom

I have drunk the following 1985's and never had any problems with any of the bottles:

1) Warre (about 20 bottles)
2) Grahams (about 6 bottles)
3) Fonseca (2 bottles)
4) Dow (1-2 bottles)

I think I have tried '85 Ferreira from memory, and it was not very good, though I can't remember the specifics.

I've had loads of 85s too and no problems whatsoever.

As I've said elsewhere, Taylor from that year is a personal favourite - v. fortunate as few agree with me, thereby making it a rare, mature, affordable Taylor.

There was a thread on '85 VP and VA before, but I can't seem to find it...anyway, I do consider it a problem. Tainted bottles I've tasted:

Burmester
Qta. d. Romaneira
Niepoort
Sandeman
Warre

Warre seems to be a hit-or-miss bottling: do a google search and you'll find TNs praising it, as well as ones mentioning VA.

Ones I've found to be without VA:

Fonseca
Taylor
Kopke
Qta. d. Romariz
Qta. d. Noval
Osborne

Unfortunately, of these 6 I'm only cellaring the Kopke and the Fonseca: the others have hit their peak and are fading (IMHO). I have not tasted the Dow or Graham of this vintage. I never heard anything bad about the Dow (other than it being sub-par), but read some TNs by tasted whose palate I know and repect that it might just show a hint of VA as well...FWIW.

Roy,

Were your '83's corked, volatile or both?

Tom

PS: For the benefit of any who suffer acronyms, VA means volatile acidity - i.e. turned to vinegar.

T.

Tom,

Corked, all 3 from my cellar. The 4th was great and from my cellar. I still have 8 and will always worry when opening one of them.

As to the '85s, I have never experienced a "problem" bottle from that vintage.

In the interests of scientific research, I have decanted a Noval '85.

All is well!

Stuart Chatfield wrote:I've had loads of 85s too and no problems whatsoever.

As I've said elsewhere, Taylor from that year is a personal favourite - v. fortunate as few agree with me, thereby making it a rare, mature, affordable Taylor.

I have always liked the 1985 Taylor as well, Stuart. I think it gets a bad rap. I haven't had it in a couple of years but I thought it was just coming into it's own then. It needs several hours of air to open up.

However, I think the Fonseca and Graham's are considerably better.

uncle tom wrote:Roy,

PS: For the benefit of any who suffer acronyms, VA means volatile acidity - i.e. turned to vinegar.

T.

Tom,

I can never figure out why people equate "turned to vinegar" with volatile acidity. I thought the ketone aromas were a result of a very ripe vintage and/or winemaking practices (such as in Quintarelli) produced such aromas. I can't see see things happening "in the bottle" as you say. Please explain.

Paul

I have not tasted many 85 as I always fear the problem of VA. Here are the wine I tasted from 85.

2x Kopke with light VA
1x Offley Boa Vista Excellent
1x Offley Boa Vista light VA
2x Warre Big VA
2x Taylor Excellent, My favorite
2x Quarles Harris Excellent
1x Smith Woudhouse Big VA

I do have only a Fonseca 85 remaining in my cellar and am only looking for a Graham 85 to add from this Vintage.

Fred,

You owe it to yourself to try the Graham's and Fonseca from 1985 to see a couple of the greatest Ports made that year.


Paul wrote:

I can never figure out why people equate "turned to vinegar" with volatile acidity. I thought the ketone aromas were a result of a very ripe vintage and/or winemaking practices (such as in Quintarelli) produced such aromas. I can't see see things happening "in the bottle" as you say. Please explain.

Smells like a banana to me!

In all seriousness, I agree with Paul and don't understand the underlying comment either. Had Paul not brought this up, I would not have said a thing though.

Paul has not posted here in a long time and I am very pleased that he has returned today (hopefully we'll see much more of him here!). I have known Paul for over a decade now and tasted Ports with him MANY times and shared buying ops together too. Some of the oldest and greatest Ports I've tasted were with Paul. IMO, he has one of the best Port palates and more importantly, one of the deepest understandings of Port ... of anyone I have met in the USA. As you can see from our views on the 1985 Taylor, we don't always agree and for that I am thankful. It would most certainly make for a very boring conversation when we do get to imbibe together.

Unortunately he lives 3000 miles away and I don't get to see him more than once a year. Fortunately he lives 3000 miles away and therefore, I am not in need of a new kidney or liver and have not had to enroll in a 12-step program. If he lived any closer, all bets would be off!

Ronnie Roots,
You mentioned the 97 Niepoort having a problem. Was it likely VA? I have two half bottles of the 97 Niepoort which were horrible leakers (not heat related) and believe there are more than a few flawed bottles out there.

Kurt

Fred_Quebec wrote:I have not tasted many 85 as I always fear the problem of VA. .... I do have only a Fonseca 85 remaining in my cellar and am only looking for a Graham 85 to add from this Vintage.

Wow, such fear of this vintage by many here! As Roy said, you all owe it to yourselves to try the Graham's and Fonseca. They are not only fanatasic representations of this vintage, but of any vintage!

What do you guys think of 1970 Graham's? Tremendous wine, with noticible VA. What about Quintarelli or Dal Forno Amarones? Do you avoid them entirely because of VA? They all have loads of it.

Oh, by the way Fred, I have lots of 1985 Graham's if you ever want to swap something for one.

The 97 Niepoorts had some cork issues. I had 3 obvious leakers out of 3 cases of 750s (just checked them all a couple of months ago after reading about their corks), so I brought those 3 home and drank them.

They were delicious, approachable, did not require extensive decanting, and did not have obtrusive tannins. They also did not hold as long as I would have expected a soundly corked bottle to have allowed.

Drink the leakers.

OK, it is time to stop the rumor mill from running in overtime. To be 100% upfront about the issues with 1997 Niepoort:

In discussions I have had in the past with Dirk re: the issue he had in 1997 he gave me a very thorough explanation. One of the very earliest batches of his '97 Niepoort vintage Port (NOT the Secundum), had a problem at the bottling line. Too much wine was being put into each bottle. Now we are talking about an unbelievably small amount that would not come close to even being one sip. The corks were pushed in which pushed the wine up and out but directly into the capsules (yellow) which held the wine long enough for these bottles to pass the visual inspection and get into the case. This lot was shipped before Dirk ever found out about the problem. Fortunately for Niepoort, the issue was caught before another lot was bottled (someone must have called to alert him ... but this part is conjecture). The rest that have been shipped did not have this problem.

I had one leaker out of my entire case of '97s and opened and drank the bottle last year. I did an extended tasting note reporting differences every few hours. It was fun to show folks how wines change. It was still a huge VP but way too young. I did not want to take a chance though that the bottle would not age well, so I opened it and have no remorse.

I am sure that Dirk would make good on any bottles that had leaks! But again, this was not a cork issue, but a bottle fill issue. I would not post this if I had not personally asked him about it.

Roy,
Thanks for the skinny on the 97 Niepoort. Even with the fill level being the source of the problem, the "seal" on those bottles were/are compromised in terms of air path. I will probably need to drink it sooner rather than later. . .

Roy,

But that wouldn't explain why they continued to leak, right? Once the cork was put in and some wine came out that would be the end of the leakage, right? I had bottles that literally dripped onto the floor (and other bottles). Also, not only did a few .750s leak but one or two of my .375s leaked also. Maybe ask Dirk about this also.

All my leakers were consumed with no noticable flaws (actually they were extraordinary!).

Paul