For The Love Of Port

I notice that PC is selling the 77 Taylor for $90, but they're leakers. I wouldn't buy them, would you?

NEVER knowingly ... unless they were REALLY cheap and I'd crack it open the following weekend. Even then, I doubt it.

No. I'd rather spend my money on a good bottle.

I have done this once - I agreed to buy 3 old bottles from a wine merchant in the UK - a magnum of 1920 Fonseca (don't think it was VP as I have never found any evidence of a declaration from them that year and 2 bottles of VP from 1873, bottled by an old UK wine merchant named White's of Leicester. Just after I agreed to buy them the seller contacted me to say that he had found all 3 to be leaking when he went to fetch them from his cellar. The original price for the 3 bottles was around £400 + VAT - I offer him £50 cash for all 3 and he accepted it.

None of these proved to be worth buying for drinking (although the were drinkable) so I re-bottled and re-corked half the magnum and topped up and re-corked one of the 1873's using the other bottle and will keep them for curiosity. I will probably try them again in a few years to see if re-bottling or re-corking leakers completely ruins the wine.

My advice would be don't buy them unless the price is ridiculously low - my bottles worked out at about 20% of market value and gave me the chance to taste very old port.

I don't think I would buy a leaking bottle of anything from 1960 onwards and, like the others above, would rather spend the extra money to avoid the risk of buying vinegar.

Derek

I would agree with Derek I also have had my fingers burnt.

I guess I seem to have a differing opinions fairly often. Depending upon the amount of ullage , sometimes it is worth the risk. If the cork is raised and the fill level is down in the shoulder, no I would not.
I have had some slight leakage before with no major problems.

For example I bought some 1955 Taylor last summer. Of the 4 bottles, one had some leakage and a lower fill level. The cork disintegrated upon opening but the wine was undamaged.
I have opened all four bottles on various occasions. It was a great port on each occasion.

I seem to be in line with the majority view here. Although I have bought and discovered (in my own cellar) leaky bottles in the past, I have yet to be disappointed by one.

I tend to open leaky bottles pretty soon after discovering them. I tend to buy leaky bottles only if the price reflects the risk that I take. Would I buy Taylors 77 (leaky) at $90 each - no way!

Would I buy them at $9 each - probably a few.

Alex

IMHO it depends on the ammount of leakage and how long it has been leaking.

I had a 1948 Graham that I bought in the early 80's in excellent shape. Stored after that in my cellar, I noticed in 2004 it started to leak just a bit. I tried to seal it with candle wax in summer of 2005 with no luck. I then uncorked it and recorked it with a good cork after smelling to verify soundness. Concerned about it's health it was opened and drunk Christmas 2005. It was in excellent shape with prune and cherry notes along with caramel. If I had to fault it, it would be that the sweetness overpowered the fruit a bit, but I am being critical. It was awesome and enjoyable. Botlle was emptied in 2 hours.

1948 Graham's is de vine! Kill me with the sweetness I don't care. What a beauty!

John,

Welcome to Mr. Porto philiac! Good to have you in our midst. I think you are going to love it here.

We look forward to your insights in the future.

Best regards,


Roy

Steve Saxon wrote:I notice that PC is selling the 77 Taylor for $90, but they're leakers. I wouldn't buy them, would you?

I can't attest to PCs leakers but I bought a case of 77 Taylor at auction about 5 years ago and they were all, every single one, outstanding. I was sure to mark them from where they came from and drink them before my others, but I was very happy with them.

When I first got them I flipped out, because I got them off a passed lot list and didn't take the time to read the bottle conditions. I called the auction house and they were willing to take them back, which was very nice, but they suggested I try them first. Glad I listened to them.

There is leakage and seepage...

When bottles come up for sale, the words 'Some seepage' tends to be used if the neck feels sticky.

I suspect dealers read this as 'needs damp cloth before sale'...

The bottom line is the level - easy to check with green glass or light brown but some bottles are so dark it can be a bit of a bugger to see where the level is - I use a candle flame, but this is far from perfect - any clever ideas out there??

Tom

It takes a bit of practice 8) , but for the later opaque bottles I hold them upright, gripping the bottom of the bottle, and shake them in a vertical plane gently (a bit like shaking a cocktail but not nearly so hard!) Just by the feel/inertia and the "note" of the sloshing liquid you can tell the level.

Also, hold upright and vertical and then gently tip until you hear the first "glug" - the angle required (accounting for the shape of the neck) gives a good indication with practice.

I use a candle flame, but this is far from perfect - any clever ideas out there??

Instead of a light source, I use a Port tongs to check the fill level. It works everytime and allows me to enjoy a few sips at the same time!

The 'slosh' and 'glug' tests could be quite scientific - if all VP bottles had the same neck/shoulder profile.

Unfortunately, they havn't!

I wonder if a laser pointer might work??

I've not tried, but my limited recollection of schooldays physics suggests that the beam should (might?) deflect when it hits the surface of the fluid.

Despite the opacity of the glass, enough light should pass through to show on a piece of paper held on the opposite side of the bottle (possibly not in full daylight)

If someone has one of these gadgets, perhaps they'd give it a try. Else I'll look for one on ebay when I return from the Land of Smiles next week.

Tom

Except for Niepoort, I find they are all pretty similar in terms of when the "glug" comes in for a given ullage. Graham, Warre, Dow, SW, GC are almost identical with Taylor a bit narrower/more pronounced, not having that bulging bit at the bottom of the neck. All the above lists about 90% of my consumption so its good enough for me.

Maybe we should suggest a narrow, transparent line going up the neck - a bit like an electric kettle!

Is there any evidence that the opaque ones are better than the old green bordeaux type that used to be prevalent in the 60s and before? My bottles must spend 99.99% of their lives in pitch dark so is it necesary?

All the pre-war bottles I've seen have had very dark glass.

The postwar Oporto bottlings were in light brown sherry glass, due to shortages (according to Mayson)

The British bottled wine I have from '55 on is in dark green glass, the Oporto seems to be all brown - I would have to go through the cellar to see if there are any exceptions though.

From '70 on the Oporto glass is mostly very dark, although there is quite a lot of variation - I also doubt that it is really necessary - and a bit of a nuisance.

Anyone in the industry like to comment?

Tom

I've just decanted up a Niepoort '91. I've got to say, it was a real pleasure being able to easily see through the walls of the bottle and being able to spot exactly when to stop pouring.

I would love to see port being bottled in glass that is less intensely coloured.

Alex

Any guide to storing wine says to keep the wine in the dark because light can damage wine. I know winemakers in Napa Valley that say they have had "light-struck" wine. They were speaking of sparkling wine which probably is much more sensitive to light than port. But I have seen port standing on shelves in stores for years and years. I would hesitate to buy it because of both heat and light damage.

Green bottles allow more ultraviolet light to pass through than brown bottles. Today vintage port seems to be bottled in black glass which is great protection against light - too much so. When you can not even see the fill level, you can not decant a port which needs decanting by its nature.

The producers have gone too far in protecting us from light by using opaque bottles. I hope people complain on the producers web sites that they are having problems decanting port because they can not see through the glass. I am going to email a few.

Shawn

Well, I bought a cheapo laser pointer - not a true laser, I suspect, but a powerful narrow beam red torch attached to a keyring. It produced a near parallel beam about 1.5mm wide.

I tested it first on a Graham '75 that had glass that was light enough to check the level with a candle flame.

With the light in the cellar turned off, I found that if you pressed the pointer against the glass and ran it down the neck while looking at it through the bottle, the point of light broadened when it passed the level of the wine.
Next up I tried a Cockburn '85 - a bottle that has glass so dark it is impossible to check with a candle flame.

The point of light was only just visible through the glass, but it WAS visible, and when it reached the fluid level (which proved to be only about 5mm below the cork) the beam blurred to the extent that it could only just be seen.

The bottom line is that this method works!

A word of caution though - if you use a real laser, be careful to keep control of it so you don't accidentally shine it directly into your eye >> :x >>

Tom

portmaker wrote: The producers have gone too far in protecting us from light by using opaque bottles. I hope people complain on the producers web sites that they are having problems decanting port because they can not see through the glass. I am going to email a few.

Shawn

Count me in. I've plenty of 60s port in light green bottles in impeccable condition. Why have opaque glass when the bottle spends 99.99% of its life in pitch darkness anyway? For people who store theirs under bright lights? Maybe that museum that had the 1787 "Th.J" Lafite would need them