Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
User avatar
uncle tom
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3518
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by uncle tom »

We have suffered the various incarnations of LBVs for years - some filtered or fined, some with T stoppers and some with driven corks. For a while it seemed that a driven cork meant unfiltered; T stopper, filtered, but then some unfiltered LBVs were given T stoppers and some with driven corks do not meet the official criteria for being unfiltered.

In short, for a product that is an important revenue source for the producers, where reputation is important, it's a mess..

Standard rubies are routinely processed to make them palatable at release and most but not all reserves are also. Is it really necessary - or desirable - to allow LBVs to be brutalised this way also?

I would argue that for a product that meets the sweet spot of having both a good sales volume and a respectable margin per bottle, it is in the producers' interest to embrace a measure that would enhance the consistency of the style without adding to the production cost.

Banning fining/filtration - or at least limiting it to a degree that does not impair bottle aging - would seem a prudent move..
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
User avatar
Doggett
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1188
Joined: 17:40 Sun 20 Sep 2015
Location: Weymouth
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by Doggett »

Rightly or wrongly I thought that those that filter their LBV do it so that there is a quality ‘ruby’ port available for the market that requires no decanting (and can also be described as Vintage). To a lot of people the need to decant and a lot of the other traditions around port that we like are intimidating and a barrier to purchase.

I agree that it can be confusing as to who is doing what, and the different closures and ageing potential, but I think that calls for better labelling rather than changing the diversity of production. If I were a producer, I would copy the Warre method that has 2 LBV styles (one filtered for immediate consumption, and one that is not filtered but good for ageing - and not released until its earliest point of the drinking window) with 2 different labels.

Personally I prefer to age LBVs and like the Sandeman, Quevedo and Warre unfiltered LBVs for that. But it is also good to have a relatively inexpensive ‘vintage’ style for immediate drinking and I find the Graham’s and Taylor’s filtered LBVs are good for that. i think Taylor’s have been true to their style since Alistair Robertson wrote to the trade In 1970 to say...

“We have something unusual to talk about.
For some time we have been working with the idea of offering a port which would be considered ‘vintage’ yet which would pour bright and clear straight from the bottle. Obviously this has not been easy. First of all we had to find sufficient wine from a single year which, if not quite up to Taylor’s Vintage standard, can certainly be described as possessing Taylor’s typically vintage characteristics. And secondly we have had to be careful about the way we bottle the wine to make sure that within a reasonable shelf life it will throw no sediment. The secret is to mature the wine in wood and then ‘late bottle’. We are calling our new wine Taylor’s Late Bottle Vintage Reserve. Initially the year will be 1965, which will appear on the label. We are of course setting aside enough of subsequent single years to provide for the future...”
User avatar
uncle tom
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3518
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by uncle tom »

The no decanting argument strikes me as bogus, at least in today's market. The supermarkets buy LBV soon after bottling, get it on the shelves, sold and out to be drunk in a very short time scale - typically a few months. Very little is still around a couple of years later when the first sediment appears.

Wine merchants of old were probably much less efficient in this regard, but the modern producer bottling in the autumn to stock Tesco's Christmas shelves, has no need to worry about sediment.
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
Andy Velebil
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3028
Joined: 22:16 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by Andy Velebil »

uncle tom wrote:The no decanting argument strikes me as bogus, at least in today's market. The supermarkets buy LBV soon after bottling, get it on the shelves, sold and out to be drunk in a very short time scale - typically a few months. Very little is still around a couple of years later when the first sediment appears.

Wine merchants of old were probably much less efficient in this regard, but the modern producer bottling in the autumn to stock Tesco's Christmas shelves, has no need to worry about sediment.
Your neglecting airlines, many restaurants, and other service industries that can not easily cope with having any sediment in a wine they are serving. That is a huge section of those buying LBV’s.

Having only unfiltered LBV is just not possible.
User avatar
uncle tom
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3518
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by uncle tom »

Having only unfiltered LBV is just not possible
Why? Seven years ago I had my own reserve port bottled, explicitly 100% unfiltered and a very rich wine. It showed no noticeable sedimentation until two years later - that is a light year in the world of restaurants and airlines. Supply lines are far tighter in terms of time than they were in years past, it really isn't a problem now..
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by jdaw1 »

Doggett wrote: 10:13 Fri 17 Apr 2020I agree that it can be confusing as to who is doing what, and the different closures and ageing potential, but I think that calls for better labelling rather than changing the diversity of production.
Portugal has enough difficult rules. Allow as much as possible; require only that the customer be clearly told the truth.
User avatar
rich_n
Warre’s Otima 10 year old Tawny
Posts: 550
Joined: 10:59 Thu 23 May 2019

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by rich_n »

I think personally I would love to have better clarity on the expected peak of drinkability of the wines. If filtered I know that will most likely be as soon as possible, but unfiltered is a lot less clear - are these best in a few years? A decade? More? Who knows?!
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4172
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: RE: Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by Glenn E. »

jdaw1 wrote:
Doggett wrote: 10:13 Fri 17 Apr 2020I agree that it can be confusing as to who is doing what, and the different closures and ageing potential, but I think that calls for better labelling rather than changing the diversity of production.
Portugal has enough difficult rules. Allow as much as possible; require only that the customer be clearly told the truth.
This. I like both filtered and unfiltered LBV, but I do not like how difficult it is to know which you are buying. I would support requiring them to be labeled either way.

Similarly, I would support requiring a bottling date on Colheita. Most do it anyway, but I do not believe it is required.
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by jdaw1 »

rich_n wrote: 17:09 Sat 18 Apr 2020I think personally I would love to have better clarity on the expected peak of drinkability of the wines. If filtered I know that will most likely be as soon as possible, but unfiltered is a lot less clear - are these best in a few years? A decade? More? Who knows?!
For unfiltered a truthful message can’t be much more than “Can be drunk now, or in thirty years, or any time between (excepting 3am to 10am).” Would such a message be useful?
User avatar
uncle tom
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3518
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by uncle tom »

For unfiltered a truthful message can’t be much more than “Can be drunk now, or in thirty years, or any time between (excepting 3am to 10am).” Would such a message be useful?
I have previously suggested 'F numbers' that could be tucked into a corner of a back label somewhere: F0 being wholly unfiltered, F1 lightly stabilised and so on up to F5 - stripped bare. The exact parameters could be agreed between the producers.

Alternatively for LBV, unfiltered could be made the default, with a requirement that any filtration be declared on the label..
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by jdaw1 »

uncle tom wrote: 13:11 Sun 19 Apr 2020I have previously suggested 'F numbers' that could be tucked into a corner of a back label somewhere: F0 being wholly unfiltered, F1 lightly stabilised and so on up to F5 - stripped bare. The exact parameters could be agreed between the producers.
So you’re saying that Port is too easy for non-experts to understand, and potential purchasers need things to be more cryptic? Please don’t.

Use words. E.g.,:
• “Filtered — will not need decanting.”
• “Lightly filtered — the last glass might have some sediment, so decanting optional.”
• “Unfiltered — will need decanting.”
uncle tom wrote: 13:11 Sun 19 Apr 2020Alternatively for LBV, unfiltered could be made the default, with a requirement that any filtration be declared on the label..
But non-experts won’t know the default.
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by flash_uk »

It would be better if Filtered were the default and Unfiltered declared on the lable and explained on the reverse...needs decanting. The non-experts will be fine if they grab a bottle of filtered, and if they grab Unfiltered then they have insturctions.
User avatar
Doggett
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1188
Joined: 17:40 Sun 20 Sep 2015
Location: Weymouth
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by Doggett »

Coming back to the first post’s premise... The important thing is there is a place for both styles and filtering should not be banned 😀🍷
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by DRT »

Doggett wrote: 10:13 Fri 17 Apr 2020 Rightly or wrongly I thought that those that filter their LBV do it so that there is a quality ‘ruby’ port available for the market that requires no decanting (and can also be described as Vintage). To a lot of people the need to decant and a lot of the other traditions around port that we like are intimidating and a barrier to purchase.
+1
jdaw1 wrote: 23:41 Fri 17 Apr 2020Portugal has enough difficult rules. Allow as much as possible; require only that the customer be clearly told the truth.
+1
Andy Velebil wrote: 18:11 Fri 17 Apr 2020Having only unfiltered LBV is just not possible.
+1
Glenn E. wrote: 04:35 Sun 19 Apr 2020 I like both filtered and unfiltered LBV, but I do not like how difficult it is to know which you are buying. I would support requiring them to be labeled either way.

Similarly, I would support requiring a bottling date on Colheita. Most do it anyway, but I do not believe it is required.
+1 on the LBV comment, but I think a bottling date on Colheita is already compulsory.

My own view is that the problem isn't with the regulations, it's the absence of information on the label or, at worst, misleading information intended to imply that a particular LBV is something that it is not. I can think of one example in half bottles drunk in large quantities by members of this forum as a prime example. "Unfiltered" doesn't necessarily mean what you might think it does.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
Doggett
Morgan 1991
Posts: 1188
Joined: 17:40 Sun 20 Sep 2015
Location: Weymouth
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by Doggett »

By coincidence it is the 50th anniversary of the first filtered Taylor’s LBV (The 1965 LBV released in 1970).

https://taylor.pt/en/news/taylors-celeb ... ve-edition
Last edited by Doggett on 06:48 Tue 21 Apr 2020, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Should the IVDP ban the filtration of LBV?

Post by DRT »

Doggett wrote: 18:46 Mon 20 Apr 2020 By coincidence it is the 50th anniversary of the first filtered Taylor’s LBV (The 1965 LBV released in 1970.

https://taylor.pt/en/news/taylors-celeb ... ve-edition
The only bottle of this (birth year) LBV that I have owned and tasted did not show particularly well.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Post Reply