Defining unfiltered LBV

[uncle tom]

There's a lot of LBVs on the market these days - Portugal Vineyards are currently listing no fewer than 74.

Most of the less well known brands have two things in common: They have driven corks, and don't say unfiltered.

Dig a little a deeper and several of these uncertain LBVs are accompanied by notes on laying down and avoiding sediment, strongly hinting at them being unfiltered. Some well known brands also fall into this category, such as Niepoort; and judging by the amount of sediment it throws, the T-stoppered Dow appears to receive little or no treatment.

It seems that the word 'unfiltered' is problematic, especially for the smaller producers; and my impression is that a lack of clear definition may be at the root of this. One well known small producer once asked the question: 'Does straining out flies and pips count as filtration?' which suggested to me that a lack of a sensible specification may be the problem.

Most LBVs will be drunk soon after purchase, so producers don't want their wines arriving cloudy due to temperature variance during shipping, and they certainly don't want visible lumps to be found in them - but how much treatment could an unfiltered LBV receive without compromising it?

Would chilling the wine to 5C say, the lowest likely transit temperature for most markets, be injurious? Would passing the chilled wine through a 100 micron screen, say, to remove lumps and crystals formed from the chilling process, remove anything of value?

- Or is it better that unfiltered retains it's rather vague meaning, and we carry on guessing about the aging potential of LBVs?

[Mike J. W.]

In the last year, I've become a big fan of aged LBV's. You're right that it's sometimes hard to tell if a Port is filtered or unfiltered unless it clearly states what it is or if as you said, it mentions sediment or as I have found recommends decanting. Regardless, I decant all LBV's and have found that even with some of the older, filtered LBV's I'll come across some sediment.

To me, older LBV's have a unique taste to them. It seems like the Port has "broken down" somewhat but it leaves it with a spicy, slightly acidic but smooth taste with what seems like just a hint of VA that somehow seems to work. I love them!

[JacobH]

Considering the way in which Port is regulated, it’s always seemed odd to me that we have two completely different wines being made under the “LBV” category.

It generates quite a lot of confusion since it is not uncommon to see LBV referred to as Vintage, especially in the non-specialist press. I can’t see much justification in banning the term “Vintage Character” for being misleading but letting producers making very modern-style LBVs have the word “Vintage” on the bottle.

I also think it acts as a disincentive to producers to make traditional LBV (i.e. a proper Vintage Port that has had an extra couple of years before bottling) since the product is in the same category as some of the cheap-and-cheerful supermarket LBVs and you really have to know what you are doing to spot the difference.

I expect the problem, as Tom says, is that the amount of treatment each wine receives varies and there isn’t a binary distinction between “unfiltered” and “filtered” which is why many producers don’t use the phrase. What would probably help is for the IVDP to create a new category of “Traditional LBV”, defined as a Vintage Port which has spent additional time in wood before bottling so it is clear to consumers what they are buying. Some shippers might then even be tempted to make both: a LBV and a filtered TLBV which would be a Good Thing. Especially because, as Mike says, LBVs do age in a different way.

None of this is to denigrate modern or supermarket LBVs: I drink and have drunk loads of them!

[uncle tom]

What Jacob alludes to is the sub-cateogory of 'bottle matured' LBVs which is already recognised. In that instance stabilisation is less important as the aging process does much of the work for you, and the consumer is expecting sediment.

Perhaps we should have three distinct categories:

1) Bottle matured LBV - at least three years post bottling aging, driven cork obligatory, unfiltered in accordance with the rules that apply to VP.

2) Unfiltered LBV - post bottling aging optional, closure type discretionary, very limited cold stabilisation and straining of solids permitted, within specified parameters.

3) Filtered LBV - post bottling aging optional, but not expected, T stopper or screw cap obligatory, cold stabilisation and/or filtration at the discretion of the producer.

[JacobH]

I didn’t realise that “bottle-matured” was an official category. I thought it was in the same territory as “unfiltered”. Apologies.

If it is official, I do think it is an unhelpful name: “Bottle-Matured, Late-Bottled” is hardly readily understandable or something you would stick on a label in a big font. And I think the quickness with which the industry is jettisoning “colheita” in favour of “single harvest tawny” (or even just “single harvest”) demonstrates the importance of the IVDP getting the terminology right...

[uncle tom]

If it is official, I do think it is an unhelpful name: “Bottle-Matured, Late-Bottled” is hardly readily understandable or something you would stick on a label in a big font. And I think the quickness with which the industry is jettisoning “colheita” in favour of “single harvest tawny” (or even just “single harvest”) demonstrates the importance of the IVDP getting the terminology right...

There are very few takers in the bottle matured category, and some, like Churchill, who late release some of their LBV after it has matured in bottle, don't seem to bother with a fresh label that says that, so it would seem that the words 'bottle matured' are in themselves not perceived to improve marketability much.

[Glenn E.]

"Unfiltered" is as regulated as "Bottle Matured"; perhaps more so. I have no idea why so few producers use the term, though I can speculate that it requires documentation that they're not keen to produce.

"Filtered" is not a category. If it says nothing on the label, "Filtered" is assumed. That's why it seems like those producers who are making top-quality LBV would want to use the "Unfiltered" designation in order to draw a distinction between their product and the common supermarket fare. Since they don't, I have to assume that qualifying for use of the "Unfiltered" designation is more onerous than it seems like it should be.

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny".

[MigSU]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny".

Difficulty of the anglosphere to pronounce/spell "colheita"?

[uncle tom]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny"

The word 'colheita' was not readily understood in the Anglosphere, and other important markets like China, where English was gaining traction, but hispanic words were not understood. Sales in those markets were terrible and the need for a better name was pressing. I advocated 'Single Tawny' which would chime a little with premium Scotch. Adding the word 'Harvest' made it seem clumsy.

Commercially however, the adoption of an English name has been a huge success.

[JacobH]

Of course, if the English-speaking markets were more receptive to bottle labels in Portuguese, the bottle-matured version could have a Portuguese name on the basis that it is traditionally popular with the Portuguese shippers!

[Andy Velebil]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

[MigSU]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

[Andy Velebil]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

If we give it a new name it’s now magically different?

[uncle tom]

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

With someone close to port production joining the thread, we might get some useful insights. Is there a Val da Figueira LBV? I can't see one listed..

[JacobH]

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

What’s the difference between the two in wine-making? Is it that filtering is done under pressure whilst straining is just done under gravity?

[MigSU]

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

With someone close to port production joining the thread, we might get some useful insights. Is there a Val da Figueira LBV? I can't see one listed..

I've never seen one, now that you mention it. I could ask, since I know some people close to the family of the late Alfredo Calém.

[MigSU]

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

What’s the difference between the two in wine-making? Is it that filtering is done under pressure whilst straining is just done under gravity?

That, and pore size.

Mind you, when wines arrive at the filtration stage, they no longer have pips and large bits of skin floating around. These are removed quite a bit before filtration. This is why I say that there are many unfiltered wines (although they are obviously strained).

And also, don't mistake filtering for fining. Fining is done much earlier, and has different objectives.

[MigSU]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

If we give it a new name it’s now magically different?

No. But if you look at my answers above this one, you can see why I disagree with the assertion that there is no unfiltered wine.

[Glenn E.]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny"

The word 'colheita' was not readily understood in the Anglosphere, and other important markets like China, where English was gaining traction, but hispanic words were not understood. Sales in those markets were terrible and the need for a better name was pressing. I advocated 'Single Tawny' which would chime a little with premium Scotch. Adding the word 'Harvest' made it seem clumsy.

Commercially however, the adoption of an English name has been a huge success.

Not Anglosphere, you mean Great Britain. It's just you guys who don't like it. The US had no trouble with Colheita, and in fact it gives the Port an air of elegance.

The renaming is just clunky and unimaginative. And it isn't being widely adopted... primarily just a couple of British houses. Portuguese houses - nay, non-British houses - are still correctly using Colheita.

[Glenn E.]

If you must add clarification, here's how you do it.

dow.jpg (8.61 KiB) Viewed 4233 times

The category is still legally Colheita, and I believe that word must still appear on the label. Dow is doing it correctly, whereas Taylor and Graham are doing it wrong.

[MigSU]

Crikey!

[Andy Velebil]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

If we give it a new name it’s now magically different?

No. But if you look at my answers above this one, you can see why I disagree with the assertion that there is no unfiltered wine.

It is all filtering. Different levels and types of it. But it is all filtering regardless of what you call it.

And Fining is also filtering. Granted it is done with other materials but the goal of fining is the removal of unwanted material in the wine.

[uncle tom]

And Fining is also filtering

Hmm..

My understanding of fining is the process of adding materials to the wine that helps fine dust, suspended in the wine, to coagulate and fall to the bottom, from whence the clear wine above is drawn off - a process known as racking.

Filtering is the process of passing a fluid through a screen that mechanically traps particles too large to pass through.

The two processes are too dissimilar to be labelled as one and the same.

[Andy Velebil]

And Fining is also filtering

Hmm..

My understanding of fining is the process of adding materials to the wine that helps fine dust, suspended in the wine, to coagulate and fall to the bottom, from whence the clear wine above is drawn off - a process known as racking.

Filtering is the process of passing a fluid through a screen that mechanically traps particles too large to pass through.

The two processes are too dissimilar to be labelled as one and the same.

They are both defined as removing unwanted materials from the liquid.

There are many types of filtering, some very different than others (to use the examples for simplicity, a metal Colander is very different than an automobile oil filter.). However, at their core they are all forms of filtering out unwanted things in a liquid.

Just because some things removed are bigger than others and require different means to remove doesn’t change what is being done.

[MigSU]

I think you're being a bit too literal and going too much by the dictionary definition of "filtering". Context matters, and in this context (winemaking) "filtering" and "fining" are definitely not the same. And removing pips and macroscopic pieces of grape skin is also not considered filtering. Again: in the context of winemaking.