I have been wondering about this recently, and the slightly unusal relationship between terroir and Port which is rather different to other wines.
On the one hand, Port was historically rather anti-terroir. The shippers blended, used different vineyards in different years, and made wines from vineyards spread out over a huge region. Even with the rise of the SQVP, there is still a strong anti-terroir streak to the way in which many shippers write about their wines. Microclimates are strongly emphasised to suggest that one Quinta will be completely different from its neighbours, and tiny parcels of grapes are now used to produced super-premium Ports, partly on the basis that their micro-climates are particularly good.
Yet, on the other hand, on a macro-scale, the three-fold division of the demarcated region is respected and followed. Most Port drinkers would probably say that there is a notable different from the light, early-maturing Ports of the Baixo Corgo (if one can even find many examples these days), to the classic wines of the central Cima Corgo and the tannic monsters that the Douro Superior produces.
Beyond this, though, there is little discussion of terroir, which strikes me as odd. If the Douro was in France, I am sure they would have broken it up, with Village-type sub-demarcations for the best areas. But is that made out in the wine? I think, in some areas, it probably is. Vesuvio and Senhora da Ribeira strike me as producing similar types of Port. Perhaps the Quintas around Pinhäo have a certain similarity, too (Bomfin, Roeda, Foz etc.).
What do others on
think? Has anyone else come across references to unusual Port styles, like the Provezende-style Ports Niepoort wanted to make?
That said, don't forget all of this takes a force of will from makers, regulators, etc. Interesting though, and I will put on my list of concepts to pursue and research one day soon.
