ThePortForum.com

2000 Niepoort LBV (unfiltered)
Bottled in 2005.

decant +2:
Small amount of lumpy sediment. Opaque, very dark red colour with a dark orange rim. Lots of chocolate on the palette... it's a cherry bonbon! Hardly any other fruit as of yet. Not much nose either but cherries and rose hip. Short aftertaste. I guess I have to wait a couple more hours.
decant +3:
Things are slowely opening up. Nice! Cherries, blackcurrant and a tiny hint of banana on the nose! Chocolate is slowly integrating, with fresh fig, sultana and strawberry coming into the palette. Some black pepper in the aftertaste, which is slowly lengthening. This is promissing for the next couple of hours!
decant +4:
Its getting sweeter and sweeter, like strawberry jam!

decant +24:
Strawberry jam all around. Maybe some cherries. Most of the interesting little hints from day one have disappeared. Strangely enough even the chocolate, which was so extremely dominant on the first day, has disappeared as well! Reasonably long aftertaste, but also quite one dimensional. Tannins are definitely present, but not too prominent.

decant +48:
No change with previous day.

This is a nice LBV if consumed on the day of decanting.

Rubby, if you liked this Niepoort LBV, try the 2001. It's much better. Henri Bloem should still have some bottles in stock. Don't let them talk you into buying the 2003, that's a serious let down by Niepoort. (Probably because all the good grapes went into the VP.)

RonnieRoots wrote:Rubby, if you liked this Niepoort LBV, try the 2001. It's much better. Henri Bloem should still have some bottles in stock. Don't let them talk you into buying the 2003, that's a serious let down by Niepoort. (Probably because all the good grapes went into the VP.)

Thanks for the tip. To be honest I was a bit disappointed with the 2000 LBV. I had high expectations, because the Niepoort 2000 VP seems to be quite the thing.
It was a nice LBV, but... I expected a bit more.
Will try that 2001 though.

Which brings me to a question: how closely related are a VP and a LBV from the same year? Obviously a great VP doesn't automatically mean a great LBV.

Rubby wrote:Which brings me to a question: how closely related are a VP and a LBV from the same year? Obviously a great VP doesn't automatically mean a great LBV.

I will ceate a thread to find out.

I would agree that 2001 Niepoort LBV is a very good one.

RonnieRoots wrote: Don't let them talk you into buying the 2003, that's a serious let down by Niepoort. (Probably because all the good grapes went into the VP.)

Ronnie,

I'd disagree with you on the 2003. I was served this blind and it blew me away. I thought it was a VP. Still very young and needs at least 15 years to really start reaching its drinking greatness. I've recommended it to my brother and friend, who both work at wineries here in California. They both loved it, and for my brother to say that is quite remarkable as he generally doesn't like Port.

If this is so, than it was at least worth it. The Niepoort 2003 VP is very good. The first LBV from Niepoort I tasted was the 96 I think and this was totally poop. I never touched their LBVs until 2000/2001.

Agreed: the 2001 LBV is a very good LBV.

Axel

ADV wrote:

RonnieRoots wrote: Don't let them talk you into buying the 2003, that's a serious let down by Niepoort. (Probably because all the good grapes went into the VP.)

Ronnie,

I'd disagree with you on the 2003. I was served this blind and it blew me away. I thought it was a VP. Still very young and needs at least 15 years to really start reaching its drinking greatness. I've recommended it to my brother and friend, who both work at wineries here in California. They both loved it, and for my brother to say that is quite remarkable as he generally doesn't like Port.

Well, tastes differ of course, but it's certainly not my favorite. I've tasted it a couple of times (blind and non-blind) and never liked it.