2003 Kopke LBV

Tasting notes for individual Ports, with an index sorted by vintage and alphabetically.
Forum rules
Tasting notes for individual Ports, with an index sorted by vintage and alphabetically.
Post Reply
User avatar
10Anos
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 106
Joined: 21:55 Wed 27 Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands

2003 Kopke LBV

Post by 10Anos » 17:55 Sun 02 Mar 2008

Note: This topic was originally posted in the Port Conversations Section.


I opened a Kopke L.B.V. 2003 two days ago and gave it another try today.

Since I'm relatively new to Port and the fact that this is my very first L.B.V. so far, I didn't feel confident enough to post this message in the Tasting Notes part of this forum.
I also seem to lack the experience and/or ability to describe a wine in terms of all the different tastes of fruits, nuts, woods, etc., that some on this forum seem to be able to do so easily. I will say, though, that if a certain taste is quite present, even I will detect it :wink: .

Still, I would like to share my experience with the Kopke L.B.V. 2003 (bottled in 2007)...

The colour is dark ruby. The nose is very weak. Bland is the first (and only) word that comes to mind to describe the flavour. Finish is slightly dry.
If I were forced to choose between this L.B.V. and the Offley Ruby, I'd choose the latter.

As I wrote, this is my first L.B.V. so far. But I must say that I'm disappointed. Would that be because it's pretty similar to Ruby (which is not my favourite style)?

Another thing that I would like to mention is the fact that the printing on the back of the bottle has been covered by a label. I wonder why that is... a misprint maybe? Once I've finished the bottle I'll soak it in water until the label comes off...
Last edited by 10Anos on 07:08 Tue 04 Mar 2008, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AHB
Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
Posts: 11095
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Post by AHB » 22:09 Sun 02 Mar 2008

I must say that I am surprised at your experience of the Kopke LBV 2003. Although I have never had this particular LBV, I would have expected the nose to be full of fruit and the taste to be the same way. I wonder if you could have had a poor bottle.

I would suggest that you don't give up on the style just yet. Let us know what other LBV ports are available in your local shops and we can suggest one which we think would be a good introduction for you to the style.

By the way - great tasting note. It clearly conveyed the feelings that you had when you tasted this port, so thank you for sharing it with us.

Alex
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14995
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 22:13 Sun 02 Mar 2008

Please don't be intimidated by the Tasting Note forum. All of us had to write a first TN once and it is always good to see someone lose their virginity :wink: :lol:

Please feel free to create a separate post in the TN section or ask to have this thread moved there so that it can be included in our list of ports that have been tasted by members.

I have not had the Kopke LBV and fromm your description I don't think I will be seeking one out!

One thing I would say is that 2003 is still very young for an unfiltered LBV, which I think this probably is, so perhaps they will improve over time.

I have seen the stenciling under labels before. It may be that they do this in case the paper label falls off or is destroyed by dampness in a cellar.

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
RonnieRoots
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1966
Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: Middle Earth

Post by RonnieRoots » 23:06 Sun 02 Mar 2008

It's been a while since I last had a Kopke LBV, but with the ones I had, I've never been impressed. They are indeed more like a (reserve) ruby than a LBV.

If you want to have a good idea of what LBV can be, try a good unfiltered one, like Niepoort, Warre (not the one at Albert Heijn, that's filtered!), Quinta do Noval, Quinta do Crasto, etc.

User avatar
10Anos
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 106
Joined: 21:55 Wed 27 Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands

Post by 10Anos » 20:16 Mon 03 Mar 2008

AHB wrote:I would suggest that you don't give up on the style just yet. Let us know what other LBV ports are available in your local shops and we can suggest one which we think would be a good introduction for you to the style.
Don't worry, my first experience with a 10 year old Tawny was kind of alike. If I'd have turned my back on that type just then, I would not have 10 Anos as my favourite...
Today, I happened to run into an Offley L.B.V. 2000 (bottled 2004). It was the last one left (the rest was L.B.V. 2003), so (impulsively) I bought it.
AHB wrote: By the way - great tasting note. It clearly conveyed the feelings that you had when you tasted this port, so thank you for sharing it with us.
Thanks, self-confidence is growing :) .
Derek T. wrote:Please don't be intimidated by the Tasting Note forum. All of us had to write a first TN once and it is always good to see someone lose their virginity :wink: :lol:

Please feel free to create a separate post in the TN section or ask to have this thread moved there so that it can be included in our list of ports that have been tasted by members.
OK, you convinced me. After posting this reply I will send a PM to admin.
Derek T. wrote: One thing I would say is that 2003 is still very young for an unfiltered L.B.V., which I think this probably is, so perhaps they will improve over time.
The Kopke L.B.V. 2003 is most likely filtered because the bottle has a stopper and there is no "unfiltered" on the label. I read that (since 2002) regulations decree "unfiltered" must be on the label of a L.B.V. if it is not filtered prior to bottling.

As I wrote above, I already have another L.B.V. lying around, so in a while I'll be attempting another TN! :)

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14995
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 21:30 Mon 03 Mar 2008

I have moved this to where it belongs - congratulations on losing your TN virginity 88) :lol: :lol:
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
AHB
Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
Posts: 11095
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Post by AHB » 08:41 Tue 04 Mar 2008

10Anos wrote:...there is no "unfiltered" on the label. I read that (since 2002) regulations decree "unfiltered" must be on the label of a L.B.V. if it is not filtered prior to bottling.
This is something that I did not realise. Interesting piece of news. Thanks for posting it.
Top Port in 2017 (so far): Graham Stone Terraces 2015 and Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
2016 Port of the year: Cockburn 1908

User avatar
10Anos
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 106
Joined: 21:55 Wed 27 Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands

error

Post by 10Anos » 18:35 Tue 04 Mar 2008

AHB wrote:
10Anos wrote:...there is no "unfiltered" on the label. I read that (since 2002) regulations decree "unfiltered" must be on the label of a L.B.V. if it is not filtered prior to bottling.
This is something that I did not realise. Interesting piece of news. Thanks for posting it.
I must apologize for this statement. I remembered incorrectly. After reading the very elaborate site http://www.infoportwine.com/ I come to the conclusion that "unfiltered" or "não filtrado" are allowed for the VP, LBV, Crusted or Reserve, but not compulsory. According to the article on Port wine in Wikipedia, the identification "Traditional" to indicate an unfiltered LBV was banned in 2002.
Last edited by 10Anos on 21:21 Tue 04 Mar 2008, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rubby
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 128
Joined: 13:33 Tue 28 Aug 2007
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Post by Rubby » 21:11 Tue 04 Mar 2008

As a fellow trainee Port enthousiast, I recently had a few LBV's by
different producers, just to experience the difference in styles (and
because a LBV is a bit more easy on the wallet than a VP). I found them very usefull in training the taste buds in recognizing the different flavours and smells.

So far I've had the Kopke, Warre's, Croft, Churchill, Taylor's and Quinta de
Ventozelo (all 2000 or 2001).
From these I have to say the Kopke was the least impressive.
Frequently Ask Questions

User avatar
RonnieRoots
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1966
Joined: 08:28 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: Middle Earth

Post by RonnieRoots » 21:42 Tue 04 Mar 2008

Which one did you like best?

User avatar
Rubby
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 128
Joined: 13:33 Tue 28 Aug 2007
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Post by Rubby » 22:19 Tue 04 Mar 2008

Difficult to pick just one.

The Taylor's was a bit too sweet to my taste.
Croft was the least sweet (which I liked).

I'd say the Churchill and Croft had the richest palette.
The Churchill needed a lot of decanting time to fully open up though.

The Warre's was really nice too, but only if you drink it on the day of decanting; 24 hrs later almost all the niceness had vanished!

I think I'll give the Churchill and Croft shared first place.
Frequently Ask Questions

User avatar
DRT
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14995
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 22:35 Tue 04 Mar 2008

Was it the filtered or unfiltered version of the Warre's LBV that you had? There is a big difference between these two wines and the unfiltered is far superior. I would be surprised if it was the unfiltered 2003 you have tasted as they normally don't release it until it is a little older. I think the 1999 was released in 07.

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"

Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
Rubby
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 128
Joined: 13:33 Tue 28 Aug 2007
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Post by Rubby » 22:55 Tue 04 Mar 2008

It was the Warre 2001 LBV filtered (bottled 2007).
Frequently Ask Questions

User avatar
10Anos
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 106
Joined: 21:55 Wed 27 Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands

Post by 10Anos » 21:23 Wed 05 Mar 2008

10Anos wrote:Another thing that I would like to mention is the fact that the printing on the back of the bottle has been covered by a label.
After finishing the L.B.V. 2003 I soaked the bottle until I could take the label off. It was clearly not a misprint. The only reason I can think of is that some barcode scanners may have difficulty reading the code on the bottle (which is less clearly defined than the ink on the label).
Derek T. wrote:I have seen the stenciling under labels before. It may be that they do this in case the paper label falls off or is destroyed by dampness in a cellar.
This too may be a good reason, but why go to all the trouble of printing the bottle just to cover it up with a label that may or may not fall off later? I'd leave it off in the first place and save a few Eurocents...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests