ThePortForum.com

Threads like this remind me what a wonderful thing it is to have discovered the forum and be a member!

Do you think we could persuade the IVDP to create several new categories of LBV just for us Port nerds? These could be:

1. Totally unfiltered - we apologise for the pips, grapeskins and toenails
2. Racked, but has all the stuff which floats on or is in suspension in the wine in the bottle - we apologise for your cloudy drink, but you wanted it this way
3. Cold stabilized in a few Douro winters, then fined, racked and bottled - the way we like to make our LBV (which you can drink on release or cellar for up to 30 years)
4. Cold stabilized in a few Douro winters, then fined, racked, bottled and cellared in our temperature controlled storage for X years - the way we like to make our LBV but we can charge a premium for the additional age (these wines you can drink on release or cellar for up to (30-X) years)
5. Filtered through a mesh of Y-microns at room temperature to remove the stuff which will form a sediment in the first 3-5 years so you can open and drink without having to worry about sludge in your glass.
6. Cold stabilized down to -8C and then filtered through a mesh of Z-microns to render the wine inert. You can cellar this for as long as you want since it won't throw a sediment. 10 years of cellaring should be enough time to turn it into an entry level light tawny tasting only of watery barley-sugar.

In their wisdom, the IVDP might want to add a few more categories of LBV, but introducing these as a minimum should allow us Port nerds to decide what kind of LBV we'd like to buy, store and drink.

I'll have a word.

This is where the rules surrounding Port - and their opacity - become most frustrating. I have no doubt that there are very specific regulations regarding what can and cannot be done to an LBV for it to qualify to use "Unfiltered" on the label, but because the IVDP's website is so difficult to use it's extremely difficult to find all of the relevant legislation.

Not that I'll stop trying, of course, but it's an annoying amount of work for such a simple question.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑21:04 Fri 20 Aug 2021 This is where the rules surrounding Port - and their opacity - become most frustrating. I have no doubt that there are very specific regulations regarding what can and cannot be done to an LBV for it to qualify to use "Unfiltered" on the label, but because the IVDP's website is so difficult to use it's extremely difficult to find all of the relevant legislation.

Not that I'll stop trying, of course, but it's an annoying amount of work for such a simple question.

I haven't been able to find anything.

This is where the rules surrounding Port - and their opacity - become most frustrating. I have no doubt that there are very specific regulations regarding what can and cannot be done to an LBV for it to qualify to use "Unfiltered" on the label, but because the IVDP's website is so difficult to use it's extremely difficult to find all of the relevant legislation.

Not that I'll stop trying, of course, but it's an annoying amount of work for such a simple question.

I fear the problem is not that the definitions are hiding, but that they don't exist, at least with any degree of workable clarity.

The IVDP has an army of inspectors, far more than could reasonably be considered necessary. Whilst driving with a producer back to his winery once, his cheerful disposition hit the floor when he saw an inspector's car parked outside.

The producers, especially the small ones, really don't want to rattle the IVDP's cage, so whilst Alex jokes about port nerds setting the agenda, it does to a degree fall to the consumer to make waves here, as we have nothing to fear from stirring the pot.

...although we might from filtering it.

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:21 Sat 21 Aug 2021 I fear the problem is not that the definitions are hiding, but that they don't exist, at least with any degree of workable clarity.

Since it's on the label, there has to be a regulation. As you say, though, it may not be a terribly clear regulation.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑23:34 Sun 22 Aug 2021 Since it's on the label, there has to be a regulation.

I wouldn't be so sure

MigSU wrote: ↑00:48 Mon 23 Aug 2021

Glenn E. wrote: ↑23:34 Sun 22 Aug 2021 Since it's on the label, there has to be a regulation.

I wouldn't be so sure

Indeed. There are regulations about what must be on the label, and regulations about when certain words or phrases may or may not be used, but that leaves a huge area where you can say what you like as long as it doesn't breach those rules (or fraud, decency or other rules ofc).

Well, thanks to a producer whom I've promised not to identify, here is the IVDP's definition of unfiltered:

- Evaluation of the unstable fraction of wine colloids by heat (MIVDP 74)
- Assessment of colloidal coloring matter and cold tartaric precipitation (MIVDP 75)
- CIELAB color coordinates
- Folin index
- Turbidity

Aside from the obvious complexity, some of the criteria lack a defined value, which implies a degree of subjectivity. For a small producer who can't afford a full time lab technician, this must be a significant deterrent to claiming a product is unfiltered.

I have also learned that it is common practice with LBVs to use bentonite as a fining agent. This delays the formation of sediment by about 2-3 years, allowing product to be shipped to the market place and consumed by those who don't want to age their bottles, without generating complaint.

uncle tom wrote:Well, thanks to a producer whom I've promised not to identify, here is the IVDP's definition of unfiltered:

- Evaluation of the unstable fraction of wine colloids by heat (MIVDP 74)
- Assessment of colloidal coloring matter and cold tartaric precipitation (MIVDP 75)
- CIELAB color coordinates
- Folin index
- Turbidity

Aside from the obvious complexity, some of the criteria lack a defined value, which implies a degree of subjectivity. For a small producer who can't afford a full time lab technician, this must be a significant deterrent to claiming a product is unfiltered.

I have also learned that it is common practice with LBVs to use bentonite as a fining agent. This delays the formation of sediment by about 2-3 years, allowing product to be shipped to the market place and consumed by those who don't want to age their bottles, without generating complaint.

Sodium and Calcium Bentonite are widely used in the wine trade around the world.

Indeed.

Further enquiries indicate that it is very hard to determine whether bentonite fining will or will not fail the IVDPs unfiltered test, so producers shy away from claiming their wines are unfiltered, for fear the IVDP will ordain otherwise.

So how do we unravel the current confusion?

- Ask the IVDP to relax their definition of unfiltered? The relatively small numbers of producers in the unfiltered camp would probably cry foul. There would be anxieties about regulatory spillover into VP.

- Suffer the status quo? It seems too messy.

Or..

- Ask the IVDP to require that true unfiltered wines must be closed with proper driven corks, and that any wine that has been subjected to mechanical filtration or cold stabilisation must be closed with T-stoppers or screw caps, leaving an intermediate third category that is not billed as unfiltered, and may be closed with driven corks, which has only been subjected to bentonite fining.

This would create a separate class of age worthy, but not strictly unfiltered wines, and would encompass (I think) the majority of LBVs currently on the market, although not the largest volume brands.

Based on all of the above, I really cannot see why any producer would want to engage in all of that bureaucracy in order to put “unfiltered” on their bottle. I’m quite amazed some do! For the tiny number of consumers who look out for unfiltered LBVs, something on the back like “this bottle will improve with age and may benefit from decanting before serving” would probably do the trick whilst avoiding all of the above.

Also, as an English lawyer, the idea that the technical requirements are not set out in the regulations is quite alien, but I guess that is just a cultural difference.

I believe that all Port wines were traditionally and naturally cold stabilised in their first winter in the Douro before being shipped downriver to Oporto.

Alex Bridgeman wrote:I believe that all Port wines were traditionally and naturally cold stabilised in their first winter in the Douro before being shipped downriver to Oporto.

That’s not cold stabilization just as using different types of filters isn’t filtering

Oh God, here we go

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑00:34 Sun 05 Sep 2021using different types of filters isn’t filtering

surely "using a filter" is the very definition of "filtering"?

Filtration - the process in which solid particles in a liquid or gaseous fluid are mechanically removed by the use of a filter medium that permits the fluid to pass through but retains the solid particles.

Fining - the process whereby fine solid particles in suspension in a fluid are chemically persuaded to settle out, leaving a clear liquid that can be then drawn off.

The first process is mechanical, the second chemical, so not alternate names for the same exercise.

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:22 Mon 06 Sep 2021Filtration - ... use of a filter ...

As I said. I wasn't trying to argue the definition of filtration, fining or other processes by which a substance is separated from a liquid; just that Andy's statement that " using different types of filters isn’t filtering" needed picking up on, since it is the crux of his whole argument!

uncle tom wrote: ↑08:22 Mon 06 Sep 2021 Filtration - the process in which solid particles in a liquid or gaseous fluid are mechanically removed by the use of a filter medium that permits the fluid to pass through but retains the solid particles.

Fining - the process whereby fine solid particles in suspension in a fluid are chemically persuaded to settle out, leaving a clear liquid that can be then drawn off.

The first process is mechanical, the second chemical, so not alternate names for the same exercise.

So chilling a wine and allowing the particles to settle out naturally is neither filtering nor fining. Excellent. Cold stabilised wines which are not filtered can be (dictionary) defined as unfiltered.

The last review of LBV regulation (that I'm aware of) was in about 2002, when the word 'Traditional' got outlawed and the term 'Bottle matured' was introduced.

I don't mourn the loss of the word 'Traditional' - it was always a bit of a nonsense. The term 'Bottle matured' has not been widely embraced, and I notice that producers late releasing part of their stock are not bothering to get a new label printed with the words included, so the words are not perceived as adding value.

Perhaps it's time to have three classes of LBV, presented and labelled a little more consistently to remove the uncertainties:

A) Standard LBV - T stoppered (or screw cap on small bottles) - fined and filtered at the producer's discretion, must not have labelling that causes confusion with the other categories.

B) Full bodied LBV - T stopper or driven cork - limited fining and stabilisation only permitted. Label must carry the words 'Full bodied' prominently if the bottle is sealed with a T stopper, but otherwise optional. Must not say 'Unfiltered'.

C) Unfiltered LBV - Driven cork mandatory - limited cold stabilisation only permitted. Label must clearly state 'Unfiltered'.

If bottle aged for three or more years prior to release, types B) & C) allowed to use the term 'Bottle matured'

> Most producers would need to make no changes to remain compliant. The biggest impact would be on the handful of producers who currently use T stoppers on unfiltered wines.

Just been looking at the age of LBVs at release - the rules say bottling must be 4 to 6 years after the vintage, yet none are released in the first half of the fourth year - a handful appear before the harvest begins in the fourth following year, so it can't be four years after the actual harvest.

Also noticeable is that of all the LBVs currently offered by Portugal Vineyards, exactly half are seven or more years past the vintage year. I wonder if the producers would be keen to extend the bottling window from two years to three, and allow seventh year bottling?

uncle tom wrote: ↑12:50 Tue 14 Sep 2021 the rules say bottling must be 4 to 6 years after the vintage

I believe that "4 to 6 years" is our shorthand as Port fanatics, and not the actual regulation. As with VP, which we refer to as 2-3 years after Harvest but for which the regulation is actually 18 to 30 months after Harvest, I suspect that the regulation for LBV is more specific. But I haven't actually looked it up, so can't say for sure.