Which LBVs are worth cellaring?

[DRT]

I would add Niepoort to AHB's list.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I should also clarify that Warre make both styles. The one with minimal intervention is labelled as "bottle matured" and is usually bottled 4 years after the vintage and released after a further 2-6 years of bottle age.

I think I recall seeing the 2003 vintage in Waitrose recently. In 8 years time the 2011 vintage is likely to be well worth buying judging by the quality of the filtered version I had a couple of days ago.

[Monique]

I should also clarify that Warre make both styles. The one with minimal intervention is labelled as "bottle matured" and is usually bottled 4 years after the vintage and released after a further 2-6 years of bottle age.

I think I recall seeing the 2003 vintage in Waitrose recently. In 8 years time the 2011 vintage is likely to be well worth buying judging by the quality of the filtered version I had a couple of days ago.

Aha, that's why I didn't find the Warre 2011 unfiltered in the grocery. They hold them back some years!

[uncle tom]

I came across a modestly priced offering of the unfortunately named Q. Revolta LBV recently - the blurb didn't say if it was filtered or not, and the image wasn't clear enough to read the small print on the label, but the bottle appeared to have a driven cork.

Have only previously come across this brand in Vinologia - no idea where the actual Quinta is..

[DRT]

I came across a modestly priced offering of the unfortunately named Q. Revolta LBV recently - the blurb didn't say if it was filtered or not, and the image wasn't clear enough to read the small print on the label, but the bottle appeared to have a driven cork.

Have only previously come across this brand in Vinologia - no idea where the actual Quinta is..

The Quinta da Revolta is a farm located in Campanhã, in Oporto, Portugal. The Quinta da Revolta was built between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and owes its curious name for a possible rebellion that took place there around that time.

Like many others in the area, was the summer home of one of the great families of the Port, the Viscounts of Balsemão, owners of a magnificent palace in the city center. In 1851, the viscounts aforaram the property to his brother, José Pinto de Sousa Coutinho Target of Balsemão to later sell to the capitalist Porto José Duarte de Oliveira. In turn, in 1918, was bought by Alfredo Moreira da Silva, horticulturist, in whose family still remains.The farmhouse is on two floors, plant in "L", surrounded by boxwood gardens and the chapel to the house footprint. Access to the farmyard is done through a gate surmounted by the coat of arms of the Viscounts of Balsemão (Target, Brandão and Azevedo, with crown of viscount). The house is simple, modest, although large. In the chapel dedicated to Our Lady of Conception, the highlights are the elements of the interior tiles.

It seems that Quinta da Revolta is a brand name rather than being a vineyard in the Douro. I'm not sure how they got that one past the IVDP.

[RonnieRoots]

I came across a modestly priced offering of the unfortunately named Q. Revolta LBV recently - the blurb didn't say if it was filtered or not, and the image wasn't clear enough to read the small print on the label, but the bottle appeared to have a driven cork.

Have only previously come across this brand in Vinologia - no idea where the actual Quinta is..

The Quinta da Revolta is a farm located in Campanhã, in Oporto, Portugal. The Quinta da Revolta was built between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and owes its curious name for a possible rebellion that took place there around that time.

Like many others in the area, was the summer home of one of the great families of the Port, the Viscounts of Balsemão, owners of a magnificent palace in the city center. In 1851, the viscounts aforaram the property to his brother, José Pinto de Sousa Coutinho Target of Balsemão to later sell to the capitalist Porto José Duarte de Oliveira. In turn, in 1918, was bought by Alfredo Moreira da Silva, horticulturist, in whose family still remains.The farmhouse is on two floors, plant in "L", surrounded by boxwood gardens and the chapel to the house footprint. Access to the farmyard is done through a gate surmounted by the coat of arms of the Viscounts of Balsemão (Target, Brandão and Azevedo, with crown of viscount). The house is simple, modest, although large. In the chapel dedicated to Our Lady of Conception, the highlights are the elements of the interior tiles.

It seems that Quinta da Revolta is a brand name rather than being a vineyard in the Douro. I'm not sure how they got that one past the IVDP.

I remember tasting their entire range years ago as a possible import. We weren't very impressed at the time (that doesn't say anything about the current quality of course). The company that makes the wines is called Veredas do Douro, they're based in the Baixo Corgo. When we were sent the samples, we also received the full range of Valriz Ports, but I can't quite remember what the link was between the two...

[uncle tom]

The IVDP created the 'Bottle matured' category for bottle aged LBV in 2002 (I think) but aside from Warre, who's duel offering can easily confuse, there seem to be very few takers for this category, with most unfiltered LBVs being sold straight after bottling.

I'm not sure even whether 'bottle matured' LBV has to be unfiltered, and add to that the use of T stoppers on some unfiltered LBVs and the emergence of the term 'soft filtered' on others, the whole LBV market is turning into a chaotic mess, that serves neither the producers nor the consumers well.

There needs to be clarity on the filtration front, with a clear definition as to the maximum degree to which an unfiltered port can be strained of solids, whilst retaining the descriptors 'unfiltered' or 'bottle matured' - and perhaps the use of T stoppers should be mandatory on filtered LBV and forbidden on unfiltered, to afford a further clear distinction.

[uncle tom]

Inspired by this thread, I have today received some Offley LBV - it's the 2010

Packed in pretty individual cardboard cartons that were probably not cheap, the bottles have driven corks.

Beyond that there is no mention of filtration on the label, but it says it may be enjoyed straight away or after 'some' years in bottle.

- This is not very informative..

[Alex Bridgeman]

Inspired by this thread, I have today received some Offley LBV - it's the 2010

Packed in pretty individual cardboard cartons that were probably not cheap, the bottles have driven corks.

Beyond that there is no mention of filtration on the label, but it says it may be enjoyed straight away or after 'some' years in bottle.

- This is not very informative..

It's not, but that is down to Luis Sottomayor. He is not prepared to compromise on the standards to which he makes his LBV. He believes (and I agree with him) that LBV port is vintage port bottled later than the 3 year window and should be treated no differently than vintage port. Luis believes that any variation from this should be disclosed on the label - and since he doesn't vary from that behaviour he doesn't say anything on the label.

But Luis is one of the main reasons why LBV quality has gone up so much over the last few years The Sogrape brand LBVs are astonishing quality and value for money at the moment and are where I recommend starting a port collection to everyone and anyone - relatively cheap but with 2-3 decades of cellaring potential.

[uncle tom]

that LBV port is vintage port bottled later than the 3 year window and should be treated no differently than vintage port

So can I take it that this wine is as unfiltered as a vintage port?

[DRT]

that LBV port is vintage port bottled later than the 3 year window and should be treated no differently than vintage port

So can I take it that this wine is as unfiltered as a vintage port?

It should be, but it has also had 3 additional years dropping sediment into the lees so will not have the same amount of solid matter suspended in the liquid when bottled as VP would.

[uncle tom]

It should be, but it has also had 3 additional years dropping sediment into the lees so will not have the same amount of solid matter suspended in the liquid when bottled as VP would.

There are two issues here.

Removing sediment that has physically dropped during those three years is not a major issue IMO. Removing particulates that are small enough to remain in suspension however is much more worrisome - it appears to define the point at which a wine's ability to age becomes compromised.

[DRT]

It should be, but it has also had 3 additional years dropping sediment into the lees so will not have the same amount of solid matter suspended in the liquid when bottled as VP would.

There are two issues here.

Removing sediment that has physically dropped during those three years is not a major issue IMO. Removing particulates that are small enough to remain in suspension however is much more worrisome - it appears to define the point at which a wine's ability to age becomes compromised.

Or, in other words, we are making the same point.

Properly unfilterd LBV will still have the ability to age, but will not have the aging potential that it would have had if it had been bottled as VP after two years rather than four to six years.

These are not "issues", they are merely facts

[RonnieRoots]

The IVDP created the 'Bottle matured' category for bottle aged LBV in 2002 (I think) but aside from Warre, who's duel offering can easily confuse, there seem to be very few takers for this category, with most unfiltered LBVs being sold straight after bottling.

I'm not sure even whether 'bottle matured' LBV has to be unfiltered, and add to that the use of T stoppers on some unfiltered LBVs and the emergence of the term 'soft filtered' on others, the whole LBV market is turning into a chaotic mess, that serves neither the producers nor the consumers well.

There needs to be clarity on the filtration front, with a clear definition as to the maximum degree to which an unfiltered port can be strained of solids, whilst retaining the descriptors 'unfiltered' or 'bottle matured' - and perhaps the use of T stoppers should be mandatory on filtered LBV and forbidden on unfiltered, to afford a further clear distinction.

Smith Woodhouse also says "bottle matured" on the label. So obviously the Symingtons see a market for the product

[RonnieRoots]

But Luis is one of the main reasons why LBV quality has gone up so much over the last few years The Sogrape brand LBVs are astonishing quality and value for money at the moment and are where I recommend starting a port collection to everyone and anyone - relatively cheap but with 2-3 decades of cellaring potential.

That is very good to know. We have Ferreira available here at a relatively good price. I'll give that a try.

[LGTrotter]

It should be, but it has also had 3 additional years dropping sediment into the lees so will not have the same amount of solid matter suspended in the liquid when bottled as VP would.

There are two issues here.

Removing sediment that has physically dropped during those three years is not a major issue IMO. Removing particulates that are small enough to remain in suspension however is much more worrisome - it appears to define the point at which a wine's ability to age becomes compromised.

Or, in other words, we are making the same point.

Properly unfilterd LBV will still have the ability to age, but will not have the aging potential that it would have had if it had been bottled as VP after two years rather than four to six years.

These are not "issues", they are merely facts

Why would exta time in the pipe compromise the wine's capacity to age? I assume that some doubt exists for Tom to italicise the word "appears". If it is a doubt it is one I would share, as I cannot see why the shedding of another year or three worth of impurities before being confined to a bottle would circumscribe the aging potential. And yet it seems to. It is all a bit of a mystery. And I have wandered from the topic.

Having read this again it seems the the idea is that filtration is the problem, which experience tells me is true.

[DRT]

It should be, but it has also had 3 additional years dropping sediment into the lees so will not have the same amount of solid matter suspended in the liquid when bottled as VP would.

There are two issues here.

Removing sediment that has physically dropped during those three years is not a major issue IMO. Removing particulates that are small enough to remain in suspension however is much more worrisome - it appears to define the point at which a wine's ability to age becomes compromised.

Or, in other words, we are making the same point.

Properly unfilterd LBV will still have the ability to age, but will not have the aging potential that it would have had if it had been bottled as VP after two years rather than four to six years.

These are not "issues", they are merely facts

Why would exta time in the pipe compromise the wine's capacity to age? I assume that some doubt exists for Tom to italicise the word "appears". If it is a doubt it is one I would share, as I cannot see why the shedding of another year or three worth of impurities before being confined to a bottle would circumscribe the aging potential. And yet it seems to. It is all a bit of a mystery. And I have wandered from the topic.

Having read this again it seems the the idea is that filtration is the problem, which experience tells me is true.

I have no scientific evidence to back this up but it must at least be possible that the existence of the sediment in the same vessel as the wine has an influence on how it develops over time. VP is bottled with lots of solids suspended in the liquid that stay trapped in the same container (and occasionally mixed back into the liquid) until it is consumed. Unfiltered LBV has far less of those solids poured into the bottle because those solids are sitting in the bottom of the barrel. For me, that is a material difference that is likely to affect the aging potential of the wine.

[DRT]

...and on top of that there is oxidation. An extra two to four years of exposure to air in the barrel ages an LBV by a decade or two compared to VP. Does that accelerated process stop or slow down when the wine is bottled?

[LGTrotter]

I have no scientific evidence to back this up but it must at least be possible that the existence of the sediment in the same vessel as the wine has an influence on how it develops over time. VP is bottled with lots of solids suspended in the liquid that stay trapped in the same container (and occasionally mixed back into the liquid) until it is consumed. Unfiltered LBV has far less of those solids poured into the bottle because those solids are sitting in the bottom of the barrel. For me, that is a material difference that is likely to affect the aging potential of the wine.

All this rings true.

What about the three year bottlings of VP? I wonder if they last less well? Will the Fonseca 63 from Bonham's tire faster because of this? Difficult to know, particularly because of the vagaries of the bottler.

[uncle tom]

Why would exta time in the pipe compromise the wine's capacity to age?

My suspicion is that it doesn't, that a combination of wood age and bottle age tends to produce very enduring wines, such as the Niepoort Garrafeiras.

Why then are VPs often bottled early, with minimal wood exposure prior? I think the answer lies in the quest for good critical reviews.

Dirk once invited me into his blending room where he had some vintage stock samples. Two lotes had been partly kept in pipes and partly in tonels, and there was a significant difference between the two - more wood exposure at a young age clearly made for a more dour and sober wine.

Unfortunately, it follows that critics seeking out young fruit bombs to laud are likely to be less impressed by VPs that have had more wood exposure..

[Alex Bridgeman]

So coming back to the theme of the thread, this evening I opened a bottle of Warre 1986 bottle matured LBV (bottled 1990). It's gorgeous. It doesnt have the same level of refinement or complexity that a 1985 VP would have - but nor does it have the price tag.

And, in my opinion, it would age another 10 years if I allowed my remaining bottles to do so.

Top quality LBVs age and mature to produce a fabulous value-for-money mature port.

[uncle tom]

Another name worthy of mention is Ramos Pinto. They state very clearly that their LBVs are unfiltered and bottled in the fourth year.

One of my few encounters with an RP LBV was a '92 in April this year. My note says: 'still indecently young'

When there's definitely no filtration I have confidence in LBVs, but those producers who use driven corks yet make no statement on filtration bother me a little - it's a voyage into the unknown..

(Incidentally, if anyone is looking for good value quaffing, I still have stocks of TPS finest unfiltered reserve (FUR) which is aging beautifully, and at a mere tenner a bottle, is an absolute bargain..)

[Alex Bridgeman]

The port Tom refers to has a couple of tasting notes posted on TPF, the most recent of which is this one. While closer to a crusted than an LBV, I really ought to try it again now that it's had another three years of bottle age as it was pretty tasty in 2013 but needed some more time in the bottle.

[uncle tom]

Question:

Has Warre changed from late release bottle matured to filtered, or are they running both styles in tandem??

[PhilW]

Has Warre changed from late release bottle matured to filtered, or are they running both styles in tandem??

The latest Warre LBV I've seen to date is 2003 (bottle matured). Your question implies you have seen a more recent (2008+)?

[uncle tom]

Your question implies you have seen a more recent (2008+)?

I have T stoppered Warre 2009 LBV, and have seen 2010 and 2011 offered, presumably the same variant, as it would be too early to release them as bottle matured. Unlike the bottle matured LBVs currently on sale, these have red capsules instead of blue.

There is no mention of the non bottle-matured variety on their website however..

[PhilW]

I have T stoppered Warre 2009 LBV, and have seen 2010 and 2011 offered
...
There is no mention of the non bottle-matured variety on their website however..

Google shows me a few shops apparently offering the non-bottle-matured, though I don't remember seeing them before. It does seem odd that there is no mention of them on the Warre website, where they discuss and promote the benefits only of the traditional unfined/unfiltered method for LBV.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Question:

Has Warre changed from late release bottle matured to filtered, or are they running both styles in tandem??

Warre has been running both styles in tandem for a number of years, but the only place I've seen the filtered Warre in the UK has been in the BA business class lounges and on flights. I don't know whether the Warre filtered is available elsewhere in the UK but from what you both say, it must be.

[uncle tom]

I note that Noval also appear to be making both filtered and unfiltered LBV, so caution needed when purchasing..

[PhilW]

I note that Noval also appear to be making both filtered and unfiltered LBV, so caution needed when purchasing..

Noval have been doing that for several years at least, with both available via major suppliers and supermarkets in the UK at different times (and at least once both seen by myself at the same time in the same store).

[Alex Bridgeman]

I note that Noval also appear to be making both filtered and unfiltered LBV, so caution needed when purchasing..

Noval have been doing that for several years at least, with both available via major suppliers and supermarkets in the UK at different times (and at least once both seen by myself at the same time in the same store).

And frequently confused by the supermarkets - which can result in a generous bargain if you accidentally buy the bottle matured LBV at the filtered LBV price.

[uncle tom]

Four more producers of definitely unfiltered LBV:

Q. Infantado
Vista Alegre
Q. Romaneira
Cruz

Edit - also Q. de la Rosa

[uncle tom]

A thought comes to mind..

Why are the two flagship brands of Taylor Fladgate and the Symingtons - Taylor and Graham - presented as the pinnacle of their respective houses.. - both trading at the bottom end of the LBV spectrum, with filtered and T-stoppered offerings?

With the TFP, the 'natural' brand for the filtered offering would seem to be Croft, and now that the Syms have Cockburn under their wing, that too would seem to be the obvious filtered brand - easily presented as CSR's big brother.

OK, we've grown used to Taylor's filtered LBV on the supermarket shelves, but given the efforts made to elevate the Graham brand in recent years, the LBV now looks a bit sad and neglected...

[DaveRL]

I note that Noval also appear to be making both filtered and unfiltered LBV, so caution needed when purchasing..

Noval have been doing that for several years at least, with both available via major suppliers and supermarkets in the UK at different times (and at least once both seen by myself at the same time in the same store).

And frequently confused by the supermarkets - which can result in a generous bargain if you accidentally buy the bottle matured LBV at the filtered LBV price.

I am confused. I have some black label Noval which are clearly marked unfiltered. I also have white labelled ones, one of which I opened tonight.



It has a driven cork



And threw some sediment (more stayed in bottle)



The question is, filtered or unfiltered?

Tasty, but I won't try and keep any if filtered.

[DaveRL]

The back label, if this helps

[jdaw1]

I am confused.

Noval

Yes, QdN does that. Noval Quinta do Silval, anybody?

[idj123]

I came unstuck with the filtered Warre LBV a couple of years ago having bought eight bottles of the 2008 blind at auction believing that they had to be the 'traditional' variety (I congratulated myself at getting a bargain). Didn't bear comparison to the live version-I drank one, used one for cooking and gave the rest away.

[uncle tom]

Confusing indeed..

So, we seem to have the following variants of LBV:

1) T stopper and presumed filtered, e.g. Taylor, Graham

2) T stopper but clearly stated as unfiltered, e.g. Croft, Fonseca (older Fonseca LBVs have driven corks)

3) Driven corks but no statement on filtration, possibly 'soft' filtered, e.g. Offley, Quevedo, or possibly not, e.g. Niepoort

4) Driven corks and clearly stated to be unfiltered, e.g. Ramos Pinto, Crasto

5) Driven corks, declared unfiltered and late released as bottle matured, e.g. Warre (blue capsule), Smith Woodhouse

This is too complex (and yes, I also found out about the existence of the filtered red top Warre the hard way..)

- Brands having multiple styles of LBV are clearly a problem. To have one variant declared as unfiltered and another with no statement on filtration is obviously confusing. If producers want to market multiple styles under the same brand, they should be obliged to put the word 'filtered' clearly on the label, where appropriate, and not just say nothing.

- T stoppers on unfiltered LBV don't look very clever, and although they can maintain a seal for a good length of time, tend to snap when removed after a decade or so. In the interests of clarity and collective product image, I think the IVDP should outlaw these closures on unfiltered bottles.

- The third type of LBV leaves people guessing, which is not helpful. I'm not sure why Dirk elects to make no statement on filtration, either on his bottles or his website, but as they age very well, it's pretty evident that nothing of significance is stripped from them. Perhaps the IVDP should invite Dirk to pen a definition of 'unfiltered' based on his own practices, so he (and others) can be less hesitant about using the term..

[jdaw1]

Allow some agreement, and some disagreement.

- The third type of LBV leaves people guessing, which is not helpful. I'm not sure why Dirk elects to make no statement on filtration, either on his bottles or his website, but as they age very well, it's pretty evident that nothing of significance is stripped from them. Perhaps the IVDP should invite Dirk to pen a definition of 'unfiltered' based on his own practices, so he (and others) can be less hesitant about using the term..

Brands having multiple styles of LBV are clearly a problem. To have one variant declared as unfiltered and another with no statement on filtration is obviously confusing. If producers want to market multiple styles under the same brand, they should be obliged to put the word 'filtered' clearly on the label, where appropriate, and not just say nothing.

Why not oblige all to specify? Why require users to know what else they produce? Always state filtered or unfiltered. If there are awkward in-between cases, the IVDP could define (or use Dirk N.’s definition of) some other terms such as “slightly filtered”.

the IVDP should outlaw

Portugal does not have a deficit of regulation. It has far too much. If the label is clear, why regulate the closure at all. Allow the shipper to choose driven cork, T-stopper, screw cap, artificial, bag-in-box, other.

[uncle tom]

Portugal does not have a deficit of regulation. It has far too much.

It certainly has far too many regulators, and too much regulation that has no cost benefit. However, a large part of the success of the French wine industry comes down to the presence of clear regional frameworks for the presentation of products.

There is absolutely no reason why a quality bottle of claret could not be offered with a T stopper or a screw cap, but they don't. Moreover if a change was considered sensible and desirable, all the producers in a region would make the change in lockstep.

The anarchic nature of port's packaging and presentation may be liked by some, but overall I very much doubt it's good for trade.

[LGTrotter]

In trying to explain what port to buy and the various categories to novices I often run into the sand, being met with the blank stare of the confused. This may be because I lack clarity, or because the variations are confusing. I would not like to put myself on either side of this debate because I believe that some things are worth the struggle to understand.

[jdaw1]

It certainly has far too many regulators, and too much regulation that has no cost benefit.

Assume that LBV rules are changed such that filtration must be stated clearly. Conditional on that, why regulate closures?

(I agree that without clear labelling, closures can be a substitute label. Please assume mandatory labelling.)

[uncle tom]

Assume that LBV rules are changed such that filtration must be stated clearly.

I think the producers will be very squeamish about putting the word 'filtered' on any label. Of all the red table wine sold in supermarkets, probably over 95% has been subjected to significant filtration, yet the labels never say so.

Requiring the word 'filtered' to be placed on a filtered LBV label when the producer is making both filtered and unfiltered LBV under the same brand name would almost certainly result in the producer electing to market one of the variants under a different brand name, thereby removing the confusion element.

Conditional on that, why regulate closures?

As previously noted, for the same reason that good claret doesn't come with a screw cap..

[jdaw1]

As previously noted, for the same reason that good claret doesn't come with a screw cap..

Good claret doesn't come with a screw cap because makers of good claret think that their customers wouldn’t want that. And if their customers do want that, it should be allowed. (There might be rules as well—but there shouldn’t be.)

[LGTrotter]

As previously noted, for the same reason that good claret doesn't come with a screw cap..

Good claret doesn't come with a screw cap because makers of good claret think that their customers wouldn’t want that. And if their customers do want that, it should be allowed. (There might be rules as well—but there shouldn’t be.)

I'm sure there aren't rules, as evidenced by a rather stylish Segla 2009 which came with a screwcap. It is the second wine of Rausan Segla and was delicious, if a little modern. But I think this last view was influenced by the screwcap.

[DaveRL]

Both Sandeman 09 LBV and Ferreira 09 LBV opened this weekend. Both very good indeed. Both much better than filtered Noval 05.

I'm sorry that many will fail to come across the excellent unfiltered LBV and assume filtered LBV is as good as the category gets. Clear labelling could help, and maybe even encourage some to step further up the quality ladder.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I had it confirmed yesterday - when I tried the excellent 2011 unfiltered version - that Noval make both filtered and unfiltered LBV. The filtered LBV is aimed at the restaurant / aviation market and is intended for more or less immediate consumption on release.

The unfiltered version states on the label that it is unfiltered. It is actually treated in the same way as vintage port (ie. racked at room temperature) except for the fact that it sits in the barrel for a little extra time. It is intended to be able to be aged in the bottle and to reward a little patience. Indeed, in my opinion, it needs another 5 years or so before it will really show what it might have when it hits its peak.

[Glenn E.]

It is intended to be able to be aged in the bottle and to reward a little patience. Indeed, in my opinion, it needs another 5 years or so before it will really show what it might have when it hits its peak.

I have a 6-pack of the 2003 unfiltered that I don't plan to touch until 2018, at which point I expect it to need another 5-10 years. I probably wouldn't touch a 2011 unfiltered until at least 2026, and 2031 is probably safer.

I popped a 2003 Quevedo unfiltered last year, much to my chagrin. Patience, young padawan.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I popped a 2003 Quevedo unfiltered last year, much to my chagrin. Patience, young padawan.

I've been looking at my Quevedo '03 six pack recently and wondering whether it is time top open one. Thank you for posting and being first and helping me to decide to wait. I will follow your guidance Master Obi Wine Kenobi.