Cellar Defenders

[Alex Bridgeman]

It's a theme we've explored on a number of occasions in the past, but I'm interested to learn what people are currently using as cellar defenders. Right now I am working my way through a series of one off young LBV and VP halves and bottles which I have picked up over the last couple of years as curiosities — producers I've not seen before or vintages which I've not tasted before.

For example, I've just opened a Muscat 2018 "Very, very sweet wine" from Adam Mason in Stellenbosch and I'm debating what to open tomorrow. Candidates include Churchill Fine White NV and Noval LB bottled - I estimate - in the 1980s.

[winesecretary]

Like AHB I have a decent number of single bottles of usually inexpensive esoterica (in my case usually purchased either from auction or from Garrafeira Nacional). And, I occasionally go down a rabbit hole, such as asking myself how the 2016s are getting along in half, and hoovering up a bunch from VWAP for comparative purposes. But I also have classical cellar defenders in the form of multiple bottles of each of the following intended for fairly near-term drinking. 1996 TV (halves), 1998 ChAA, 2000 Sainsbury TTD, 2005 Croft Roeda (halves), 2007 M&S, 2011 M&S, Niepoort Crusted Bottled 2014, Niepoort 2015 LBV.

In fact most of what I drink is still red table wine, for which cellar defenders range from the classical (house claret - currently Chateau Brown Lamartine 2009 - and house burgundy - currently Chapuis & Chapuis Mercurey 1er Cru Clos l'Eveque 2014) to the weird and wonderful (and, often, deliberately not very alcoholic - this evening, Catherine and Pierre Breton's 2018 Grolleau at 10.5%).

I also have a bottle of Finger Lakes Seneca Shores Amulet NV Reserve 'Port'. If it was from Oporto it would be a 'Crusted Bottled 2018'. A kind gift from the owner. Purists might consider this to be 'the 'port' against which all the other bottles I own defend me'. But it's actually pretty decent.

[JacobH]

Right now I am working my way through a series of one off young LBV and VP halves and bottles which I have picked up over the last couple of years as curiosities — producers I've not seen before or vintages which I've not tasted before.

It’s funny to see how different our tastes are: for me new producers and vintages are a special treat which I will only open when I am in the mood to enjoy them properly!

I don’t think I’ve had a “cellar defender” in the sense of a single port for which I have had stacks of bottles which I drink to stop me drinking something else for a very long time. As a result, if I don’t want to drink anything special, I will probably open something like a Graham or Taylor LBV; a young-ish Fonseca, Croft or Taylor SQVP; or either the Churchill Dry White or Cockburn White, depending on what sort of Port I fancy. But this rather wide category means I very rarely get through a big quantity of any specific one over the course of the year. For example, I thought I had drunk “lots” of the Graham 2006 LBV but I’ve only had 5 bottles and three glasses over the last 10 years!

[rich_n]

I’ve been working on cellar defenders as I’ve been building up my VP collection, and mostly it’s similar to what has already been discussed. I have been intrigued by unfiltered LBVs and crusted ports, so there’s a heavy lean towards those, but I’ve also started trying 10yo tawnies from various different producers to see if I can find one that I really like. Poças is out front there at the moment, however I have a couple of bottles I’m intrigued by that I haven’t opened yet.

[uncle tom]

As I'm drinking far more at home this year, and far less socially, my normal allocations for home drinking are being stretched.

I have a spreadsheet to ration my allocations of VP and LBV, and as infill, am drinking some ten yr old half bottles of Quevedo reserve tawny, which is now very nicely smoothed out, and also a large measure of my own FUR (finest unfiltered reserve). I also have some half bottles of Taylor Select for snacking.

Tonight however, I will be popping a 500mL bottle of Taylor 10yr old, bottled in 2009, which I bought nine six packs of ten years ago at Strakers, and still have 32 bottles left..

[CPR 1]

Niepoort Crusted is my go to Port at the moment for cellar defence, supported by random LBV / SQVP (reduced from Waitrose or Sainsbury’s) and 1/2 bottles. I really do really rather like the Niepoort Crusted though....

[JacobH]

I have a spreadsheet to ration my allocations of VP and LBV, and as infill, am drinking some ten yr old half bottles of Quevedo reserve tawny, which is now very nicely smoothed out, and also a large measure of my own FUR (finest unfiltered reserve). I also have some half bottles of Taylor Select for snacking.

Tonight however, I will be popping a 500mL bottle of Taylor 10yr old, bottled in 2009, which I bought nine six packs of ten years ago at Strakers, and still have 32 bottles left..

In light of the reference to two lots of 10-year-old-10-year-old tawny, do you ever drink any Port that hasn't spent some serious time aging in a bottle?!

[winesecretary]

@ CPR1 - I'm with you on the Niepoort Crusted. So good that only an appeal to my better nature persuaded me to post a tasting note, as opposed to silently buying up the world supply.

[rich_n]

I only have Dow’s and Graham’s crusted, acquired over the last year in various supermarket sales bonanzas. I shall look out for the Niepoort!

In honour of the cellar defender discussion I’ve opened a bottle of Graham’s 10 year old tawny, which I sadly haven’t had time to cellar for 10 years in bottle. It is rather good, more cherries early in the palate than others that I’ve tried.

[uncle tom]

do you ever drink any Port that hasn't spent some serious time aging in a bottle?!

Very rarely these days. Around 98% of my port consumption is aged wine with an overall average of somewhere between 25 and 30 years bottle age.

[rich_n]

do you ever drink any Port that hasn't spent some serious time aging in a bottle?!

Very rarely these days. Around 98% of my port consumption is aged wine with an overall average of somewhere between 25 and 30 years bottle age.

Do you find much changes in those 10 year old tawnies when they’ve spend a decade in bottle?

[JacobH]

If you'll forgive me for answering a question aimed at Tom, I think it can be quite beneficial in terms of softening and mellowing a young tawny. In some respects it's not dissimilar to a garrafeira- some time in casks and then some time in glass.

[uncle tom]

Do you find much changes in those 10 year old tawnies when they’ve spend a decade in bottle?

Standard tawnies don't go south after a decade in bottle, but they only mellow to a moderate degree. Rich reserve tawnies, like the Quevedo, are very raw when first bottled, yet bottle age quite quickly, becoming much smoother and mellow. Thereafter they become pretty much bullet proof - bottles of quality tawny still drink very well after half a century.

When it comes to the indication of age tawnies, and colheitas, there is quite a variation between the producers. Taylor and Noval age quite well, as do virtually all the offerings from the Portuguese houses. Niepoort ages very well. However the Symingtons are too brutal with their tawnies - they strip too much out of them. Having had a few disappointments from that stable, I avoid buying tawnies under their brands.

[Andy Velebil]

If you'll forgive me for answering a question aimed at Tom, I think it can be quite beneficial in terms of softening and mellowing a young tawny. In some respects it's not dissimilar to a garrafeira- some time in casks and then some time in glass.

It is nothing like a Garrafeira. Which is basically an LBV stored in a large bottle for extended periods.

Almost all tawnies are produced and intended to be consumed within a few years of bottling. Sure you can age them a very long time. But you lose what the producer intended them to be like. If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

[JacobH]

Almost all tawnies are produced and intended to be consumed within a few years of bottling. Sure you can age them a very long time. But you lose what the producer intended them to be like. If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

If we go by “what the producer intended” wouldn’t we be drinking all of our Q. d. Malevedos or Canais at about 12 years’ old, since the Symingtons’ tell us they release it when it is ready to drink?

[Andy Velebil]

Almost all tawnies are produced and intended to be consumed within a few years of bottling. Sure you can age them a very long time. But you lose what the producer intended them to be like. If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

If we go by “what the producer intended” wouldn’t we be drinking all of our Q. d. Malevedos or Canais at about 12 years’ old, since the Symingtons’ tell us they release it when it is ready to drink?

Good point. A ruby being bottle aged and for how long is a also a personal preference. I don't mind Ruby's, and even red table wine, that has been aged in bottle longer than what most care for. Are they at their best anymore, no. But the two really can't be compared for the sake of this discussion. As one is meant for bottle aging and one was aged in cask and when someone thought they were finally ready they were bottled to drink relatively soon.

[uncle tom]

The producers have to work within the constraints presented to them. They can't make a mellow wine, as that is only achieved through bottle aging, and they also know that there is no consumer tradition of laying down tawnies to mature. As a consequence, it doesn't do their sales much good if they shout from the rooftops that their tawnies will be better after a few years cellaring.

So rather than say that they intend their wines to be drunk soon after bottling, it is more accurate to say that it is inevitable that most will be, and that they therefore have to make the best of that. Compared to an aged bottle, a freshly bottled tawny has a very rough edge to it. There's not much getting round that, although I suspect it motivates the Symingtons' heavy treatment of them.

Most producers don't keep library stock of their tawnies, and whenever I've repatriated an aged bottle for them to try, the reaction has always been positive - and on one occasion, one of outright astonishment.

Next time you're in the UK Andy, get hold of a freshly bottled Ferreira Duke de Braganza 20yr, and I''ll pull one that was bottled in 1979, and we'll see which one most people prefer..

[Andy Velebil]

Next time you're in the UK Andy, get hold of a freshly bottled Ferreira Duke de Braganza 20yr, and I''ll pull one that was bottled in 1979, and we'll see which one most people prefer..

Sounds like a plan.

[Glenn E.]

If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

It's this kind of hyperbole that diminishes the credibility of your argument.

The only Port - ruby or tawny - that I've had that could be accurately described as "flat and sweet" has been basic/reserve rubies and tawnies, or the occasional very old Vintage Port that's long past its prime. Age any Port long enough and yes, it will become flat and sweet. The time frames being discussed here won't do that to anything other than a basic/reserve ruby or tawny, though.

Describing a 40-year old that has been bottle aged as "flat and sweet" is nothing more than a Trumpism. If you say it often enough and loudly enough, it must be true right?

Tawnies seem to follow a pattern similar to what Vintage Ports display as they age. Once bottled, they're very good for several years, then they start to change and go into a funk for a while. After some time, they re-emerge. Different. Changed. Bottle-matured.

Whether or not you like that change is personal preference. But it is not at all accurate to claim that they're "flat and sweet" once they've been bottle aged. Just because you don't like how they've changed does not mean that it's wrong.

[Andy Velebil]

If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

It's this kind of hyperbole that diminishes the credibility of your argument.

The only Port - ruby or tawny - that I've had that could be accurately described as "flat and sweet" has been basic/reserve rubies and tawnies, or the occasional very old Vintage Port that's long past its prime. Age any Port long enough and yes, it will become flat and sweet. The time frames being discussed here won't do that to anything other than a basic/reserve ruby or tawny, though.

Describing a 40-year old that has been bottle aged as "flat and sweet" is nothing more than a Trumpism. If you say it often enough and loudly enough, it must be true right?

Tawnies seem to follow a pattern similar to what Vintage Ports display as they age. Once bottled, they're very good for several years, then they start to change and go into a funk for a while. After some time, they re-emerge. Different. Changed. Bottle-matured.

Whether or not you like that change is personal preference. But it is not at all accurate to claim that they're "flat and sweet" once they've been bottle aged. Just because you don't like how they've changed does not mean that it's wrong.

No politics. Would you prefer the term cloying? Means basically the same thing, but if makes you more happy...

And you're simply applying your like of older bottled tawny's that have become cloying, to my general dislike of them. Regardless, I don't care if someone likes them or not, that's not the discussion here. The fact remains most become "flat and sweet", cloying if you prefer, with extended aging.

[Glenn E.]

If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

It's this kind of hyperbole that diminishes your credibility.

The only Port - ruby or tawny - that I've had that could be accurately described as "flat and sweet" has been basic/reserve rubies and tawnies, or the occasional very old Vintage Port that's long past its prime. Age any Port long enough and yes, it will become flat and sweet. The time frames being discussed here won't do that to anything other than a basic/reserve ruby or tawny, though.

Describing a 40-year old that has been bottle aged as "flat and sweet" is nothing more than a Trumpism. If you say it often enough and loudly enough, it must be true right?

Tawnies seem to follow a pattern similar to what Vintage Ports display as they age. Once bottled, they're very good for several years, then they start to change and go into a funk for a while. After some time, they re-emerge. Different. Changed. Bottle-matured.

Whether or not you like that change is personal preference. But it is not at all accurate to claim that they're "flat and sweet" once they've been bottle aged. Just because you don't like how they've changed does not mean that it's wrong.

No politics. Would you prefer the term cloying? Means basically the same thing, but if makes you more happy...

And you're simply applying your like of older bottled tawny's that have become cloying, to my general dislike of them. Regardless, I don't care if someone likes them or not, that's not the discussion here. The fact remains most become "flat and sweet", cloying if you prefer, with extended aging.

Come on, Andy, cloying does not have the same implications as "flat and sweet" and you know it. Flat and sweet implies that the Port is dead. It also implies that it is simple. Cloying implies that the Port is excessively sweet and rich. It also implies that it is heavy. They're not even close to the same thing.

And the difference between the way we approach this is that I always make sure to explain both sides, explain that most producers claim that their tawnies should be consumed as close to the bottling date as possible, but that not everyone believes it and that each person should make up their own mind. I then explain how tawnies change when they age to help the reader understand whether or not they might like those changes. I give the "party line" but then explain that it's not necessarily true and that the reader should see what they think for themselves.

You just say the need to be drunk right away or they'll go flat.

Personally I think it's mostly marketing. Producers want you to drink your tawnies ASAP and buy more. It's also "tradition" and so they keep saying it. Most of them - as Tom points out - have never bothered to try one of their own tawnies with a good amount of bottle age on it, so how would they know any different? It's a self-perpetuating myth. Aided by the aging arc that all Port seems to go through in the same way - too little bottle age will result in an unsatisfying result, and that even applies to Vintage Port and unfiltered LBV. I.e. the Port will be in the "teenage funk" that we've all experienced many times.

I don't say it diminishes the credibility of your argument because we disagree. I say it because you gave a one-sided hyperbolic explanation. And you do that fairly regularly on this topic. Am I sensitive to it? Sure. Does that make me wrong? Not at all.

[winesecretary]

I have many times over the past quarter-century or so encountered on Madeira absolutist statements by wine makers that, when challenged with documentary (or bottled) evidence to the contrary they row back from in a way that makes that clear that the absolutist statements were simplifications for the English-speaking market. I think the 'you should drink tawny fairly soon after it's bottled' thing may ultimately be something similar. It's a good general rule but a long way from a universal truth.

[Andy Velebil]

If you want something that is flat and sweet, age then. If you want that crisp perceived acidity giving it a fresh feel, drink young.

It’s like a can of Coke. When you open it it’s crisp and refreshing. Leave it open for a few days and it’s sugary and flat.

It's this kind of hyperbole that diminishes your credibility.

The only Port - ruby or tawny - that I've had that could be accurately described as "flat and sweet" has been basic/reserve rubies and tawnies, or the occasional very old Vintage Port that's long past its prime. Age any Port long enough and yes, it will become flat and sweet. The time frames being discussed here won't do that to anything other than a basic/reserve ruby or tawny, though.

Describing a 40-year old that has been bottle aged as "flat and sweet" is nothing more than a Trumpism. If you say it often enough and loudly enough, it must be true right?

Tawnies seem to follow a pattern similar to what Vintage Ports display as they age. Once bottled, they're very good for several years, then they start to change and go into a funk for a while. After some time, they re-emerge. Different. Changed. Bottle-matured.

Whether or not you like that change is personal preference. But it is not at all accurate to claim that they're "flat and sweet" once they've been bottle aged. Just because you don't like how they've changed does not mean that it's wrong.

No politics. Would you prefer the term cloying? Means basically the same thing, but if makes you more happy...

And you're simply applying your like of older bottled tawny's that have become cloying, to my general dislike of them. Regardless, I don't care if someone likes them or not, that's not the discussion here. The fact remains most become "flat and sweet", cloying if you prefer, with extended aging.

Come on, Andy, cloying does not have the same implications as "flat and sweet" and you know it. Flat and sweet implies that the Port is dead. It also implies that it is simple. Cloying implies that the Port is excessively sweet and rich. It also implies that it is heavy. They're not even close to the same thing.

And the difference between the way we approach this is that I always make sure to explain both sides, explain that most producers claim that their tawnies should be consumed as close to the bottling date as possible, but that not everyone believes it and that each person should make up their own mind. I then explain how tawnies change when they age to help the reader understand whether or not they might like those changes. I give the "party line" but then explain that it's not necessarily true and that the reader should see what they think for themselves.

You just say the need to be drunk right away or they'll go flat.

Personally I think it's mostly marketing. Producers want you to drink your tawnies ASAP and buy more. It's also "tradition" and so they keep saying it. Most of them - as Tom points out - have never bothered to try one of their own tawnies with a good amount of bottle age on it, so how would they know any different? It's a self-perpetuating myth. Aided by the aging arc that all Port seems to go through in the same way - too little bottle age will result in an unsatisfying result, and that even applies to Vintage Port and unfiltered LBV. I.e. the Port will be in the "teenage funk" that we've all experienced many times.

I don't say it diminishes the credibility of your argument because we disagree. I say it because you gave a one-sided hyperbolic explanation. And you do that fairly regularly on this topic. Am I sensitive to it? Sure. Does that make me wrong? Not at all.

if took a Prime 30 day dry aged steak and cooked it to beyond well done because that’s how I like it; I’m quite sure you and probably every other cook and butcher would say I destroyed that piece of meat by cooking it too what I like. Just saying.

[uncle tom]

cloying

Each to his own, but my interpretation of the word 'cloying' is an excess of sugar that has no integration in the wine. It is very much a characteristic of young tawnies rather than aged ones, and another reason why I prefer to drink them matured.

[Andy Velebil]

cloying

Each to his own, but my interpretation of the word 'cloying' is an excess of sugar that has no integration in the wine. It is very much a characteristic of young tawnies rather than aged ones, and another reason why I prefer to drink them matured.

Basically. In wine it’s accepting meaning is lacking perceived acidity and pronounced sugary taste.

[JacobH]

I have many times over the past quarter-century or so encountered on Madeira absolutist statements by wine makers that, when challenged with documentary (or bottled) evidence to the contrary they row back from in a way that makes that clear that the absolutist statements were simplifications for the English-speaking market. I think the 'you should drink tawny fairly soon after it's bottled' thing may ultimately be something similar. It's a good general rule but a long way from a universal truth.

I agree. A dominant theme in the marketing of most specialist categories of wine for decades has been to simplify them. I have some sympathy with this. For example, how many members would be able to describe, accurately, the difference between a colheita and vintage Madeira?

You are also right that it sometimes goes too far. For example, I think I am right in saying that Taylor’s LBV was invented so that it could be sold on the basis that it didn’t need either further maturation or decanting. However, we all know that a bit of both improves it considerably.

However, I do think there is something in the differing tastes of producers and consumers. I am sure if you are a producer you end up drinking so much newly-bottled Port that you easily end up with a differing palate from the average consumer.

[Glenn E.]

if took a Prime 30 day dry aged steak and cooked it to beyond well done because that’s how I like it; I’m quite sure you and probably every other cook and butcher would say I destroyed that piece of meat by cooking it too what I like. Just saying.

You might be surprised. I used to prefer my steaks medium to medium well because that's how my Mom cooked them when I was growing up. I've only recently (the last 20 years or so) started eating them medium rare.

So if you cooked your steak extra well done I might look at you funny and say that's not how most people cook their steaks, but if you like it that way then you should cook it the way you like it.

Just don't put ketchup on it.

(I used to do that, too, before I discovered steak sauce.)

cloying

Each to his own, but my interpretation of the word 'cloying' is an excess of sugar that has no integration in the wine. It is very much a characteristic of young tawnies rather than aged ones, and another reason why I prefer to drink them matured.

Google's definition is what I've always understood it to mean: an excess of sweetness, richness, or sentiment. I think in most cases it's because the producer was going for some particular style and maybe it didn't quite work out right. I've also noticed that sometimes the same wine can seem fine or cloying depending on what other wines (or foods) I'm having at the same time, so I think there's a relative component to it as well.

To me it also implies texturally more viscous than normal. A sweet, rich, heavy wine.

I have many times over the past quarter-century or so encountered on Madeira absolutist statements by wine makers that, when challenged with documentary (or bottled) evidence to the contrary they row back from in a way that makes that clear that the absolutist statements were simplifications for the English-speaking market. I think the 'you should drink tawny fairly soon after it's bottled' thing may ultimately be something similar. It's a good general rule but a long way from a universal truth.

I agree. A dominant theme in the marketing of most specialist categories of wine for decades has been to simplify them. I have some sympathy with this. For example, how many members would be able to describe, accurately, the difference between a colheita and vintage Madeira?

You are also right that it sometimes goes too far. For example, I think I am right in saying that Taylor’s LBV was invented so that it could be sold on the basis that it didn’t need either further maturation or decanting. However, we all know that a bit of both improves it considerably.

However, I do think there is something in the differing tastes of producers and consumers. I am sure if you are a producer you end up drinking so much newly-bottled Port that you easily end up with a differing palate from the average consumer.

I only know the difference between Colheita and Vintage Madeira because I've started buying more of it lately. But yes, the terminology for Madeira can be confusing especially for a Port lover.

I think a lot of what we hear from the producers is meant for the average or even entry-level consumer, including the adage that tawnies should be consumed as close to the bottling date as possible. But advice for the average consumer doesn't really apply to us geeks, and I think it is easier for us geeks to educate newcomers than it is for the producers to do so. The producers need to have a simple, common, consistent message because they have to communicate with thousands of people all the time. We can provide more complete information and help guide newcomers into a deeper understanding of our passions.

[uncle tom]

I think I am right in saying that Taylor’s LBV was invented

As far as I can make out, the only thing Taylor invented was the idea of using a T-stopper on a premium quality ruby port. Everything else had been done before.

However the mass marketing of the product did cause some upset at the time. Other producers felt they were exploiting and devaluing the word 'Vintage'

[JacobH]

As far as I can make out, the only thing Taylor invented was the idea of using a T-stopper on a premium quality ruby port. Everything else had been done before.

However the mass marketing of the product did cause some upset at the time. Other producers felt they were exploiting and devaluing the word 'Vintage'

I didn’t know that about the t-stopper! You are quite right that there was nothing particularly innovative about the product: the “invention” was combining different things that already existed in the Port industry and marketing in a way which has dominated the British market for 50+ years.

I wonder how many of those other producers were making “Vintage Character” Ports?

[uncle tom]

I wonder how many of those other producers were making “Vintage Character” Ports?

I'm not at all sure when the term 'Vintage Character' was first used. I am preserving a couple of good examples in the interests of posterity, since 99.9+% of it has now been drunk. That said, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Vintage Character bottle that clearly predated the arrival of the Taylor LBV in about '69 (IIRC)

- What came first?

[Andy Velebil]

I think I am right in saying that Taylor’s LBV was invented

As far as I can make out, the only thing Taylor invented was the idea of using a T-stopper on a premium quality ruby port. Everything else had been done before.

However the mass marketing of the product did cause some upset at the time. Other producers felt they were exploiting and devaluing the word 'Vintage'

IIRC, they were the first to make a filtered and stabilized LBV. Well, at least the first to mass produce and market one (it is the Douro so odds are someone did it at some point before, hah!).

[JacobH]

I'm not at all sure when the term 'Vintage Character' was first used. I am preserving a couple of good examples in the interests of posterity, since 99.9+% of it has now been drunk. That said, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Vintage Character bottle that clearly predated the arrival of the Taylor LBV in about '69 (IIRC)

- What came first?

I think the first “modern” Taylor LBV was the 1965 which a few of us tried a few years ago.

I’d really like to know more about non-Vintage Port before the 1986 codification of the Port regulations. I think it is mostly a document exercise since, as you say, most of these wines have been long drunk to extinction.

The 1962 Croft price list which I posted elsewhere gives four different “Vintage Character” Ports (together with one “Vintage Type”). I wonder if they were using it as we might use the word “ruby” now, to mean “this is not a tawny”.

[Andy Velebil]

Jacob,
It would be a futile exercise. Many producers had lots of different names/labels for different countries and markets that were all the same product inside the bottle. There was surprising little or no regulation of when one had to bottle, what they could call it, etc. and we’re only talking the actual producers, not what a wine merchant who bought 4 barrels would do. That largely ended shortly after 1949 when the rules were made more formal as to categories and how they were allowed to be made.

Most producers have reduced the different labels, modern communication makes it confusing for the consumer and difficult to publicize. However, there are some that still do and it’s confusing as heck. Niepoort with their Fahblehauf (spelling?) series of dry wines (all the same juice) and Quinta d. Mourao who also sells the same port under the names Rio Bom and S. Leonardo in diff markets.

[JacobH]

I am sure it was quite a complex mess but it must have been capable of being unpicked in the past, so why not today.

For example, in that Croft advert, they sold four types of white port, identically described. The only difference was price. I presume the more expensive ones were not just prying on the gullible who thought more expensive = better, so there must have been a difference in what was in the pipe. But what was it? Were the more expensive Ports older? Or were they just made from better grapes?

Equally, when we look at the tawnies, how old were the blends? What was the equivalent of our modern 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 YO? Did they drink the tawnies younger or older?

I think there probably was a lot more crusted Port than now exists, but I also wonder if there was a lot more of blending the ruby and tawny Ports than happens today. Some stuff must have kicked around in pipes for longer than happens these days (e.g. whilst waiting to be sold and shipped in Gaia or waiting to be bottled by the merchant on receipt), even if it hadn’t been matured in small casks beforehand.

[Glenn E.]

Niepoort with their Fahblehauf (spelling?) series of dry wines (all the same juice) and Quinta d. Mourao who also sells the same port under the names Rio Bom and S. Leonardo in diff markets.

Does Dalva still use Presidential in the US, too? Another one for the list.

[JacobH]

Niepoort with their Fahblehauf (spelling?) series of dry wines (all the same juice) and Quinta d. Mourao who also sells the same port under the names Rio Bom and S. Leonardo in diff markets.

Does Dalva still use Presidential in the US, too? Another one for the list.

Possibly a closer approximation to what happened in the past are the BoB Ports (which I don’t think you get very many of in the States). Sometimes they are something else relabeled; sometimes they are a generic Port available for wholesale purchase for BoB purposes; sometimes they are a bespoke blend. It is never really possible to know...

[Andy Velebil]

Niepoort with their Fahblehauf (spelling?) series of dry wines (all the same juice) and Quinta d. Mourao who also sells the same port under the names Rio Bom and S. Leonardo in diff markets.

Does Dalva still use Presidential in the US, too? Another one for the list.

Possibly a closer approximation to what happened in the past are the BoB Ports (which I don’t think you get very many of in the States). Sometimes they are something else relabeled; sometimes they are a generic Port available for wholesale purchase for BoB purposes; sometimes they are a bespoke blend. It is never really possible to know...

We get a little bit, mostly Costco where their 10 yr was made by Fonseca. However I was told it is a different blend than the regular Fonseca 10 yr. having had both they don’t taste the same.

We don’t get the crazy good ones like you guys get.

[Andy Velebil]

Niepoort with their Fahblehauf (spelling?) series of dry wines (all the same juice) and Quinta d. Mourao who also sells the same port under the names Rio Bom and S. Leonardo in diff markets.

Does Dalva still use Presidential in the US, too? Another one for the list.

I’ve never seen* Dalva for retail sale here in the States so assume they still use the Presidential label in the States.

*there are a few older Dalva’s listed on Winesearcher but I assume those are greymarket bottles brought over and of course the odd bottle at auction over the years.

[jdaw1]

I'm not at all sure when the term 'Vintage Character' was first used.

The term is used in some invoices sent to Sir Winston Churchill 1936–’38 (†, ‡), copies of which are exhibited in the Graham’s Lodge. (These documents were unknown to the Symingtons until my letter of 22nd November 2009: housepoint me.)

[JacobH]

I'm not at all sure when the term 'Vintage Character' was first used.

The term is used in some invoices sent to Sir Winston Churchill 1936–’38 (†, ‡), copies of which are exhibited in the Graham’s Lodge. (These documents were unknown to the Symingtons until my letter of 22nd November 2009: housepoint me.)

Is the Churchill family of Johnny Graham’s wife the same Churchill family of Winston?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Is the Churchill family of Johnny Graham’s wife the same Churchill family of Winston?

Sadly, it is not. If they are related branches of the same family, the link is lost to the family in the mists of time.


And I love the fact that this thread has drifted so far - or are we saying that Churchill is a favoured cellar defender of ours?

[nac]

My current Port defender is Justerini & Brooks Directors Tawny. Working through a half case and another nearly finished bottle is in my fridge under VacuVin.

Like @winesecretary most of my drinking and cellar is still red. Rhone often comes to the defence of the better bottles, and the current preferred victim is Jaboulet's Thalabert 2006.

[winesecretary]

@ nac - Thalabert, but of course! I have almost run through my halves of 2014, I have just taken delivery of 36 halves of 2017 purchased EP from TWS...

[Alex Bridgeman]

Yesterday I took delivery of 24 bottles of mature Rioja to act as cellar defenders (23 are left). I'm also drinking my Ports from 2000 and younger as cellar defenders — but next year the 2000 vintage becomes "ready for drinking" so can't really been regarded as cellar defenders.

[uncle tom]

but next year the 2000 vintage becomes "ready for drinking" so can't really been regarded as cellar defenders

I'm running three years behind you. I will start 'exploratory' trials of the '97 vintage next year, with stashes of Dow and Niepoort lined up ready for sampling. At the same time the '91 vintage will enter into mainstream drinking, having then turned 30.

[Glenn E.]

next year the 2000 vintage becomes "ready for drinking" so can't really been regarded as cellar defenders.

I don't really see the 2000 vintage as being "ready for drinking" at a mere 21 years old. I'm inclined to agree with Tom - 30 years is a more suitable age to declare most good VP ready, though off vintages (which 2000 is not) or lower-tier producers can reduce that age a bit.

I'm even getting to the point that I feel like quality unfiltered LBV needs 20 years of age.

This of course ignores those that you drink very young because they're so lush and delicious for those first few years.

[PhilW]

but next year the 2000 vintage becomes "ready for drinking" so can't really been regarded as cellar defenders.

I disagree; almost anything could be a cellar defender depending on what you own and how often you drink. To me a cellar defender is whatever you have that helps stop you from drinking the more-limited items you own. One person might be drinking their favourite ruby reserve or LBVs to defend from touching their stock of 2000s before their prime; another might be drinking 85s and 94s to defend their precious 70s; another their 70s to defend their 45s, and so on. I think it's all a question of degree based on what stock you have, and how frequently you drink.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I completely agree with all three of you. My statement — which was in quotes to try to emphasise the point — was based on the folklore that Vintage Port becomes ready for drinking in its 21st year. Everyone has their own preference, and this preference might even vary from vintage to vintage or year to year.

Will I choose to open my 2000s next year? I'll probably open a couple, I picked up a few bottles of the Sainsbury Taste the Difference 2000 and this is delicious even this year, before it becomes "ready for drinking". But I might also breach some of my 2003s, since these are quite approachable.

I don't have enough of any particular Port to regard it as a cellar defender. My largest single parcel is 2½ cases of Fonseca 1985. I feel that's too good to be treated as a cellar defender. Everything else I own is in smaller quantities, so would fall into the category of a more-limited item.

Or I will just open another bottle of Rioja...

[uncle tom]

I'm even getting to the point that I feel like quality unfiltered LBV needs 20 years of age.

I agree. A few LBVs are made with rubbish juice that really shouldn't pass the IVDP, and some are over-filtered/fined. From the producers that take the style seriously, most should be drunk between 20 and 40 years.

Given that Graham is now the anointed crown jewel in the Symington stable, I do find it odd that the Graham LBV is still a low end filtered offering.

Logic would suggest making Cockburn their supermarket volume brand, and elevate the Graham to a superior age-worthy wine.

[rich_n]

I'm even getting to the point that I feel like quality unfiltered LBV needs 20 years of age.

I agree. A few LBVs are made with rubbish juice that really shouldn't pass the IVDP, and some are over-filtered/fined. From the producers that take the style seriously, most should be drunk between 20 and 40 years.

Given that Graham is now the anointed crown jewel in the Symington stable, I do find it odd that the Graham LBV is still a low end filtered offering.

Logic would suggest making Cockburn their supermarket volume brand, and elevate the Graham to a superior age-worthy wine.

I guess the Niepoort 2015 LBV I just received today will have to wait then!