Unfiltered Ruby: Is it Crusted Port by another name?

Post by **DRT** » 01:52 Sat 05 Apr 2008

The discussion below developed in this Tasting Note thread and has been split out by Derek T.

I don't think I've ever had an unfiltered Ruby. Are they common in other markets?

Derek

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 05:03 Sat 05 Apr 2008

Quinta de la Rosa...their basic ruby (Lot 601) is basically unfiltered (they say lightly and it will eventually throw sediment with time) and with a driven cork

It has got to be the best ruby I've ever had. Foot trodden from grade "A" grapes, with an average age of 3-4 years.

Post by **DRT** » 05:20 Sat 05 Apr 2008

ADV wrote:Quinta de la Rosa...their basic ruby (Lot 601) is basically unfiltered (they say lightly and it will eventually throw sediment with time) and with a driven cork It has got to be the best ruby I've ever had. Foot trodden from grade "A" grapes, with an average age of 3-4 years.

Am I right in thinking that this is effectively a Crusted Port with the only difference being that the bottling date is not stated on the label?

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 05:25 Sat 05 Apr 2008

The first time I got this bottle, when I took the capsule off and saw the driven cork I had to look at the label to make sure I grabbed the right bottle.

Then I drank it...and looked at the label again just to make sure. For $11 (US) it was a great QPR (no not Queens Park Rangers

)

By far the best ruby I've had so far. Its more on line with a basic LBV than a ruby.

Post by **DRT** » 05:42 Sat 05 Apr 2008

OK. You dodged the question so I'll explain.

Crusted Port is a blend of wines from different vintages that is bottled unfiltered and has the year of bottling shown on the label. So, is this Unfiltered Ruby stuff just the same as Crusted Port but without the year being revealed?

Derek

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 05:46 Sat 05 Apr 2008

Ok, I'm a little bit into a couple bottles so bear with me

yes its an average age of about 3-4 years. but it was really like a lower ranked unfiltered LBV. A crusted, in my opinion, is a bit better than a good unfiltered LBV and a big step up than the Rosa Lot 601. But if I had to by a Grahams Six Grapes or Lot 601...Lot 601 for the price is a better deal.

Post by **DRT** » 05:56 Sat 05 Apr 2008

ADV wrote:Ok, I'm a little bit into a couple bottles so bear with me

yes its an average age of about 3-4 years. but it was really like a lower ranked unfiltered LBV. A crusted, in my opinion, is a bit better than a good unfiltered LBV and a big step up than the Rosa Lot 601. But if I had to by a Grahams Six Grapes or Lot 601...Lot 601 for the price is a better deal.

Who mentioned "better"

I'm strictly talking recognised styles of Port. Cruz 1989 is a VP as much as Nacional 1931 is. One happens to be better than the other, but some still prefer the Nacional for some reason

Just talking styles and method of production, isn't Unfiltered Ruby the same as Crusted Port?

Derek

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 05:58 Sat 05 Apr 2008

It is lightly filtered, so its not a true "Unfiltered" Port.

Post by **DRT** » 22:51 Sat 05 Apr 2008

I have split this thread out from the TN that sparked the discussion in the hope that others will chip in with a view.

Derek

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 11:37 Sun 06 Apr 2008

Quinta do Javali also produces an unfiltered Ruby. It is aged in large barrels up to 3 years and it's a blend of a couple of (unidentified) vintages. I think there are a couple of differences between this and crusted:

- Crusted is made from 2-3 vintages, whereas there is no specification for ruby (it is ok to blend in small bits of very young port just to add some body)

- There is not necessarily a date of bottling on the bottle (although some producers might do it)

- The quality of the grapes is usually lower than that used for crusted.

As for the Javali: it has been in the bottle since 2003, and has developed into a lovely, soft port, with a stunning complexity for a ruby. It has also developed an impressive crust.

Post by **DRT** » 21:48 Sun 06 Apr 2008

RonnieRoots wrote:I think there are a couple of differences between this and crusted:

- Crusted is made from 2-3 vintages, whereas there is no specification for ruby (it is ok to blend in small bits of very young port just to add some body)

Is it a rule that Crusted can only have wine from 2 or 3 vintages? If not, and it is simply a wine made from juice from more than one vintage, then from a "style" point of view isn't it just the same as Unfiltered Ruby?

RonnieRoots wrote:- There is not necessarily a date of bottling on the bottle (although some producers might do it)

This is certainly a difference between what is stated on the labels but has no impact on the wine inside the bottle.

RonnieRoots wrote:- The quality of the grapes is usually lower than that used for crusted.

I accept that this is possibly true, but again it doesn't mean it is a different "style" of wine, just a different quality level.

Does anyone know where we can find a definition of each of these styles? I do find it interesting that both examples of Unfiltered Ruby are from Portugues houses whereas Crusted is almost exclusively offered by British shippers.

Derek

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 23:09 Sun 06 Apr 2008

As far as I know, there is nor formal definition of a Crusted Port other than that it is port from a mixture of vintages that is intended to mature in the bottle.

I can see no difference between this and the unfiltered ruby other than the blend - Crusted is intended to reward the patience of tucking the bottle away in the cellar for a few years whereas unfiltered ruby is intended to be drunk soon after bottling.

Alex

Post by **DRT** » 23:12 Sun 06 Apr 2008

AHB wrote:unfiltered ruby is intended to be drunk soon after bottling.

Is that really true? Why bottle something unfiltered that isn't intended to age in the bottle?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 23:33 Sun 06 Apr 2008

Because when you bottle it, there will be very little solid matter in the port. If the blender feels that filtering strips out some of the flavours of the wine, why filter instead of just fining?

Post by **DRT** » 23:36 Sun 06 Apr 2008

AHB wrote:Because when you bottle it, there will be very little solid matter in the port. If the blender feels that filtering strips out some of the flavours of the wine, why filter instead of just fining?

That must be the same reason why they don't filter VP that is shipped to America

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 13:55 Mon 07 Apr 2008

ADV wrote: A crusted, in my opinion, is a bit better than a good unfiltered LBV.

Agree 100%. Crusted port is a rare bird in USA. I think Dow 1999 is the only one imported officially.

I have bunch of the Dow Crusted, and I find it better than any LBV out there. Much richer and full bodied than any LBV I can think off. Very sweet too. I am not a young vintage drinker, but I think this bottle has a lot of aging potential.