Diminishing Palates

[g-man]

How would you guys describe base line "port"

I've had many a first rate houses where you can pick out the various nuances of the fine purple sunshine.

But I've also had ports that just taste like ... well ... I can't explain it. It's just like plain boring port.

Like someone took a really flabby sweet wine and added some spirits to it.

Some of the Rozes vintages come to mind, that tastes like some of the young gould campbells, that tastes like the hutchesons

they're just so non descript, I'm at a total loss to describe them.

So back to topic, how would you guys describe these "base line" ports where if you removed all of the complexity of a Fonseca, Taylors, Grahams ... so on...
What then would you end up with?

[Alex Bridgeman]

What a great question; deserving of a much better answer than the one I am about to give.

I probably take the opposite view to Jeff. I rarely find a port which has no complexity. Sure, in some you have to search for it and I do find that very young port often lacks complexity but makes up for this with a huge fruit presence. Perhaps complexity develops with age.

You know, writing this I think I am actually starting to disagree with myself. What comes to mind are the occasional middle age port (Hutcheson '87) and even mature port (RO '63) which is just one dimensional. Luckily, these are few and far between.

So, to my mind, a base level port is something that is just sweet fruit with no layers that gets older and turns into sugar water. The best description I can think of for them is "boring". I recommend drinking boring port with Chinese food.

Alex

[mosesbotbol]

A port can be "dead" until they see some time in the decanter. Certainly, they have a taste, but don't really taste like anything in particular. Just sweet, perhaps fresh, with a little acid. Until it opens up, these ports could fall under your "boring" description. Even some blockbusters can seem dead at the beginning.

[g-man]

mosesbotbol, I'd slightly disagree. While i think good bottles do shut down, they would still have cloying flavors. You can see something special brewing underneath but it's just not apparent. As oppose to poorly made port, where there's just nothing.

[mosesbotbol]

mosesbotbol, I'd slightly disagree. While i think good bottles do shut down, they would still have cloying flavors. You can see something special brewing underneath but it's just not apparent. As oppose to poorly made port, where there's just nothing.

Closed port is not that exciting to drink, for me. I can see that it will be something and will certainly drink it, but that bottle will go to the bottom of the list for the next time. The '85 Dow is one that comes to mind. It is an epic port, but unless it decants for the whole day, it is a dull port. Everything is there and balanced, but just doesn't taste like much to me. Another 10+ years could be another story.

Ports that are very grapey up front I would not include in this category, but I could see how one would. When all you taste is grape juice, it is a little one dimensional as well yet opens to something great. '85 Fonseca is that comes to mind.

[g-man]

I wouldn't classify either the F85 or the D85 as one dimensional even when closed.

But back on topic, it would seem to me you consider a "base line" port to be something that's just grape juice?

[jdaw1]

Ten years ago, at a tasting, we deemed the Gould Campbell 1970 to taste like good basic port. So that could be your answer: baseline port = GC70.

[mosesbotbol]

The 48 Taylor is a good base line port. How well does the port compare to the 48 Taylor?

[Overtired and emotional]

Interesting that you all seek a base line amoungst vintage ports which are supposed to be the summit of the port world. Where does that leave the rest?

[g-man]

Interesting that you all seek a base line amoungst vintage ports which are supposed to be the summit of the port world. Where does that leave the rest?

which is why i wanted to bring it back on target with teh hutcheson and rozes =)

[mosesbotbol]

Interesting that you all seek a base line amoungst vintage ports which are supposed to be the summit of the port world. Where does that leave the rest?

It would leave the rest all over the scale. Some could be equals, some sub-par. By basing on the best, a fair valuation can be made rather than comparing to something average. Average is for more debate than greatness with port.

[DRT]

After reading the above thread I think some of the good quality unfiltered LBVs would make a good baseline.

I am thinking of the likes of Warre, Niepoort and Noval unfiltered LBVs with 10-15 years of age. These are all very afordable ports that, on a good day, could easily be mistaken for an average VP in a blind tasting. Good to Outstanding VPs should always come above this baseline while poor VPs and almost everything in the lower categories (including filtered LBVs) are likely to be below the line.

[g-man]

while poor VPs and almost everything in the lower categories (including filtered LBVs) are likely to be below the line.

what would you use as a taste descriptor for those kinds of wines?

[DRT]

while poor VPs and almost everything in the lower categories (including filtered LBVs) are likely to be below the line.

what would you use as a taste descriptor for those kinds of wines?

I would expect them to all taste different so I don't think one descriptor could be used. The overall assessment of the wine (nose, colour, weight, length, acidity, sweetness, tannin, etc) is what is important, not just the taste so I don't think it would be possible to generalise.

[g-man]

while poor VPs and almost everything in the lower categories (including filtered LBVs) are likely to be below the line.

what would you use as a taste descriptor for those kinds of wines?

I would expect them to all taste different so I don't think one descriptor could be used. The overall assessment of the wine (nose, colour, weight, length, acidity, sweetness, tannin, etc) is what is important, not just the taste so I don't think it would be possible to generalise.

this would be very interesting,
can you look back on your notes for subpar wines that were not flawed in any way (ie corked).

I'd be willing to bet your taste descriptors for those subpar wines would all be very similar.

I look back on my own notes and the wines I've got as subpar all have what I wrote as undescribeable blandness, a mix of just watery sugar with some spirits.

[DRT]

while poor VPs and almost everything in the lower categories (including filtered LBVs) are likely to be below the line.

what would you use as a taste descriptor for those kinds of wines?

I would expect them to all taste different so I don't think one descriptor could be used. The overall assessment of the wine (nose, colour, weight, length, acidity, sweetness, tannin, etc) is what is important, not just the taste so I don't think it would be possible to generalise.

this would be very interesting,
can you look back on your notes for subpar wines that were not flawed in any way (ie corked).

I'd be willing to bet your taste descriptors for those subpar wines would all be very similar.

I look back on my own notes and the wines I've got as subpar all have what I wrote as undescribeable blandness, a mix of just watery sugar with some spirits.

Hmmm? I think we have our baselines set in different places on the scale. I am not suggesting that wines below Warre Unflitered LBV are bad. I'm just suggesting it would make a reasonable point of reference somewhere in the middle between excellent and poor. I would have to go a very long way below the baseline I have suggested before I would think I was tasting watery sugar with some spirits. I think my baseline is in the middle of the scale whereas I now think you are looking for a line below which all wines would be bad. Or am I still not getting it?

[g-man]

perhaps not, you've definitely tried much more port than I can ever imagine =)

My two scales are usually, very good, or just everything else. The very bad or even the unimpressive (perfeclty quaffable) I find myself with difficultly describing besides bland sugar spirit water.

It's a matter of scale, but it's very informative to see how people describe the base level port.

Like Moses saying a base level is a 48 taylor,
AHB saying it's a Hutchesons or an RO.
You mentioning a Warre Unfiltered LBV.

Now I think about it, baseline is a bad word, I'm talking about a port that really has all it's complexity stripped. Base level, suggested by Alex, is better. And for me, 89 Hutcheson's is one that comes to mind.

[DRT]

I'm fairly certain Moses wasn't being serious when he suggested Taylor 48 as a baseline. Its reputation suggests to me that very very few VPs would score higher so it is closer to the ceiling than the floor on any scale.

So, to be clear: base line Port = Port you would not choose to drink?

...and are we defining it using VPs or ports of any style/category?

[g-man]

So, to be clear: base line Port = Port you would not choose to drink?

...and are we defining it using VPs or ports of any style/category?

base line port = Port you think is boring. It might pop up at a tasting without you knowing it!

and any kind of port.

[mosesbotbol]

I'm fairly certain Moses wasn't being serious when he suggested Taylor 48 as a baseline. Its reputation suggests to me that very very few VPs would score higher so it is closer to the ceiling than the floor on any scale.

Actually, I am fairly serious about this. It doesn't have to be the Taylor '48, but I think the baseline should be the best port, a port that no one would argue is a gold standard to base all other ports on. What an "average port" is, is up to debate. For some, this could be Warre LBV, to others this could be a Taylor 80... Instead of trying to define what is average, just compare the port on hand to an excellent port.

Sure, most ports won't equal to the Taylor '48, but evaluating what is close and what is not close can give a fair estimation of what is being judged.

In F1, times are judged compared to the best lap time, not the average or mean lap time... The same should be done for port.

[DRT]

Moses makes a fair point, but it is only possible to use this method if you are fortunate enough to have tasted a 99-100 point port enough times to know what the experience should be like.

I think the very fact that three of us have used completely different approaches to this (g-man going for the bottom, me the mid-point and moses the top) simply demostrates how subjective this subject is. I think all anyone can hope to do is reach a point where they can evaluate a wine against others they have tasted themselves. It doesn't really matter where ones personal scale sits against everyone elses scale so long as you are fairly consistent.

[Glenn E.]

I think I'm with g-man on this one... "base line" implies a minimum. Below that line, the object in question fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of the topic at hand. DRT is looking for an average, while Moses is looking for a gold standard. Both are legitimate, but not what g-man asked for.

I haven't had many (if any) basic Ruby Ports. So for me, the base line starts at Ruby Reserves like Graham's Six Grapes and Broadbent Auction Reserve. If the Port in question is worse than those... it's not worth drinking. I'll just have a Coke instead, thanks.

I'm a little easier on Tawnies - there are several base Tawnies that I find enjoyable - and I'm harder on white Ports.

[DRT]

"base line" implies a minimum.

A fine example of two nations separated by a common language

I would normally think of a baseline (perhaps the differnece is in the number of words?) as being the acceptable standard by which all other things would be judged.

[Overtired and emotional]

It is fascinating how long a conversation can run with quite different understandings of what the 'question' means.

Should the baseline be the point at which one is tempted to repeat the experience, or does one's baseline change as one becomes older and, with luck, more able to afford the better bottle? I think it should be the former. It would be a sad day when a decent, well made wine is rejected because it is not in the top flight. How about Warre's Warrior as something to prime the pump?

[g-man]

It is fascinating how long a conversation can run with quite different understandings of what the 'question' means.

Should the baseline be the point at which one is tempted to repeat the experience, or does one's baseline change as one becomes older and, with luck, more able to afford the better bottle? I think it should be the former. It would be a sad day when a decent, well made wine is rejected because it is not in the top flight. How about Warre's Warrior as something to prime the pump?

price should not be considered in determining how one would describe a "base level" port.

if one thinks the warre's warrior is complex and spicy, then it is not a base level port =)

[Alex Bridgeman]

Here's another thought from me. When I read g-man's first post, the image that came to my mind when he was describing a "boring" port was one where I look at what's in my cellar and then think to myself "Oh well, I've got a case of those and I have to drink them sometime so I might as well open one now."

There's nothing wrong with the port in question, it just won't bring as much enjoyment as most other port in my cellar. Rather than treat it as a port to sip and savour over the duration of an evening, it is one to drink with food so that the food can offset the boring character of the port.

There are a few people on this forum who have tried the Royal Oporto 1963, the Borges 1963 (both faded past the point of elegance) and the Hutcheson 1987 (which just hasn't got what it takes) and these are ports that I would drop into the category I describe above.

However, I do see the debate about using a mid-point or peak port as a reference point. A mid-point port I can cope with because you can use a measurement system that says "about the same as..." or "a bit better than..." or "much worse than..." but I would struggle to come up with something similar for a reference point that was a world beating port. Formula 1 can measure performance against the very best using an agreed and impartial (stewards permitting) measurement system to record the difference between the best performance and any other performance. With port performance, we are nowhere near an imaprtial measurement system.

Alex

[benread]

Alex,

Is this not at the heart of Uncle Tom's scoring system? As I understand it, a 5 represents middle of the road being neither better or worse than the rest. If so, could people not look at those ports they had rated 5-X as a reference?

Ben

[Glenn E.]

The problem with the word baseline is that it also implies a continuum. The classic definition is a starting point from which further comparisons can be made, but it makes no assumption about the relative position of the starting point.

Think in medical terms - a baseline is your state of health when you visit a new doctor for the first time. From then on, your new doctor can compare test results to that baseline to determine whether you are getting healthier (or sicker).

In that sense, ANY port can be a baseline port. It's just the one you drank most recently, and all future ports will be compared to that one. That's probably where Derek is coming from in attempting to find an average port - it ensures that some future ports will be better while others will be worse. But since we have each probably had a different port most recently, that definition doesn't work well for a group.

That's why I'm thinking more along the lines of the term "base" which implies a lowest point to use as the starting point of the classic definition. A minimum standard that we collectively agree is a reasonable example of an entry-level Port.

Though ultimately I think we're drifting away from what g-man was looking for. To that end, my baseline Port tasting note would probably read something like this:

Tastes like nothing more than "port" as a general descriptor. Unremarkable in most respects. Not unpleasant, but not particularly pleasant either.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Alex,

Is this not at the heart of Uncle Tom's scoring system? As I understand it, a 5 represents middle of the road being neither better or worse than the rest. If so, could people not look at those ports they had rated 5-X as a reference?

Ben

I agree, I think it is. I also really like Tom's scoring system from an intellectual point of view. It is probably the best relative scale there is for judging port. The trouble is that I am rubbish at using the scoring system. I tried it for a year, using both UncleTom score and a 100 point score. Then I analysed the scores at the end of the year and found that I rated my bottles on a normal distribution of scores on the UncleTom scale - but it is supposed to result in an even distribution. As a result, I have pretty much stopped using it , but only because I am rubbish at using it and not for any dislike of the concept.

Alex

[DRT]

I also really like Tom's scoring system ...I tried it for a year, using both UncleTom score and a 100 point score. Then I analysed the scores at the end of the year

I am willing to bet that AHB is the only man in the world who has done this. It is one of the reasons why we love him.