ThePortForum.com

Had Sushinorth over last night and we did a mini 77 tasting

delaforce
fonseca
smith woodhouse

The first two came out as expected, delaforce with a strong celery note that was pleasant at first until one tried the fonseca and then it just became tart.

There has been talk previously abotu the youth of the SW77 and having it midday side by side with the other wines leads me to question it.
The cork was practically new, certainly an incredible specimen if indeed 40 years of age. Nothing about the age of this bottle said 1977 which leads me to wonder if perhaps a house cheated by rereleasing an lbv from the 90's but slapped on the 77 on the label???

What you guys think?

g-man wrote:SW77 […] perhaps a house cheated by rereleasing an lbv from the 90's but slapped on the 77 on the label???

What you guys think?

That is not the Symingtons’ style. Just not.

I've had many "like new" corks from the 80s. A 77 isn't much of a stretch.

SW has been used for late releases before, too. A bottle stored in the lodge might show significantly less age.

In short, no. Nothing to see here.

The Symingtons regularly re-cork older vintages before releasing. That is what you had.

I bought a dozen in the UK from Berrys a while back and it turned out it was two half cases. In a thread somewhere Tom said that he thought these were a recent shipment from Portugal and that they would have been recorked prior to shipping. I was a little worried, both by the storage in Portugal (the consensus view being that they age faster in Portugal) and by the recorking which I don't think helps. So I would support the view that there are no shenanigans going on here and I am delighted that a recorked port is showing so well. I have not yet had them delivered and I think on the basis of your experience may leave them with Berrys for a few more years.

DRT wrote:The Symingtons regularly re-cork older vintages before releasing. That is what you had.

plus they seem to have a method of re-polishing the bottles to make them look pristine.

RAYC wrote:plus they seem to have a method of re-polishing the bottles to make them look pristine.

Bottles stored in Gaia are typically unlabelled. So they wash the bottles, presumably with cold water, and then affix a label.

DRT wrote:The Symingtons regularly re-cork older vintages before releasing. That is what you had.

ah good to know.

I've seen it done with some of the dow 85's that have been released.

I guess it's always shocking to see the SW 77 when opened.

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:plus they seem to have a method of re-polishing the bottles to make them look pristine.

Bottles stored in Gaia are typically unlabelled. So they wash the bottles, presumably with cold water, and then affix a label.

that woudl beg the question if a cellar stocker were lazy that day and simply stocked whatever storage bin may have been empty and closests unbeknownist to the cellar master and fellow owners?

though if they did recork, i guess it's simply matching up the cork pulled with the bin it was stored in.

g-man wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:plus they seem to have a method of re-polishing the bottles to make them look pristine.

Bottles stored in Gaia are typically unlabelled. So they wash the bottles, presumably with cold water, and then affix a label.

that woudl beg the question if a cellar stocker were lazy that day and simply stocked whatever storage bin may have been empty and closests unbeknownist to the cellar master and fellow owners?

though if they did recork, i guess it's simply matching up the cork pulled with the bin it was stored in.

I've never seen an unorganized bottle storage area in Gaia.

I've never seen an unorganized bottle storage area in Gaia.

I have - the bits that are not on the regular tourist trail can be a right mess..

But they do tag the bins - after a fashion - and very rarely put more than one wine in a bin, unless they can be clearly separated.

SW77 is a very young wine. I last decanted one of mine on Dec 4th '13, making the note: 'Full and really immature despite it's 36 years'

uncle tom wrote:
SW77 is a very young wine. I last decanted one of mine on Dec 4th '13, making the note: 'Full and really immature despite it's 36 years'

absolutely, but we all can admit that it's certainly not the norm in terms of representing the 77' vintage. It's darker than the 92' de la rosa i have opened!!

g-man wrote:

uncle tom wrote:
SW77 is a very young wine. I last decanted one of mine on Dec 4th '13, making the note: 'Full and really immature despite it's 36 years'

absolutely, but we all can admit that it's certainly not the norm in terms of representing the 77' vintage. It's darker than the 92' de la rosa i have opened!!

It's an outlier, that's for sure. But so are D80 and FG76 and... there are several. And as I recall from our tasting on the matter, flavor-wise they all seemed perfectly normal (for their appearance) and not adulterated in any way.

Plus that's what every SW77 is like. If it were a situation like you suggested, I would expect to see both "normal" and "too young" bottles on the market. We don't see that.

Glenn E. wrote: Plus that's what every SW77 is like. If it were a situation like you suggested, I would expect to see both "normal" and "too young" bottles on the market. We don't see that.

i must admit i haven't had a proper port tasting in a while. As sushinorth was over, and he brought a 77 delaforce, we figure an impromptu 77' tasting was called for.

As with "normal" and "too young", it would seem that the bottle itself is refreshed. Cleaned, new label, new cork. Not sure if the process includes potentially refreshing the wine itself, which even major first growths bordelais do. That would explain the consistency in that instance.

g-man wrote:

Glenn E. wrote: Plus that's what every SW77 is like. If it were a situation like you suggested, I would expect to see both "normal" and "too young" bottles on the market. We don't see that.

As with "normal" and "too young", it would seem that the bottle itself is refreshed. Cleaned, new label, new cork. Not sure if the process includes potentially refreshing the wine itself, which even major first growths bordelais do. That would explain the consistency in that instance.

Glenn's point is a powerful one, however presumably if the level in the bottles was low when recorking then the bottle would have been topped up. Whether with another bottle of 77 Smith Woodhouse, sacrificed for the purpose or something younger I do not know...

Anyway enough of this desultory banter, any chance of a tasting note for this miraculous bottle?

SW77 tastes young, at least according to my TNs of 3^rd June 2015 and of 26^th March 2015. These were not ex-cellars, having been in the vendor’s “possession since 1984 ish”.

uncle tom wrote:

I've never seen an unorganized bottle storage area in Gaia.

I have - the bits that are not on the regular tourist trail can be a right mess..

I should have been a little more clearer. What producer has bins of things aging that aren't labeled, without a bin marker, and all tossed together? While I've seen things spread all over a given area, it was all properly marked in some fashion so as one could easily tell what it was.

On a side, exactly how does one "lose" a pipe of Port in ones cellar for decades as some stories have been told? I mean really, you've got full time cellar masters that keep track of everything. Just look at old detailed record books and now computerized record keeping. If you're a smaller producer it's even harder to "lose" a pipe for long periods when you don't have a huge Lodge. They aren't exactly small or light, lol.

g-man wrote:

uncle tom wrote:
SW77 is a very young wine. I last decanted one of mine on Dec 4th '13, making the note: 'Full and really immature despite it's 36 years'

absolutely, but we all can admit that it's certainly not the norm in terms of representing the 77' vintage. It's darker than the 92' de la rosa i have opened!!

SW is often very deeply colored and the 1977 is still very dark. That is quite normal for this label.

that it's certainly not the norm in terms of representing the 77' vintage. It's darker than the 92' de la rosa i have opened!!

Some vintage ports remain youthful so far beyond their years that people doubt their authenticity, but it really does happen.

Noval '31 is the classic example, Constantino '47 is another. Mackenzie '55 is so young, many believe it must be fake, but I'm satisfied otherwise. Dow '66 is another strong player, as is SW77..

..it happens!

uncle tom wrote:

that it's certainly not the norm in terms of representing the 77' vintage. It's darker than the 92' de la rosa i have opened!!

Some vintage ports remain youthful so far beyond their years that people doubt their authenticity, but it really does happen.

Noval '31 is the classic example, Constantino '47 is another. Mackenzie '55 is so young, many believe it must be fake, but I'm satisfied otherwise. Dow '66 is another strong player, as is SW77..

..it happens!

The high percentage of Sousao in Noval Nacional is what also gives that it's very deep color. And why it's again, some 140-ish years after Phylloxera, becoming very popular again.

The high percentage of Sousao in Noval Nacional is what also gives that it's very deep color. And why it's again, some 140-ish years after Phylloxera, becoming very popular again.

I wasn't thinking about the Nacional '31. The Nacional vineyard was very young when the '31 vintage came along, and I don't know of any trustworthy notes on NN31 from the last forty years that don't include some measure of disappointment. The regular N31 however is holding up superbly.

g-man wrote:Not sure if the process includes potentially refreshing the wine itself, which even major first growths bordelais do. That would explain the consistency in that instance.

I'm pretty sure that SFE don't do this. This is based on a handful of occasions when I've had an order cancelled with an apologetic explanation of something like "When we went to the bin to get the bottles we found they had leaked at bit. Sorry, we can't supply them." If SFE were in the habit of topping up so bottles had good fill levels when they were sold it's unlikely my order would have gone unfulfilled.

With the 75cl bottle of SW77 tasting so young in comparison to many of its peers, when should I leave it in order to open it magnum form!?

AHB wrote:

g-man wrote:Not sure if the process includes potentially refreshing the wine itself, which even major first growths bordelais do. That would explain the consistency in that instance.

I'm pretty sure that SFE don't do this. This is based on a handful of occasions when I've had an order cancelled with an apologetic explanation of something like "When we went to the bin to get the bottles we found they had leaked at bit. Sorry, we can't supply them." If SFE were in the habit of topping up so bottles had good fill levels when they were sold it's unlikely my order would have gone unfulfilled.

well if ullage were truly too low, a few of the big bordeaux houses simply keep such bottles around to be utilized to fill other bottles.

Penfold's definitely does this with the grange. They will keep aside "bad" bottles of grange solely for purposes of refilling bottles that get brought into be refreshed (a yearly occurrence where they have a cellar master travel to these events and oversee the refreshing process). They will also, cut it with a more recent vintage.

uncle tom wrote:

The high percentage of Sousao in Noval Nacional is what also gives that it's very deep color. And why it's again, some 140-ish years after Phylloxera, becoming very popular again.

I wasn't thinking about the Nacional '31. The Nacional vineyard was very young when the '31 vintage came along, and I don't know of any trustworthy notes on NN31 from the last forty years that don't include some measure of disappointment. The regular N31 however is holding up superbly.

Agree the couple times I've had them I've preferred the regular to the NN. Many others swear by the NN, because IMO label bias told them they should, LOL.

We need to revisit that discussion about 1931 NN being the first. There is at least one record Julian found of a NN prior to that. I know what folk lore is but I find it odd they would replant that entire section at one time for a variety of reasons.

idj123 wrote:With the 75cl bottle of SW77 tasting so young in comparison to many of its peers, when should I leave it in order to open it magnum form!?

Ian, I'll send you my mobile number in a message in a bottle. Give me a bell when you get it and we'll open that Mag.

g-man wrote:

AHB wrote:

g-man wrote:Not sure if the process includes potentially refreshing the wine itself, which even major first growths bordelais do. That would explain the consistency in that instance.

I'm pretty sure that SFE don't do this. This is based on a handful of occasions when I've had an order cancelled with an apologetic explanation of something like "When we went to the bin to get the bottles we found they had leaked at bit. Sorry, we can't supply them." If SFE were in the habit of topping up so bottles had good fill levels when they were sold it's unlikely my order would have gone unfulfilled.

well if ullage were truly too low, a few of the big bordeaux houses simply keep such bottles around to be utilized to fill other bottles.

Penfold's definitely does this with the grange. They will keep aside "bad" bottles of grange solely for purposes of refilling bottles that get brought into be refreshed (a yearly occurrence where they have a cellar master travel to these events and oversee the refreshing process). They will also, cut it with a more recent vintage.

Really?? They refresh the Grange, their premium wine, with a wine from a year not on the label?
Wow. Glad I don't drink Australian wine.

djewesbury wrote:

g-man wrote:

AHB wrote:

g-man wrote:Not sure if the process includes potentially refreshing the wine itself, which even major first growths bordelais do. That would explain the consistency in that instance.

I'm pretty sure that SFE don't do this. This is based on a handful of occasions when I've had an order cancelled with an apologetic explanation of something like "When we went to the bin to get the bottles we found they had leaked at bit. Sorry, we can't supply them." If SFE were in the habit of topping up so bottles had good fill levels when they were sold it's unlikely my order would have gone unfulfilled.

well if ullage were truly too low, a few of the big bordeaux houses simply keep such bottles around to be utilized to fill other bottles.

Penfold's definitely does this with the grange. They will keep aside "bad" bottles of grange solely for purposes of refilling bottles that get brought into be refreshed (a yearly occurrence where they have a cellar master travel to these events and oversee the refreshing process). They will also, cut it with a more recent vintage.

Really?? They refresh the Grange, their premium wine, with a wine from a year not on the label?
Wow. Glad I don't drink Australian wine.

It appears this is at least partly true...

[url=https://www.penfolds.com/world-of-penfolds/events/2014/2014-penfolds-recorking-clinics]Here[/url], Penfolds wrote: 2014 PENFOLDS RE-CORKING CLINICS
01 June 2014

Penfolds Re-corking Clinics offer the owners of Penfolds red wines which are 15 years and older the opportunity to have their wines assessed by a winemaker, and if necessary, opened, tasted, topped up and re-capsuled on the spot..

The art of re-corking is a delicate process. If opened, the bottle of wine will be tested by the winemaker and assessed for its quality. If the wine is deemed to be a good example of the style and vintage, it will then be topped up with a recent vintage of the same wine, re-corked, provided with a new Penfolds capsule, and then certified by the winemaker. This process certifies the wine for quality, ensuring attendees leave the Clinic with their re-corked collection in an excellent condition, ready for continued cellaring or to enjoy at leisure.

More than a wine 'health check' the Penfolds Re-corking Clinics allow wine enthusiasts to discuss cellaring tips and receive a market appraisal of their wines.

It doesn't mention "bad" bottles being used for the top-up, which I assume simply cannot be true.

What a hideous idea.

djewesbury wrote:What a hideous idea.

+1

Before you all get too hoity-toity about those awful Australians I would point out that "refreshing" with younger vintages when recorking is also done in Bordeaux. And if my failing memory serves me right doesn't port allow a small percentage of wine from vintages other than that declared on the label?

LGTrotter wrote:Before you all get too hoity-toity about those awful Australians I would point out that "refreshing" with younger vintages when recorking is also done in Bordeaux. And if my failing memory serves me right doesn't port allow a small percentage of wine from vintages other than that declared on the label?

None of which affects it being a hideous idea.

None of which affects it being a hideous idea.

Indeed. Before the age of the internet, writers on wine seem to have been content to ignore the less elegant practices of the wine makers, with the result that they remained hidden from the view of the vast majority of consumers.

Now the producers in all wine regions need to work on the basis that secrets are likely to be exposed, and that covert practices that might damage their reputation need to be brought to an end.

The biggest issue with port (IMO) are the 'indication of age' tawnies. Although now overtaken by opaque EU texts, under the old British Trades Descriptions Act, these were quite specifically illegal in the way they were presented to the market.

Whilst the EU may have bought them some time, assigning an age to a wine based on an abstract impression of age that bears no relation to actual age will be seen as fundamentally wrong by the great majority of consumers. An average age would be tolerable, a minimum age preferable.

10yr tawnies would not (I understand) be significantly affected by the condition of average age, and 20yr tawny production would only be moderately restricted. Given the small scale of 30yr and 40yr production, surely it would be better for the industry to clean up its act now, rather than wait for an expose by a wine writer with a lack of other good stories..

I agree, Tom, but I have less of an issue with the indication of age problem than I do with this odious practice of "professionally" turning old wines into something else but topping up leaky old bottles with younger wines (or even the same wine) and then re-corking them. If the affected bottles were all marked as such and then only used for home consumption then fair enough, but many of them will eventually find their way into the market and will be bought by unsuspecting enthusiast like us.

I think if this is done by the producers prior to the release of old stock and the topping up is purely done using wines from the same vintage then fine. I bought some Ducru Beaucillou 1985 recently where this had been done but all of it was explained on the label. But I would think twice about buying any re-corked wine on the secondary market now knowing that something else might be in the bottle.

this odious practice of "professionally" turning old wines into something else but topping up leaky old bottles with younger wines

I think this used to be called 'refreshing' - whatever, I agree, I've no time for it.

I'm also of the opinion that ex. cellars wines are not, in general, worthy of a premium. Although a French winery's cellar may appear cool and dank on a blazing summer's day, it may in reality be well over 20C. Whilst cellars are good at smoothing day/night fluctuations, you need to go very deep indeed to get past seasonal variations. Good UK storage is generally superior, IMO..

A couple of thoughts.

This thread was started because a (presumed) Portuguese stored and recorked bottle tasted very youthful. While I would agree with the point Tom makes about cellars outside the UK the evidence of this bottle would seem to go against it.

Secondly with Madeira some of the most beautiful old wines I have tried have been 'solera' wines, ie very little of the date on the front of the bottle in the bottle. Proper vintage Madeira I have often found difficult to drink. I now cannot get solera wines and the prices for the remaining good ones have crept up. Solera wines were seen as a piece of sharp practice and were discontinued, probably rightly, but I miss them.

Owen, I agree that some lovely wines have and probably still are made using the Solera method. But that is completely different to taking a bottle of 1970 Chateau Tiddlypoo, removing the leaking cork, splashing in a glass of 2005 Chateau Tiddlypoo, re-corking it and presenting it at table or at a tasting or even worse at auction as the 1970. That, IMO, is just wrong.

DRT wrote:Owen, I agree that some lovely wines have and probably still are made using the Solera method. But that is completely different to taking a bottle of 1970 Chateau Tiddlypoo, removing the leaking cork, splashing in a glass of 2005 Chateau Tiddlypoo, re-corking it and presenting it at table or at a tasting or even worse at auction as the 1970. That, IMO, is just wrong.

Quite correct. Doing this to the wine can be excellent for the drinking. But failing to admit it clearly on the label is wrong. My problem is with mis-leading the customer.

I agree with JDAW on this. I don't have a problem with solera or refreshed wines provided there is full disclosure to the buyer. If I recall correctly the Whitwams 1853 was refreshed with a splash of Niepoort '45 and we've shared a bottle described on the label as Refreshed Tawny from 1896. Both of these I would happily drink again.

Whilst I feel I am a voice crying in the wilderness against the heavyweights of I would continue to say that devious shoddy producers will always find a way to make poor wines and market them in a disingenuous way, whatever rules are in place. However truth will out and honest producers will be recognised when the wine is drunk. I hope that ever thicker rule books will not discourage producers from experimenting or reintroducing practices which have made excellent wines in the past.

I don't sense that anyone is disagreeing here, Owen. We all seem to agree that honesty and transparency is good.

AHB wrote:refreshed with a splash of Niepoort '45

There is refreshed. And there is Rᴇꜰʀᴇꜱʜᴇᴅ, with Niepoort 1945 no less. I like being Rᴇꜰʀᴇꜱʜᴇᴅ.

DRT wrote:I agree, Tom, but I have less of an issue with the indication of age problem than I do with this odious practice of "professionally" turning old wines into something else but topping up leaky old bottles with younger wines (or even the same wine) and then re-corking them. If the affected bottles were all marked as such and then only used for home consumption then fair enough, but many of them will eventually find their way into the market and will be bought by unsuspecting enthusiast like us.

I think if this is done by the producers prior to the release of old stock and the topping up is purely done using wines from the same vintage then fine. I bought some Ducru Beaucillou 1985 recently where this had been done but all of it was explained on the label. But I would think twice about buying any re-corked wine on the secondary market now knowing that something else might be in the bottle.

all granges that are retopped will have their corks replaced with a special marked cork designating the bottle as being refreshed, a red dot is also painted on the cork.
a special label is affixed onto the bottle too.

the seller would have to be dishonest in wiping off the marks + label affixation explaining the process done by penfolds

sorry the red dot means that the wine is no good taste wise but was certified and recorked.

DRT wrote:
It doesn't mention "bad" bottles being used for the top-up, which I assume simply cannot be true.

they will have a few older and younger vintages on hand for people to try as people will typically bring young granges from the 90s.

if you have a bottle that they're tasting, they would indeed top it off with a wine with the same vintage.

while not explicitly bottles with low ullage, one can infer that a winery would typically bring lower ullage bottles to these types of clinics.

I'm not sure i understand why you think this simply can not be true?

I suppose it is down to the definition of the word "bad". I think of a bad bottle as being compromised and of a wine that is not being as it should. If your interpretation of "bad" is "a bit low level", then I can see where you are coming from.

If I owned some bottles of Grange that needed this treatment I would expect the top-up bottle to be at least as good, if not better, than those being refreshed. Using "bad" wine to refresh another bottle is completely counter intuitive.

The context of the original conversation was with AHB saying
"

AHB wrote:... when I've had an order cancelled with an apologetic explanation of something like "When we went to the bin to get the bottles we found they had leaked at bit. Sorry, we can't supply them."

so yes, I termed the word "bad" in quotes wiht purpose, as per context, as we have the same definition of what Bad wine is.

DRT wrote:I suppose it is down to the definition of the word "bad". I think of a bad bottle as being compromised and of a wine that is not being as it should. If your interpretation of "bad" is "a bit low level", then I can see where you are coming from.

If I owned some bottles of Grange that needed this treatment I would expect the top-up bottle to be at least as good, if not better, than those being refreshed. Using "bad" wine to refresh another bottle is completely counter intuitive.