Which LBVs are worth cellaring?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Owen's recent tasting note on the Croft 2004 LBV made me think it would be worth having a thread where we discuss currently available LBVs which will reward some time in the cellar. The three I will start with are the Sogrape family:
Ferreira
Sandeman
Offley

These are fabulous ports. The current vintages of Ferreira and Sandeman (2011) are brilliant ports. The current vintage of Offley (2010) is a little behind the other two but still darned good. The 2010 vintages are also a real class apart from other years. All three are bottled unfiltered and are real, proper serious ports that were bottled after 4 years in the barrel and so don't qualify to be called vintage port - they are different in style but they are great wines. All three will mature, soften and develop secondary and tertiary flavours over the next 20-30 years.

I recommend all of these to anyone (such as Sweeney) who is looking to start a collection of port for current and future drinking. Bottles such as these could form the core of a great cellar for tomorrow.

[LGTrotter]

My trouble is that I associate LBVs with my wilderness years for port. Desperately awful wines which I am sorry to say Taylor still produces. There are good LBVs but they are not uniform.

[Thomas]

Offley Boa Vista has a 2011 LBV, so I don't understand that you write their current one is 2010?

Else great initiative and very interesting thread. I hear that the Ferreira 2010 and 2009 LBV is also really something. Especially the 2009 is supposedly hard to come by.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Offley Boa Vista has a 2011 LBV, so I don't understand that you write their current one is 2010?

You are right, I was being lazy in my writing. The Offley LBV being offered for sale in the UK - according to Sogrape UK - is the 2010 vintage, this despite the fact that the 2011 vintages of Ferreira and Sandeman are the current vintage on the market. I don't know why this is, but it is what I was told at the BFT. It could be that there is a small stock of the Offley 2010 remaining in the UK which needs to be sold before the UK moves on to the 2011 vintage.

[Alex Bridgeman]

My trouble is that I associate LBVs with my wilderness years for port. Desperately awful wines which I am sorry to say Taylor still produces. There are good LBVs but they are not uniform.

Taylor's LBV is aimed at a particular market. People who read and post on this board are probably not that market. Taylor's LBV is a good product for the market it is aimed at - it is easy, simple and not an intellectual drink. If you are a restauranteur it is a good choice to offer to patrons by the glass.

Mind you, I rarely buy Taylor LBV if I eat somewhere it is offered. But then I am spoiled as my local restaurant carries Croft Roeda as their port.

[AW77]

In addition to the Sandeman, I would recommend the following LBVs for cellaring:

- Niepoort
- Noval (unfiltered)
- Rozes
- Warre (unfiltered)

[CaliforniaBrad]

I totally agree with the notion that there are many LBVs out there that can benefit from bottle aging.

My personal favorites, in no particular order:

Smith-Woodhouse
Niepoort
Crasto (partially because of its very attractive price)
Noval (unfiltered)
Warre (especially many over 20 y/o)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

[Sweeney]

AHB, great insight on both this thread and my intro thread which you have posted on.

This is exactly the sort of advice a newbie like me needs, one who perhaps would like to start a reasonable collection but can't really afford to start with a dozen bottles of fine vintage.

You have all been a great help and very friendly. No VP snobbery or sniggering at the new guy who knows nothing.

Great forum. Thanks.

One more question though. I have read somewhere that LBV should be stored upright. However, I am guessing that if it is unfiltered it should be laid flat like any other sedimented Port. Would I be correct in this assumption?

[jdaw1]

No VP snobbery or sniggering at the new guy who knows nothing.

I remember my first Port, and then knew only two things. ➊ This is good. ➋ I know nothing else.

This is not unusual. We have all been there.

[LGTrotter]

One more question though. I have read somewhere that LBV should be stored upright. However, I am guessing that if it is unfiltered it should be laid flat like any other sedimented Port. Would I be correct in this assumption?

The general consensus is that they are best stored lying down if you are intending to keep them for any length of time. You tend to get 't' stoppers on LBVs (shorter corks with a plastic bit on the top to get hold of) which I think are fine for storing lying down, as evidenced by the 12yo Croft 2004 which had a 't' stopper. Keep an eye on the necks of the bottles and if any start to weep then drink them. Some LBVs are given a driven cork (Sandeman and Warre are the two which spring to mind) and these certainly should be kept lying down.

[LGTrotter]

My trouble is that I associate LBVs with my wilderness years for port. Desperately awful wines which I am sorry to say Taylor still produces. There are good LBVs but they are not uniform.

Taylor's LBV is aimed at a particular market. People who read and post on this board are probably not that market. Taylor's LBV is a good product for the market it is aimed at - it is easy, simple and not an intellectual drink. If you are a restauranteur it is a good choice to offer to patrons by the glass.

Mind you, I rarely buy Taylor LBV if I eat somewhere it is offered. But then I am spoiled as my local restaurant carries Croft Roeda as their port.

I take your point but I still think Taylor and Graham are high quality houses which could and should make something better in the LBV line than they do. Perhaps it would get too complicated to do a premium LBV alongside their standard one.

[CaliforniaBrad]

My trouble is that I associate LBVs with my wilderness years for port. Desperately awful wines which I am sorry to say Taylor still produces. There are good LBVs but they are not uniform.

Taylor's LBV is aimed at a particular market. People who read and post on this board are probably not that market. Taylor's LBV is a good product for the market it is aimed at - it is easy, simple and not an intellectual drink. If you are a restauranteur it is a good choice to offer to patrons by the glass.

Mind you, I rarely buy Taylor LBV if I eat somewhere it is offered. But then I am spoiled as my local restaurant carries Croft Roeda as their port.

I take your point but I still think Taylor and Graham are high quality houses which could and should make something better in the LBV line than they do. Perhaps it would get too complicated to do a premium LBV alongside their standard one.

Perhaps, but other houses do, in a sense. Both Noval and Fonseca make filtered and unfiltered versions aimed at different market segments, and I'm guessing they're not the only ones who do so.

[John M]

I totally agree with the notion that there are many LBVs out there that can benefit from bottle aging.

My personal favorites, in no particular order:

Smith-Woodhouse
Niepoort
Crasto (partially because of its very attractive price)
Noval (unfiltered)
Warre (especially many over 20 y/o)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

+1 on these 5 being favorites and the best and age-worthy. The Crasto I can get, in a case, for $17-$19 per which is quite attractive, and have paid as little as $12 (about 3 years ago in a close out).

[Andy Velebil]

While I was generally not a big fan of their LBV's in the past, the 2009 Taylor's LBV is excellent. Worth trying it. IMO and experience Taylor's/Fonseca have, in recent years, been improving the quality of their mid-range products (Ruby Reserves, LBV, and tawny's with an indication of age). If you've not had them in a while, worth giving them a go again.

Crasto makes some fantastic LBV's that are better than most of their VP's.

[CaliforniaBrad]

While I was generally not a big fan of their LBV's in the past, the 2009 Taylor's LBV is excellent. Worth trying it. IMO and experience Taylor's/Fonseca have, in recent years, been improving the quality of their mid-range products (Ruby Reserves, LBV, and tawny's with an indication of age). If you've not had them in a while, worth giving them a go again.

Crasto makes some fantastic LBV's that are better than most of their VP's.

That's not solely due to the high quality of Crasto's LBVs though .

[LGTrotter]

On a positive note the Sandeman at Waitrose is a belter, young and will keep and grow for years.

[Alex Bridgeman]

AHB, great insight on both this thread and my intro thread which you have posted on.

This is exactly the sort of advice a newbie like me needs, one who perhaps would like to start a reasonable collection but can't really afford to start with a dozen bottles of fine vintage.

That's useful feedback and good to know that what we are doing is helpful to you and - with luck - others who are reading the thread but haven't yet taken the step to joining the forum.

You have all been a great help and very friendly. No VP snobbery or sniggering at the new guy who knows nothing.

Great forum. Thanks.

We try, but talking about the drink we love makes it very easy to be friendly. The only rivalry you might come across on the forum is good natured teasing between those who prefer tawny ports over ruby ports and vice versa.

One more question though. I have read somewhere that LBV should be stored upright. However, I am guessing that if it is unfiltered it should be laid flat like any other sedimented Port. Would I be correct in this assumption?

I always store my port with the corks in contact with the wine. This keeps the corks moist and should prevent air from getting in and spoiling the wine. I believe that t-corks fail a little more frequently than driven corks but I have only had one fail on my in the last 10 years and that just meant I had to open an drink the bottle earlier than I would have preferred - no hardship there!

Interestingly, there is also a minority view held by at least one historic port producer (Vilar d'Allen) that all port should be stored upright and at the tiny bit of air which enters trough the dried out cork adds to the complexity and attractiveness of the mature port.

[jdaw1]

The only rivalry you might come across on the forum is good natured teasing between those who prefer tawny ports over ruby ports and vice versa.

The People’s Front of Judea: splitters.

[LGTrotter]

I was looking through the tasting notes on this site to see if there is an upper limit on the keeping qualities of LBV port. There are a few outliers (1927, 1958, 1961 and 1967) but it isn't until the mid seventies that there seem to be enough notes to give a clear picture of how they drink over time. I suppose this coincides with the regular releases of this style in quantity sufficient to appear more than once in the tasting notes.

My sense from a quick skim of these notes that there really isn't any difference in the keeping qualities of LBVs compared to single quinta or vintage ports. Is this the case? Makes me wonder why I have been buying all this rather expensive vintage stuff...

[CaliforniaBrad]

I was looking through the tasting notes on this site to see if there is an upper limit on the keeping qualities of LBV port. There are a few outliers (1927, 1958, 1961 and 1967) but it isn't until the mid seventies that there seem to be enough notes to give a clear picture of how they drink over time. I suppose this coincides with the regular releases of this style in quantity sufficient to appear more than once in the tasting notes.

My sense from a quick skim of these notes that there really isn't any difference in the keeping qualities of LBVs compared to single quinta or vintage ports. Is this the case? Makes me wonder why I have been buying all this rather expensive vintage stuff...

In my experience, while the best can age wonderfully for 20+ years, I'd be hard pressed to say I've had any that would rival top VPs for staying power and complexity. If you're simply looking for something that can age well in the short to medium term and provide a good to great experience, top LBVs and occasionally SQVPs are the way to go. Rarely do I feel you can find lower and middle rung VPs at a more attractive price for the same uses. You can't beat the price/quality ratio of top notch LBV these days.

[Andy Velebil]

I was looking through the tasting notes on this site to see if there is an upper limit on the keeping qualities of LBV port. There are a few outliers (1927, 1958, 1961 and 1967) but it isn't until the mid seventies that there seem to be enough notes to give a clear picture of how they drink over time. I suppose this coincides with the regular releases of this style in quantity sufficient to appear more than once in the tasting notes.

My sense from a quick skim of these notes that there really isn't any difference in the keeping qualities of LBVs compared to single quinta or vintage ports. Is this the case? Makes me wonder why I have been buying all this rather expensive vintage stuff...

In my experience, while the best can age wonderfully for 20+ years, I'd be hard pressed to say I've had any that would rival top VPs for staying power and complexity. If you're simply looking for something that can age well in the short to medium term and provide a good to great experience, top LBVs and occasionally SQVPs are the way to go. Rarely do I feel you can find lower and middle rung VPs at a more attractive price for the same uses. You can't beat the price/quality ratio of top notch LBV these days.

I can only speak from my drinking experience with older LBV's. For the vast majority of them, about 20-ish years really is the longest they should be kept. Will they drink nicely past that, yes. But what I often find with the older ones (25+ years) is they just don't have the capacity to retain my drinking interest like an older VP does. They tend to become very linear when they get really old. So I don't really see any reason to keep them for very long term.

I recall tasting some older LBV's from the mid 1980's IIRC along side some older VP's. That was eye opening as one really saw the difference in aging curves once that primary fruit was all gone in both. One sip of the VP's and I don't think anyone went back to the LBV's. They were just bland, to use the term, comparatively and highlighted why it was not worth it to cellar them for so long.

I understand it's fun to open old ones now and then, so if the intent is to age a few for later fun, then for sure. It's always educational and fun to see how they've held up over the years. But as a general rule VP blows them out of the water in the complexity and ability to retain interest department in their older years.

[LGTrotter]

I recall tasting some older LBV's from the mid 1980's IIRC along side some older VP's. That was eye opening as one really saw the difference in aging curves once that primary fruit was all gone in both. One sip of the VP's and I don't think anyone went back to the LBV's. They were just bland, to use the term, comparatively and highlighted why it was not worth it to cellar them for so long.

Looking at the tasting notes of the Warre LBVs from the eighties I notice that when tasted blind they are often guessed to be a vintage port. I do not know the circumstances of the tasting you mention but I will own to being a bit biased against LBVs. I wonder if I would have the same view if I had tasted more of them blind, particularly the unfiltered Warre from the eighties.

Having said that my (possibly biased) view is that LBVs are less complex.

[Andy Velebil]

I recall tasting some older LBV's from the mid 1980's IIRC along side some older VP's. That was eye opening as one really saw the difference in aging curves once that primary fruit was all gone in both. One sip of the VP's and I don't think anyone went back to the LBV's. They were just bland, to use the term, comparatively and highlighted why it was not worth it to cellar them for so long.

Looking at the tasting notes of the Warre LBVs from the eighties I notice that when tasted blind they are often guessed to be a vintage port. I do not know the circumstances of the tasting you mention but I will own to being a bit biased against LBVs. I wonder if I would have the same view if I had tasted more of them blind, particularly the unfiltered Warre from the eighties.

Having said that my (possibly biased) view is that LBVs are less complex.

One of the easiest ways to guess an older LBV is the lack of complexity they generally possess, as you mentioned. As they age that becomes more noticeable to the trained eye (mouth). Now, I guess it's fair to say one can easily be confused by a lower ranking VP that is, in essence, equivalent in quality to an LBV or even a poorly stored or off bottle of a top VP. But if you compare most top end VP from a proper showing bottle against a good unfiltered LBV the differences really stand out as they get older.

[PhilW]

But if you compare most top end VP from a proper showing bottle against a good unfiltered LBV the differences really stand out as they get older.

This would be true comparing most top end VP from a proper showing with anything that isn't.

[Andy Velebil]

But if you compare most top end VP from a proper showing bottle against a good unfiltered LBV the differences really stand out as they get older.

This would be true comparing most top end VP from a proper showing with anything that isn't.

Which is why LGTrotter needs to send me all his old VP's. He can keep all his old LBV's for himself

[christopherpfaff]

For the vast majority of them, about 20-ish years really is the longest they should be kept. Will they drink nicely past that, yes. But what I often find with the older ones (25+ years) is they just don't have the capacity to retain my drinking interest like an older VP does. They tend to become very linear when they get really old. So I don't really see any reason to keep them for very long term.

I totally agree with you and my tasting experience is the same (e.g. we did a big comparing tasting VP vs. LBV in September 2015 at Quevedos winery with same conclusions).

But I observe some changes of the LBV category. For me (and in the past) a "classic" LBV is the third or fourth best Ruby style wine of a Port house (often produced more than 150.000 bottles per year). But things changed now with so much very good smaller producers, for whom the LBV is the TOP end Port wine in there portfolio (often only bottled in very small quantities). This is technically a LBV, but in fact these are like "Vintage Ports" (only stay some more months in cask and bottled with LBV label because they have no "Vintage Port consumers").

To answer the topic, depends very much on the producer and his LBV philosophy.

[LGTrotter]

But I observe some changes of the LBV category. For me (and in the past) a "classic" LBV is the third or fourth best Ruby style wine of a Port house (often produced more than 150.000 bottles per year). But things changed now with so much very good smaller producers, for whom the LBV is the TOP end Port wine in there portfolio (often only bottled in very small quantities). This is technically a LBV, but in fact these are like "Vintage Ports" (only stay some more months in cask and bottled with LBV label because they have no "Vintage Port consumers").

To answer the topic, depends very much on the producer and his LBV philosophy.

Well put. This is the nub for me; good LBVs are simply vintage ports which have been left in the barrel for a few years longer. Saintsbury's favourite port was one that had been in barrel for seven years (I think) and as you say the quality of the more recent LBVs are splendid and I fancy they will keep well.

[Glenn E.]

For me (and in the past) a "classic" LBV is the third or fourth best Ruby style wine of a Port house (often produced more than 150.000 bottles per year).

3rd or 4th? Assuming VP is 1st, what else is there?

Or are you counting SQVP and 2nd label VP (e.g. Guimaraens) as separate styles? To me those are still VP and I expect VP-level performance from them, adjusted for the year.

[LGTrotter]

For me (and in the past) a "classic" LBV is the third or fourth best Ruby style wine of a Port house (often produced more than 150.000 bottles per year).

3rd or 4th? Assuming VP is 1st, what else is there?

Or are you counting SQVP and 2nd label VP (e.g. Guimaraens) as separate styles? To me those are still VP and I expect VP-level performance from them, adjusted for the year.

I think that traditionally they would go in the following order
1) Vintage port
2) SQVP (Malvedos, Vargellas, etc.).
3) Crusted port
4) LBV
5) Ruby

These distinctions seem to be becoming less, well, distinct these days.

Edit; Of course I forgot the tawnies,
439) Tawnies, SHTs, barrels found at the back of sheds and all the other claptrap.

[Andy Velebil]

Well put. This is the nub for me; good LBVs are simply vintage ports which have been left in the barrel for a few years longer. Saintsbury's favourite port was one that had been in barrel for seven years (I think) and as you say the quality of the more recent LBVs are splendid and I fancy they will keep well.

I would disagree with that statement.

[LGTrotter]

Well put. This is the nub for me; good LBVs are simply vintage ports which have been left in the barrel for a few years longer. Saintsbury's favourite port was one that had been in barrel for seven years (I think) and as you say the quality of the more recent LBVs are splendid and I fancy they will keep well.

I would disagree with that statement.

Go on. I can handle honest criticism.

[Andy Velebil]

Well put. This is the nub for me; good LBVs are simply vintage ports which have been left in the barrel for a few years longer. Saintsbury's favourite port was one that had been in barrel for seven years (I think) and as you say the quality of the more recent LBVs are splendid and I fancy they will keep well.

I would disagree with that statement.

Go on. I can handle honest criticism.

I think it's a simplistic view of LBV's (speaking of unfiltered ones only, I think we can agree that filtered LBV's are their own thing in regards to this discussion).

When you look at some producers who's LBV's are better than their VP's you have to understand that those producers are often selling their best grapes to other producers to use or diverting them to other uses such as table wines or a different type of Port. So their lesser grapes are then focused on making a fantastic LBV. VP production is still done, as one really has to to be perceived as a "real" producer, but they aren't trying to be a leader in VP's as that is not their main focus. Crasto is a really good example of this.

Most producers aren't specifically earmarking their very best VP grapes, only to waste all that time and money on turning it into an LBV if they don't have to. That is not to say that those grapes that don't make the top cut aren't declassified or even some of the best grapes actually be diverted to LBV production due to excess once enough VP is produced. The classic example that happens in almost every upper end winery in the world is when, for example, you use three different varietals to make your wine. You've got 100 tons of each, 300 tons total. But your blend that year is 70% "A" grapes, 20% "B" grapes, and 10% "C" grapes. You've now got 30/80/90 tons of each grape leftover. Deduct stuff that doesn't cut it...After aging and testing and tasting, some of that won't be of the quality you want to use in your top wine. So lets say you're now down to 00/50/70 tons left. You have no more top cut "A" grapes so you can't make more of your top wine. That doesn't mean you are out of "A/B/C" grapes, you still have 30/80/90 tons left if you didn't sell it off, but some of its not top quality you want so you can't keep making more top wine. What do you do? You could sell some or all of it off or you simply "declassify" it and make a second label/tier wine. One with a slightly different blend, or even the same blend, that is still very good but not up to the standards or style of the top wine.

Port also has other issues with regards to Beneficio that may play into what a producer makes or buys each year. And market demand and what stocks they need to replenish or bottle for a specific customer. And years that are good but not great where a VP or even an SQVP is not produced or produced in very small amounts leaving a lot of decent grapes left over. These things and more make it a very complicated issue that can't be summed up by saying LBV is simply VP left in barrel longer.

[Glenn E.]

For me (and in the past) a "classic" LBV is the third or fourth best Ruby style wine of a Port house (often produced more than 150.000 bottles per year).

3rd or 4th? Assuming VP is 1st, what else is there?

Or are you counting SQVP and 2nd label VP (e.g. Guimaraens) as separate styles? To me those are still VP and I expect VP-level performance from them, adjusted for the year.

I think that traditionally they would go in the following order
1) Vintage port
2) SQVP (Malvedos, Vargellas, etc.).
3) Crusted port
4) LBV
5) Ruby

These distinctions seem to be becoming less, well, distinct these days.

Hmm... I don't have any experience with Crusted, but just from what I've heard I would have put it no better than on par with LBV. It seems like something the producers do when nothing else worked out quite right (aka "failed VP"), whereas LBV is something they do deliberately and with purpose. So while I suppose the original intent for the grapes might have been "better" than LBV, the end result is... maybe? Maybe not?

Edit; Of course I forgot the tawnies,
Beyond the understanding of the English) Tawnies, SHTs, barrels found at the back of sheds and all the other claptrap.

Fixed that for you.

[jdaw1]

Crusted […] seems like something the producers do when nothing else worked out quite right (aka "failed VP"), whereas LBV is something they do deliberately and with purpose. So while I suppose the original intent for the grapes might have been "better" than LBV, the end result is... maybe? Maybe not?

Disagree. Crusted can be multi-year VP. Year y they blended the (SQ)VP. There was an excess of some parts of the blend, left in barrel. Year y+1 they blended the next (SQ)VP. There was an excess of different parts of the blend. It could be that year y’s excess would blend very well with year y+1’s excess. Because the parts come from different years, that could not be called VP, but could be nearly as good.

Rephrased, crusted is to VP as (very approximately) tawny-with-indication-of-age is to colheita.

[flash_uk]

Crusted […] seems like something the producers do when nothing else worked out quite right (aka "failed VP"), whereas LBV is something they do deliberately and with purpose. So while I suppose the original intent for the grapes might have been "better" than LBV, the end result is... maybe? Maybe not?

Disagree. Crusted can be multi-year VP. Year y they blended the (SQ)VP. There was an excess of some parts of the blend, left in barrel. Year y+1 they blended the next (SQ)VP. There was an excess of different parts of the blend. It could be that year y’s excess would blend very well with year y+1’s excess. Because the parts come from different years, that could not be called VP, but could be nearly as good.

Rephrased, crusted is to VP as (very approximately) tawny-with-indication-of-age is to colheita.

The thing I've always wondered in that scenario is how/why the producer decides to make a crusted rather than leaving both y and y+1 in barrel longer, and making each into an LBV.

[jdaw1]

Disagree. Crusted can be multi-year VP. Year y they blended the (SQ)VP. There was an excess of some parts of the blend, left in barrel. Year y+1 they blended the next (SQ)VP. There was an excess of different parts of the blend. It could be that year y’s excess would blend very well with year y+1’s excess. Because the parts come from different years, that could not be called VP, but could be nearly as good.

Rephrased, crusted is to VP as (very approximately) tawny-with-indication-of-age is to colheita.

The thing I've always wondered in that scenario is how/why the producer decides to make a crusted rather than leaving both y and y+1 in barrel longer, and making each into an LBV.

Becasue LBV has to come from a single year. If there’s an excess of varietal A from one year, and varietal B from another year, they cannot meet in a VP nor in a LBV. They can meet in a Crusted.

Not all Crusteds are excellent. But a goodly number are, and even mature ones. See, for example, a tasting note (author: flash_uk) of Dow Crusted 1985: “had I tasted this blind I would have been guessing maybe T70 or D70”.

[jdaw1]

And this Graham Crusted 1927 seems to be in fair shape for a ‘budget VP’ of that age.

This photograph by AHB.

[flash_uk]

Becasue LBV has to come from a single year. If there’s an excess of varietal A from one year, and varietal B from another year, they cannot meet in a VP nor in a LBV. They can meet in a Crusted.

Yes I get that, but the blend from y could be an LBV, and the blend from y+1, another LBV.

[RonnieRoots]

I would agree that 20 years seems to be the sweet spot for good unfiltered LBVs. I have a number of Niepoort LBVs from the 1990s that are just lovely to drink now, as well as Smith Woodhouse 1995, which is still beautiful. The LBVs from the early 2000s that I own (Warre, Niepoort and Javali amongst others) all still seem to have upward potential. So to answer the original question: Yes, in my opinion good, unfiltered LBVs are definitely worth cellaring.

[jdaw1]

Yes I get that, but the blend from y could be an LBV, and the blend from y+1, another LBV.

But then the first LBV would be all varietal A (and so unbalanced); and the second LBV would be all varietal B (and so unbalanced). But a Crusted can have both varietals, A and B, and so be better balanced.

Obviously, this simplifies: Crusteds can have grapes of more than two harvests.

[Glenn E.]

Rephrased, crusted is to VP as (very approximately) tawny-with-indication-of-age is to colheita.

Perfectly explained, especially with the subsequent post further clarifying the varietal aspect. Thank you.

[flash_uk]

Yes I get that, but the blend from y could be an LBV, and the blend from y+1, another LBV.

But then the first LBV would be all varietal A (and so unbalanced); and the second LBV would be all varietal B (and so unbalanced). But a Crusted can have both varietals, A and B, and so be better balanced.

Obviously, this simplifies: Crusteds can have grapes of more than two harvests.

OK if year y was only a single varietal left over then that makes sense, but that wasn't the scenario you described above, which was y and y+1 being excess blend.

[LGTrotter]

To return to Andy's excellent post about LBVs, which I would not presume to disagree with, but I do think that LBVs (unfiltered ones) seem to be getting better. I thought as there is much less VP being made these days presumably this means there are more good quality grapes to use for LBVs. I also think that Christopher's point that for some producers LBVs are their flagship wines is significant in growing the quality of these wines.

[griff]

I think the information here is marvellous. Particularly the houses to explore. I personally think of crusted and LBV ports as singing to a similar hymn sheet; an accessible vintage port style. Now a crusted does it via blending vintage ports including some with some age, whereas an LBV does it with wood maturation prior to bottling. Some houses decide to filter the LBV for increased accessibility but some might say that would strip up front flavour let alone longevity.

[Monique]

Having red this threat I was wondering wether the 2011 (unfiltered) LBV's are better options for cellaring than for example the 2010 or 2009 LBV's, as 2011 is a classic year for VP. Is this good thinking?
I had some LBV's from Warre 1992 and Smith-Woodhouse 1995 which I both enjoyed very much, but are they generally better (or age better?) from a classic vintage year?

[LGTrotter]

Having red this threat I was wondering wether the 2011 (unfiltered) LBV's are better options for cellaring than for example the 2010 or 2009 LBV's, as 2011 is a classic year for VP. Is this good thinking?
I had some LBV's from Warre 1992 and Smith-Woodhouse 1995 which I both enjoyed very much, but are they generally better (or age better?) from a classic vintage year?

I don't know but Alex (AHB) has made several references to the excellent quality of the 2011 LBVs and he is wise in all matters concerning port. I have been wondering about the 2011 Berrys LBV, if anyone has an opinion I would be glad to hear it. It is made by Noval.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I've been stunned at the quality of recent vintages of LBV port. I haven't had chance to post the tasting note yet, but I tried the Warre 2011 filtered LBV yesterday and was really impressed. Not a long term keeper but lots of acidity which means there's no hurry to drink it.

I don't have enough experience with 30 year old LBVs to be able to say whether those from a declared vintage will age better than those from other years. What I can say is that the years 2008-2011 have produced some superb LBV ports which would be worthy additions to anyone's cellar for short term drinking or medium term aging - call it a 0-30 year planning horizon.

Sorry Owen, I've not tried the BBR 2011 LBV.

[Monique]

Oke, thank you, I will try to find some unfiltered LBV's like Warre, Noval, Crasto and Smith-Woodhouse both from 2011 and 2008 or 2009 f.i.
Time will tell..

[LGTrotter]

Is there any way of telling how different LBVs are handled? What are the different processes they undergo? I have heard of pasteurisation, filtering, stabilisation but I would like to find those that are minimally messed about with as I suppose that these have a better chance of development with keeping. I have looked at labels and some seem very clear, stating clearly they are unfiltered. Others seem deliberately vague, with general statements about 'premium product' and the like.

Or is it simply a case of knowing which companies are the right ones to buy from? I know most of the big names to look out for but would be grateful for the names of smaller players which I sometimes see but avoid for lack of knowledge.

[Alex Bridgeman]

You have to be a little careful when looking for port which has been traditionally treated but bottled late. The fact that a port states on the back label that it was bottled unfiltered is almost certainly true - but it might have been cold stabilised and fined instead of being filtered.

I know a handful of producers who treat their LBV the same way as they do their vintage ports except they leave them in wood for a little longer. Sandeman, Offley, Ferreira, Warre, Smith Woodhouse, Quevedo and Noval all come immediately to mind.

If you come across a small producer and you'd like to know whether they are a "traditional" producer, name them in this thread and ask. If we know, we'll say.