The LBV dilemma
Posted: 14:08 Thu 28 Nov 2019
There used to be a mantra that an LBV with a driven cork was age-worthy and one with T stopper had been filtered and fined to an extent that made good aging unlikely.
Then Croft messed things up by offering an unfiltered LBV with a T-stopper..
To be fair, my own researches are indicating that T-stoppers can make a much better and enduring seal than they are usually credited with, although a T-stoppered bottle stored upright for twenty years or more is very prone to separation of the cap and cork when you try to open it.
T-stoppered bottles stored on their sides however can actually ullage more slowly than a driven cork when young, and failure is infrequent, even after several decades.
However, which LBVs - T-stoppered or not - are age-worthy?
My experience of older Graham LBVs suggests that this is the least age-able of the major brands. The other major supermarket player, Taylor, seems to improve for around a decade or so after release before starting to go south.
But what of the others? Perhaps the best clue from younger bottlings is the amount of sediment thrown. Although this can vary season to season, a good deposit of sediment a decade after bottling is as good an indicator as any that the wine did not receive much processing prior to bottling.
I have recently opened a Dow 2006 LBV which had a heavy sediment, suggesting that this scion of the Symington empire has a very different approach to LBV than Graham. Warre, rather confusingly, bottles red label LBV with a T-stopper for early release and an aged blue label version with driven cork for late release.
Older Cockburn LBVs are not great and have little sediment, strongly suggesting filtration, but what is the current policy now they are under the Symingtons?
And what of the others? Please report..!
Then Croft messed things up by offering an unfiltered LBV with a T-stopper..
To be fair, my own researches are indicating that T-stoppers can make a much better and enduring seal than they are usually credited with, although a T-stoppered bottle stored upright for twenty years or more is very prone to separation of the cap and cork when you try to open it.
T-stoppered bottles stored on their sides however can actually ullage more slowly than a driven cork when young, and failure is infrequent, even after several decades.
However, which LBVs - T-stoppered or not - are age-worthy?
My experience of older Graham LBVs suggests that this is the least age-able of the major brands. The other major supermarket player, Taylor, seems to improve for around a decade or so after release before starting to go south.
But what of the others? Perhaps the best clue from younger bottlings is the amount of sediment thrown. Although this can vary season to season, a good deposit of sediment a decade after bottling is as good an indicator as any that the wine did not receive much processing prior to bottling.
I have recently opened a Dow 2006 LBV which had a heavy sediment, suggesting that this scion of the Symington empire has a very different approach to LBV than Graham. Warre, rather confusingly, bottles red label LBV with a T-stopper for early release and an aged blue label version with driven cork for late release.
Older Cockburn LBVs are not great and have little sediment, strongly suggesting filtration, but what is the current policy now they are under the Symingtons?
And what of the others? Please report..!