ThePortForum.com

A bottle re-corked by me in 2012 following signs of seepage, so one of the 'affected' bottles.

Decanted 10/7/21 and consumed over four evenings.

This is a rich, complex and very spicy wine. It also has a little VA, but that doesn't do much harm unless you are really allergic to it. Unlike the problem bottles from the eighties, it isn't a flat murky wine - it's very clean and crisp on the palate.

Mulling whether to consider the VA a flaw or a characteristic, I popped a Ch. Musar, also from '97; mindful that these Lebanese wines often wear a hint of VA as part of their identity. As luck would have it, the bottle was entirely clear however.

Should the Niepoort '97 be written off and written out of tasting lineups? No, not at all. The VA on this bottle was modest, and the wine besides that is a mighty offering. Aside from fearing the worst and then being pleasantly surprised, I really enjoyed quaffing this bottle.

Scoring is tricky. VA tends to be a disruptive factor when it comes to maturation and there's a risk this won't end well, but so far this wine appears to have aged normally. Very drinkable already, but hopefully with more to offer: 6-7

In this particular case, I think it is safe to consider it a flaw. The mid-90's Ports produced by Niepoort were not intentionally made to have some VA in them; rather it was an infection at the winery that took years to eradicate.

In some cases, such as this bottle, the flaw is mild enough that it's almost an attribute. But in far too many cases the VA is so dominant that it ruins the bottle. Both are still flaws, even though the former is a tolerable flaw.