Defining unfiltered LBV

[uncle tom]

There's a lot of LBVs on the market these days - Portugal Vineyards are currently listing no fewer than 74.

Most of the less well known brands have two things in common: They have driven corks, and don't say unfiltered.

Dig a little a deeper and several of these uncertain LBVs are accompanied by notes on laying down and avoiding sediment, strongly hinting at them being unfiltered. Some well known brands also fall into this category, such as Niepoort; and judging by the amount of sediment it throws, the T-stoppered Dow appears to receive little or no treatment.

It seems that the word 'unfiltered' is problematic, especially for the smaller producers; and my impression is that a lack of clear definition may be at the root of this. One well known small producer once asked the question: 'Does straining out flies and pips count as filtration?' which suggested to me that a lack of a sensible specification may be the problem.

Most LBVs will be drunk soon after purchase, so producers don't want their wines arriving cloudy due to temperature variance during shipping, and they certainly don't want visible lumps to be found in them - but how much treatment could an unfiltered LBV receive without compromising it?

Would chilling the wine to 5C say, the lowest likely transit temperature for most markets, be injurious? Would passing the chilled wine through a 100 micron screen, say, to remove lumps and crystals formed from the chilling process, remove anything of value?

- Or is it better that unfiltered retains it's rather vague meaning, and we carry on guessing about the aging potential of LBVs?

[Mike J. W.]

In the last year, I've become a big fan of aged LBV's. You're right that it's sometimes hard to tell if a Port is filtered or unfiltered unless it clearly states what it is or if as you said, it mentions sediment or as I have found recommends decanting. Regardless, I decant all LBV's and have found that even with some of the older, filtered LBV's I'll come across some sediment.

To me, older LBV's have a unique taste to them. It seems like the Port has "broken down" somewhat but it leaves it with a spicy, slightly acidic but smooth taste with what seems like just a hint of VA that somehow seems to work. I love them!

[JacobH]

Considering the way in which Port is regulated, it’s always seemed odd to me that we have two completely different wines being made under the “LBV” category.

It generates quite a lot of confusion since it is not uncommon to see LBV referred to as Vintage, especially in the non-specialist press. I can’t see much justification in banning the term “Vintage Character” for being misleading but letting producers making very modern-style LBVs have the word “Vintage” on the bottle.

I also think it acts as a disincentive to producers to make traditional LBV (i.e. a proper Vintage Port that has had an extra couple of years before bottling) since the product is in the same category as some of the cheap-and-cheerful supermarket LBVs and you really have to know what you are doing to spot the difference.

I expect the problem, as Tom says, is that the amount of treatment each wine receives varies and there isn’t a binary distinction between “unfiltered” and “filtered” which is why many producers don’t use the phrase. What would probably help is for the IVDP to create a new category of “Traditional LBV”, defined as a Vintage Port which has spent additional time in wood before bottling so it is clear to consumers what they are buying. Some shippers might then even be tempted to make both: a LBV and a filtered TLBV which would be a Good Thing. Especially because, as Mike says, LBVs do age in a different way.

None of this is to denigrate modern or supermarket LBVs: I drink and have drunk loads of them!

[uncle tom]

What Jacob alludes to is the sub-cateogory of 'bottle matured' LBVs which is already recognised. In that instance stabilisation is less important as the aging process does much of the work for you, and the consumer is expecting sediment.

Perhaps we should have three distinct categories:

1) Bottle matured LBV - at least three years post bottling aging, driven cork obligatory, unfiltered in accordance with the rules that apply to VP.

2) Unfiltered LBV - post bottling aging optional, closure type discretionary, very limited cold stabilisation and straining of solids permitted, within specified parameters.

3) Filtered LBV - post bottling aging optional, but not expected, T stopper or screw cap obligatory, cold stabilisation and/or filtration at the discretion of the producer.

[JacobH]

I didn’t realise that “bottle-matured” was an official category. I thought it was in the same territory as “unfiltered”. Apologies.

If it is official, I do think it is an unhelpful name: “Bottle-Matured, Late-Bottled” is hardly readily understandable or something you would stick on a label in a big font. And I think the quickness with which the industry is jettisoning “colheita” in favour of “single harvest tawny” (or even just “single harvest”) demonstrates the importance of the IVDP getting the terminology right...

[uncle tom]

If it is official, I do think it is an unhelpful name: “Bottle-Matured, Late-Bottled” is hardly readily understandable or something you would stick on a label in a big font. And I think the quickness with which the industry is jettisoning “colheita” in favour of “single harvest tawny” (or even just “single harvest”) demonstrates the importance of the IVDP getting the terminology right...

There are very few takers in the bottle matured category, and some, like Churchill, who late release some of their LBV after it has matured in bottle, don't seem to bother with a fresh label that says that, so it would seem that the words 'bottle matured' are in themselves not perceived to improve marketability much.

[Glenn E.]

"Unfiltered" is as regulated as "Bottle Matured"; perhaps more so. I have no idea why so few producers use the term, though I can speculate that it requires documentation that they're not keen to produce.

"Filtered" is not a category. If it says nothing on the label, "Filtered" is assumed. That's why it seems like those producers who are making top-quality LBV would want to use the "Unfiltered" designation in order to draw a distinction between their product and the common supermarket fare. Since they don't, I have to assume that qualifying for use of the "Unfiltered" designation is more onerous than it seems like it should be.

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny".

[MigSU]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny".

Difficulty of the anglosphere to pronounce/spell "colheita"?

[uncle tom]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny"

The word 'colheita' was not readily understood in the Anglosphere, and other important markets like China, where English was gaining traction, but hispanic words were not understood. Sales in those markets were terrible and the need for a better name was pressing. I advocated 'Single Tawny' which would chime a little with premium Scotch. Adding the word 'Harvest' made it seem clumsy.

Commercially however, the adoption of an English name has been a huge success.

[JacobH]

Of course, if the English-speaking markets were more receptive to bottle labels in Portuguese, the bottle-matured version could have a Portuguese name on the basis that it is traditionally popular with the Portuguese shippers!

[Andy Velebil]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

[MigSU]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

[Andy Velebil]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

If we give it a new name it’s now magically different?

[uncle tom]

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

With someone close to port production joining the thread, we might get some useful insights. Is there a Val da Figueira LBV? I can't see one listed..

[JacobH]

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

What’s the difference between the two in wine-making? Is it that filtering is done under pressure whilst straining is just done under gravity?

[MigSU]

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

With someone close to port production joining the thread, we might get some useful insights. Is there a Val da Figueira LBV? I can't see one listed..

I've never seen one, now that you mention it. I could ask, since I know some people close to the family of the late Alfredo Calém.

[MigSU]

Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

What’s the difference between the two in wine-making? Is it that filtering is done under pressure whilst straining is just done under gravity?

That, and pore size.

Mind you, when wines arrive at the filtration stage, they no longer have pips and large bits of skin floating around. These are removed quite a bit before filtration. This is why I say that there are many unfiltered wines (although they are obviously strained).

And also, don't mistake filtering for fining. Fining is done much earlier, and has different objectives.

[MigSU]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

If we give it a new name it’s now magically different?

No. But if you look at my answers above this one, you can see why I disagree with the assertion that there is no unfiltered wine.

[Glenn E.]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of switching to "Single Harvest Tawny"

The word 'colheita' was not readily understood in the Anglosphere, and other important markets like China, where English was gaining traction, but hispanic words were not understood. Sales in those markets were terrible and the need for a better name was pressing. I advocated 'Single Tawny' which would chime a little with premium Scotch. Adding the word 'Harvest' made it seem clumsy.

Commercially however, the adoption of an English name has been a huge success.

Not Anglosphere, you mean Great Britain. It's just you guys who don't like it. The US had no trouble with Colheita, and in fact it gives the Port an air of elegance.

The renaming is just clunky and unimaginative. And it isn't being widely adopted... primarily just a couple of British houses. Portuguese houses - nay, non-British houses - are still correctly using Colheita.

[Glenn E.]

If you must add clarification, here's how you do it.

dow.jpg (8.61 KiB) Viewed 7255 times

The category is still legally Colheita, and I believe that word must still appear on the label. Dow is doing it correctly, whereas Taylor and Graham are doing it wrong.

[MigSU]

Crikey!

[Andy Velebil]

I’m going to throw a monkey wrench in the unfiltered/filtered discussion. There is no such thing as an unfiltered port, or wine for that matter.

If there was then we’d all be chewing and eating bits of bugs, stems, seeds, leaves and other bits in our wines and Ports.

It's all relative. Call it "Relatively Unfiltered", if you prefer.
Plus, in wine, filtering is not the same as straining. Those things you mention are removed by straining, not filtering. So there is such a thing as unfiltered wine.

If we give it a new name it’s now magically different?

No. But if you look at my answers above this one, you can see why I disagree with the assertion that there is no unfiltered wine.

It is all filtering. Different levels and types of it. But it is all filtering regardless of what you call it.

And Fining is also filtering. Granted it is done with other materials but the goal of fining is the removal of unwanted material in the wine.

[uncle tom]

And Fining is also filtering

Hmm..

My understanding of fining is the process of adding materials to the wine that helps fine dust, suspended in the wine, to coagulate and fall to the bottom, from whence the clear wine above is drawn off - a process known as racking.

Filtering is the process of passing a fluid through a screen that mechanically traps particles too large to pass through.

The two processes are too dissimilar to be labelled as one and the same.

[Andy Velebil]

And Fining is also filtering

Hmm..

My understanding of fining is the process of adding materials to the wine that helps fine dust, suspended in the wine, to coagulate and fall to the bottom, from whence the clear wine above is drawn off - a process known as racking.

Filtering is the process of passing a fluid through a screen that mechanically traps particles too large to pass through.

The two processes are too dissimilar to be labelled as one and the same.

They are both defined as removing unwanted materials from the liquid.

There are many types of filtering, some very different than others (to use the examples for simplicity, a metal Colander is very different than an automobile oil filter.). However, at their core they are all forms of filtering out unwanted things in a liquid.

Just because some things removed are bigger than others and require different means to remove doesn’t change what is being done.

[MigSU]

I think you're being a bit too literal and going too much by the dictionary definition of "filtering". Context matters, and in this context (winemaking) "filtering" and "fining" are definitely not the same. And removing pips and macroscopic pieces of grape skin is also not considered filtering. Again: in the context of winemaking.

[Doggett]

Threads like this remind me what a wonderful thing it is to have discovered the forum and be a member!

[Alex Bridgeman]

Do you think we could persuade the IVDP to create several new categories of LBV just for us Port nerds? These could be:

1. Totally unfiltered - we apologise for the pips, grapeskins and toenails
2. Racked, but has all the stuff which floats on or is in suspension in the wine in the bottle - we apologise for your cloudy drink, but you wanted it this way
3. Cold stabilized in a few Douro winters, then fined, racked and bottled - the way we like to make our LBV (which you can drink on release or cellar for up to 30 years)
4. Cold stabilized in a few Douro winters, then fined, racked, bottled and cellared in our temperature controlled storage for X years - the way we like to make our LBV but we can charge a premium for the additional age (these wines you can drink on release or cellar for up to (30-X) years)
5. Filtered through a mesh of Y-microns at room temperature to remove the stuff which will form a sediment in the first 3-5 years so you can open and drink without having to worry about sludge in your glass.
6. Cold stabilized down to -8C and then filtered through a mesh of Z-microns to render the wine inert. You can cellar this for as long as you want since it won't throw a sediment. 10 years of cellaring should be enough time to turn it into an entry level light tawny tasting only of watery barley-sugar.

In their wisdom, the IVDP might want to add a few more categories of LBV, but introducing these as a minimum should allow us Port nerds to decide what kind of LBV we'd like to buy, store and drink.

[MigSU]

I'll have a word.

[Glenn E.]

This is where the rules surrounding Port - and their opacity - become most frustrating. I have no doubt that there are very specific regulations regarding what can and cannot be done to an LBV for it to qualify to use "Unfiltered" on the label, but because the IVDP's website is so difficult to use it's extremely difficult to find all of the relevant legislation.

Not that I'll stop trying, of course, but it's an annoying amount of work for such a simple question.

[MigSU]

This is where the rules surrounding Port - and their opacity - become most frustrating. I have no doubt that there are very specific regulations regarding what can and cannot be done to an LBV for it to qualify to use "Unfiltered" on the label, but because the IVDP's website is so difficult to use it's extremely difficult to find all of the relevant legislation.

Not that I'll stop trying, of course, but it's an annoying amount of work for such a simple question.

I haven't been able to find anything.

[uncle tom]

This is where the rules surrounding Port - and their opacity - become most frustrating. I have no doubt that there are very specific regulations regarding what can and cannot be done to an LBV for it to qualify to use "Unfiltered" on the label, but because the IVDP's website is so difficult to use it's extremely difficult to find all of the relevant legislation.

Not that I'll stop trying, of course, but it's an annoying amount of work for such a simple question.

I fear the problem is not that the definitions are hiding, but that they don't exist, at least with any degree of workable clarity.

The IVDP has an army of inspectors, far more than could reasonably be considered necessary. Whilst driving with a producer back to his winery once, his cheerful disposition hit the floor when he saw an inspector's car parked outside.

The producers, especially the small ones, really don't want to rattle the IVDP's cage, so whilst Alex jokes about port nerds setting the agenda, it does to a degree fall to the consumer to make waves here, as we have nothing to fear from stirring the pot.

[winesecretary]

...although we might from filtering it.

[Glenn E.]

I fear the problem is not that the definitions are hiding, but that they don't exist, at least with any degree of workable clarity.

Since it's on the label, there has to be a regulation. As you say, though, it may not be a terribly clear regulation.

[MigSU]

Since it's on the label, there has to be a regulation.

I wouldn't be so sure

[PhilW]

Since it's on the label, there has to be a regulation.

I wouldn't be so sure

Indeed. There are regulations about what must be on the label, and regulations about when certain words or phrases may or may not be used, but that leaves a huge area where you can say what you like as long as it doesn't breach those rules (or fraud, decency or other rules ofc).

[uncle tom]

Well, thanks to a producer whom I've promised not to identify, here is the IVDP's definition of unfiltered:

- Evaluation of the unstable fraction of wine colloids by heat (MIVDP 74)
- Assessment of colloidal coloring matter and cold tartaric precipitation (MIVDP 75)
- CIELAB color coordinates
- Folin index
- Turbidity

Aside from the obvious complexity, some of the criteria lack a defined value, which implies a degree of subjectivity. For a small producer who can't afford a full time lab technician, this must be a significant deterrent to claiming a product is unfiltered.

I have also learned that it is common practice with LBVs to use bentonite as a fining agent. This delays the formation of sediment by about 2-3 years, allowing product to be shipped to the market place and consumed by those who don't want to age their bottles, without generating complaint.

[Andy Velebil]

Well, thanks to a producer whom I've promised not to identify, here is the IVDP's definition of unfiltered:

- Evaluation of the unstable fraction of wine colloids by heat (MIVDP 74)
- Assessment of colloidal coloring matter and cold tartaric precipitation (MIVDP 75)
- CIELAB color coordinates
- Folin index
- Turbidity

Aside from the obvious complexity, some of the criteria lack a defined value, which implies a degree of subjectivity. For a small producer who can't afford a full time lab technician, this must be a significant deterrent to claiming a product is unfiltered.

I have also learned that it is common practice with LBVs to use bentonite as a fining agent. This delays the formation of sediment by about 2-3 years, allowing product to be shipped to the market place and consumed by those who don't want to age their bottles, without generating complaint.

Sodium and Calcium Bentonite are widely used in the wine trade around the world.

[MigSU]

Indeed.

[uncle tom]

Further enquiries indicate that it is very hard to determine whether bentonite fining will or will not fail the IVDPs unfiltered test, so producers shy away from claiming their wines are unfiltered, for fear the IVDP will ordain otherwise.

So how do we unravel the current confusion?

- Ask the IVDP to relax their definition of unfiltered? The relatively small numbers of producers in the unfiltered camp would probably cry foul. There would be anxieties about regulatory spillover into VP.

- Suffer the status quo? It seems too messy.

Or..

- Ask the IVDP to require that true unfiltered wines must be closed with proper driven corks, and that any wine that has been subjected to mechanical filtration or cold stabilisation must be closed with T-stoppers or screw caps, leaving an intermediate third category that is not billed as unfiltered, and may be closed with driven corks, which has only been subjected to bentonite fining.

This would create a separate class of age worthy, but not strictly unfiltered wines, and would encompass (I think) the majority of LBVs currently on the market, although not the largest volume brands.

[JacobH]

Based on all of the above, I really cannot see why any producer would want to engage in all of that bureaucracy in order to put “unfiltered” on their bottle. I’m quite amazed some do! For the tiny number of consumers who look out for unfiltered LBVs, something on the back like “this bottle will improve with age and may benefit from decanting before serving” would probably do the trick whilst avoiding all of the above.

Also, as an English lawyer, the idea that the technical requirements are not set out in the regulations is quite alien, but I guess that is just a cultural difference.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I believe that all Port wines were traditionally and naturally cold stabilised in their first winter in the Douro before being shipped downriver to Oporto.

[Andy Velebil]

I believe that all Port wines were traditionally and naturally cold stabilised in their first winter in the Douro before being shipped downriver to Oporto.

That’s not cold stabilization just as using different types of filters isn’t filtering

[MigSU]

Oh God, here we go

[PhilW]

using different types of filters isn’t filtering

surely "using a filter" is the very definition of "filtering"?

[uncle tom]

Filtration - the process in which solid particles in a liquid or gaseous fluid are mechanically removed by the use of a filter medium that permits the fluid to pass through but retains the solid particles.

Fining - the process whereby fine solid particles in suspension in a fluid are chemically persuaded to settle out, leaving a clear liquid that can be then drawn off.

The first process is mechanical, the second chemical, so not alternate names for the same exercise.

[PhilW]

Filtration - ... use of a filter ...

As I said. I wasn't trying to argue the definition of filtration, fining or other processes by which a substance is separated from a liquid; just that Andy's statement that " using different types of filters isn’t filtering" needed picking up on, since it is the crux of his whole argument!

[Alex Bridgeman]

Filtration - the process in which solid particles in a liquid or gaseous fluid are mechanically removed by the use of a filter medium that permits the fluid to pass through but retains the solid particles.

Fining - the process whereby fine solid particles in suspension in a fluid are chemically persuaded to settle out, leaving a clear liquid that can be then drawn off.

The first process is mechanical, the second chemical, so not alternate names for the same exercise.

So chilling a wine and allowing the particles to settle out naturally is neither filtering nor fining. Excellent. Cold stabilised wines which are not filtered can be (dictionary) defined as unfiltered.

[uncle tom]

The last review of LBV regulation (that I'm aware of) was in about 2002, when the word 'Traditional' got outlawed and the term 'Bottle matured' was introduced.

I don't mourn the loss of the word 'Traditional' - it was always a bit of a nonsense. The term 'Bottle matured' has not been widely embraced, and I notice that producers late releasing part of their stock are not bothering to get a new label printed with the words included, so the words are not perceived as adding value.

Perhaps it's time to have three classes of LBV, presented and labelled a little more consistently to remove the uncertainties:

A) Standard LBV - T stoppered (or screw cap on small bottles) - fined and filtered at the producer's discretion, must not have labelling that causes confusion with the other categories.

B) Full bodied LBV - T stopper or driven cork - limited fining and stabilisation only permitted. Label must carry the words 'Full bodied' prominently if the bottle is sealed with a T stopper, but otherwise optional. Must not say 'Unfiltered'.

C) Unfiltered LBV - Driven cork mandatory - limited cold stabilisation only permitted. Label must clearly state 'Unfiltered'.

If bottle aged for three or more years prior to release, types B) & C) allowed to use the term 'Bottle matured'

> Most producers would need to make no changes to remain compliant. The biggest impact would be on the handful of producers who currently use T stoppers on unfiltered wines.

[uncle tom]

Just been looking at the age of LBVs at release - the rules say bottling must be 4 to 6 years after the vintage, yet none are released in the first half of the fourth year - a handful appear before the harvest begins in the fourth following year, so it can't be four years after the actual harvest.

Also noticeable is that of all the LBVs currently offered by Portugal Vineyards, exactly half are seven or more years past the vintage year. I wonder if the producers would be keen to extend the bottling window from two years to three, and allow seventh year bottling?

[Glenn E.]

the rules say bottling must be 4 to 6 years after the vintage

I believe that "4 to 6 years" is our shorthand as Port fanatics, and not the actual regulation. As with VP, which we refer to as 2-3 years after Harvest but for which the regulation is actually 18 to 30 months after Harvest, I suspect that the regulation for LBV is more specific. But I haven't actually looked it up, so can't say for sure.