ThePortForum.com

Here

Rubby wrote:Which brings me to a question: how closely related are a VP and a LBV from the same year? Obviously a great VP doesn't automatically mean a great LBV.

Well?

In a different thread, I actually proposed a matchup offline. That we arrange to get a few matching pairs of LBV's and Vintage's to make this comparison.

In my humble oppinion the wines are hard to compare, because normally a LBV is made for direct consumption and a VP - well you know that yourself.

The quality however is depending on the year, so an outstanding year should produce not only outstanding VPs, but outstanding LBVs as well.

Take 2000 for example. The VPs are totally closed, while most of the LBVs are an oustanding pleasure right now. When the majority of the VPs will be awake again, my guess is that most of the LBVs have lost at least some of its fruitness.

Interesting thought, but very hard to compare in a direct way.

Feedback welcome

Axel

Even though I never had a VP (yet), I would probably agree with Axel P if I had. It's like comparing apples with pears, but they do share this: single year harvest of a better year.
I found the Offley Ruby and LBV are somewhat alike in character, maybe the same thing is the case for LBV vs VP (of same year and brand).

10Anos wrote:Even though I never had a VP (yet), I would probably agree with Axel P if I had. It's like comparing apples with pears, but they do share this: single year harvest of a better year.
I found the Offley Ruby and LBV are somewhat alike in character, maybe the same thing is the case for LBV vs VP (of same year and brand).

not necessarily so,

I thought LBVs spend more time in the barrel (even though it's neutral) it still can pick up extra nuances that a VP (aged in bottle) of the same year.

So take a warre's 94 ... The lbv is aged 4 years in the barrel + 5 years in the bottle.
The VP gets 1 1/2 years in the barrel and the rest of it in your cellar.

From guessing, the extra 2 1/2 years would oxidize the wine more so then the VP, giving lbv's perhaps a spicier/nuttier (if neutral barrels) or chocolately (if toasted oak barrels) characteristics then it's VP counterpart

The only port I can compare is Quinta Do Portal vintage 2000 against Portal LBV 2000.

My opinion is that is 2 very diffrents port`s, The lbv is spicy, pebber taste, not bad, and the vintage is more fruti.

I dont know how else I can explain - but big diffrents.

(again, sorry my bad english)

According to my knwoledge, VP and LBV in priciple are made of the same grapes from the same vineyards. I would assume, that in so called Off Vintages SQVP or Second Vintage Port do not reach quantities as VP in generally declared VP years. I would conclude, that in the latter years as much as possible of the best grapes go into the Vintage Port, because VP reach the highest prices. On the other hand, quality of LBV is not predominant. In Off Years, more of the best grapes should go into the LBV.

The exception proves the rule. 1997 Quinta do Noval LBV unfiltered is probably the most impressive LBV (imo even superior to the 1994 Noval LBV unfiltered) I had so far.

I think the answer to this depends on which shipper you are discussing. Some will produce an LBV from juice originally destined to be VP that didn't make the grade whilst others will produce high quality juice with the specific purpose of producing a high quality LBV. My guess would be that Warre's, Niepoort and Noval would be examples of the latter whereas Dow, Taylor and Graham would be the former. That is just a guess, not anything based on fact or knowledge.

Another thing to consider is how VP is actually produced. Almost all VP's are, I believe, blended from wines that have been matured for 2 years or so in isolation. So, in simple terms, the shipper may fill 3 vats with 3 different wines, either different grape varienties or from different vineyards. When it comes to the point of blending his VP he goes through a process to work out which combination of different volumes of each component will produce the best result. So the VP might be 50% of Vat 1 plus a 25% of Vat 2 plus 100% of Vat 3. This leaves 50% of Vat 1 and 75% of Vat 2 and no more Vat 3 to make more of that years VP. What to do? Pour Vat 2 into Vat 3, leave for 2 more years and bottle as LBV

Derek

G-man,

my point was, that LBVs and VPs from good years will both give you good pleasure.

The problem is the direct comparison. If you'd try to compare them at a young age - you can't because the LBV is still in the cask. When the LBV gets to the markets, the VP starts to close down.

And when it opens up again, most LBVs will loose their fruitiness. Exceptions exist, such as the Noval LBVs and most of the traditional LBVs.

Axel

g-man wrote:I thought LBVs spend more time in the barrel (even though it's neutral) it still can pick up extra nuances that a VP (aged in bottle) of the same year.

{zip}

From guessing, the extra 2 1/2 years would oxidize the wine more so then the VP, giving lbv's perhaps a spicier/nuttier (if neutral barrels) or chocolately (if toasted oak barrels) characteristics then it's VP counterpart

They do,
start sales of a VP: May 1 in the 2nd year after the harvest, bottling of the same VP must end July 30 of the 3rd year. In other words, VPs are stored for approx. 20-33 months before bottling.
Bottling of a LBV can commence 1 March of the 4th year after the harvest and end December 31 of the 6th year.

The type of LBV depends on how they're "aged": in stainless steel tanks they will be dark and fruity. Ageing in wooden casks will create a more oxidized type of port. For the first type it probably doesn't really matter if it's bottled after 4, 5 or 6 years, for the latter it does. I've tried two LBVs so far, a Kopke and an Offley. The Kopke was probably "aged" in stainless steel, the Offley in casks. I found they were very different.

Well Im not really sure if a 20-40.000 liter vat, which is averagely 25 years in service really leaves a tastable mark on a wine, but I leave it open to discussion.

Axel

Axel P wrote:G-man,

my point was, that LBVs and VPs from good years will both give you good pleasure.

The problem is the direct comparison. If you'd try to compare them at a young age - you can't because the LBV is still in the cask. When the LBV gets to the markets, the VP starts to close down.

And when it opens up again, most LBVs will loose their fruitiness. Exceptions exist, such as the Noval LBVs and most of the traditional LBVs.

Axel

oh right, i agree with that statement. Was adding the barrel aging because I think it's really comparing two different wines even if it was from the same grapes. So it's even entirely possible to have an LBV that will age too.

Axel P wrote:Well Im not really sure if a 20-40.000 liter vat, which is averagely 25 years in service really leaves a tastable mark on a wine, but I leave it open to discussion.

Axel

That's probably the reason why LBVs are aged in huge vats instead of in small wooden casks. To be somewhat VP-like, the ageing can't be very oxidative. A big vat creates a relatively small area for the wine to come into contact with the walls (and the oxygen coming through) compared to small wooden casks.

Derek T. wrote:I think the answer to this depends on which shipper you are discussing...

... What to do? Pour Vat 2 into Vat 3, leave for 2 more years and bottle as LBV

Derek

Interesting read, Derek. Your differentiation makes sense. Surely one cannot compare the LBV from Graham on one hand and Niepoort on the other hand.

I meant the LBV quality of one given Shipper. Quality in geneall declared years and quality in Off years. According to the referred theory, there would be a negativ correlation between VP and LBV in former years. Is there such a predominant correlation? Or are there too much variables as market politics? What's you guys experience/opinion?

Michael

Michael M. wrote:According to the referred theory, there would be a negativ correlation between VP and LBV in former years. Is there such a predominant correlation? Or are there too much variables as market politics? What's you guys experience/opinion?

I'd agree with the negative correlation because if I were a shipper and had lots of very high quality juice, I'd be turning it all into VP and worry about the LBV in a lesser year...
Are there actually any years bad enough not to yield a VP nor a LBV?

1993 is probably the most recent year where very few growers released either a vintage port (only 1 known) or an LBV.

The year was a washout. I'm not sure what the VP is like as I have never tried it, but I think some on this forum have.

AHB wrote:1993 is probably the most recent year where very few growers released either a vintage port (only 1 known) or an LBV.

The year was a washout. I'm not sure what the VP is like as I have never tried it, but I think some on this forum have.

The only 1993 I know to exist is Quinta das Liceiras 1993. I have 24 half bottles and 1 whole bottle of it for my son as it is from his birth year. I haven't tasted it, but I know a man in Belgium who has

Derek

And I still don't have any...

I found the Ramos Pinto lodge, but they were firmly closed for easter (unlike most others..) so I wasn't able to check out that little line of enquiry.

Derek, could you ask your son (very nicely..) if he'd let his dear old dad share one of those bottles with his mates...

..I'm sure he'd understand!

Tom

uncle tom wrote:And I still don't have any...

I found the Ramos Pinto lodge, but they were firmly closed for easter (unlike most others..) so I wasn't able to check out that little line of enquiry.

Derek, could you ask your son (very nicely..) if he'd let his dear old dad share one of those bottles with his mates...

..I'm sure he'd understand!

Tom

I'm sure he wouldn't mind. I have a case of halves tucked away for him and one bottle at home. Maybe if you send his dear old Dad those lists he's been asking you for he might bring a glass down for you next week