ThePortForum.com

This discussion was split off from this thread by DRT.

DRT wrote: VA is detectable in young wines and wine that just doesn't taste good tends to have that characteristic built in. Perhaps the only way to prove or disprove all of this is to have a simliar tasting from 10 or 15 other quintas?

VA isn't something that is wide spread across a vintage. It also tends not to show up in very young wines, but later as they age. The 1997 Niepoort VP and the 1997 Harlan (Very expensive and 100 point rated California Cabernet) have had VA issues only show up in recent years. Yet some bottles show lots of VA and some show no signs of VA issues. VA also can be desirable in wines as well, so long as it is controlled and in small amounts. Here's a good basic explaination of VA

Acetic acid in wine, often referred to as volatile acidity (VA) or vinegar taint, can be contributed by many wine spoilage yeasts and bacteria. This can be from either a by-product of fermentation, or due to the spoilage of finished wine. Acetic acid bacteria, such as those from the genera Acetobacter and Gluconobacter produce high levels of acetic acid. The sensory threshold for acetic acid is >700 mg/L, with concentrations greater than 1.2-1.3 g/L becoming unpleasant.

There are different opinions as to what level of volatile acidity is appropriate for higher quality wine. Although too high a concentration is sure to leave an undesirable, 'vinegar' tasting wine, some wine's acetic acid levels are developed to create a more 'complex', desirable taste.[3] The renowned 1947 Cheval Blanc is widely recognized to contain high levels of volatile acidity.

Andy Velebil wrote:VA isn't something that is wide spread across a vintage.

1985?

DRT wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:VA isn't something that is wide spread across a vintage.

1985?

As many 1985's that I've had I have yet to encounter the mass of VA that a couple of others have mentioned in this vintage.

Andy Velebil wrote:

DRT wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:VA isn't something that is wide spread across a vintage.

1985?

As many 1985's that I've had I have yet to encounter the mass of VA that a couple of others have mentioned in this vintage.

Lucky boy.

DRT wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:

DRT wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:VA isn't something that is wide spread across a vintage.

1985?

As many 1985's that I've had I have yet to encounter the mass of VA that a couple of others have mentioned in this vintage.

Lucky boy.

I don't recall experiencing VA in a 1985 either, but that could just be my often faulty memory.

1977, on the other hand...

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:

DRT wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:VA isn't something that is wide spread across a vintage.

1985?

As many 1985's that I've had I have yet to encounter the mass of VA that a couple of others have mentioned in this vintage.

Lucky boy.

I don't recall experiencing VA in a 1985 either, but that could just be my often faulty memory.

1977, on the other hand...

Another lucky boy. I had my share of bad luck with the 85's.
Glenn, do you mean to say there is a VA problem with 1977 ports? Now that's something that I've never heard of before.

RonnieRoots wrote:Glenn, do you mean to say there is a VA problem with 1977 ports?

No, I haven't heard that there's a general problem, but there has been quite a bit of VA in the few bottles that I've opened. I've only noticed it on the nose, and I don't really mind it as long as it isn't overpowering so it hasn't affected my enjoyment of the Ports. Yet.

Does anyone object to me splitting the VA debate off into another thread?

I can't say that I've really experienced VA with the 85's. Sure there has been some discussion about certain producers having a problem with VA in the 1985 vintage (and in fact one producer actually recalled all of their 85's), but to date I personally have not encountered excessive VA in '85 vintage.

Marc

Andy wrote:

As many 1985's that I've had I have yet to encounter the mass of VA that a couple of others have mentioned in this vintage.

Like Andy, Glenn and Marc, I have only heard rumors of this ... originally from Richard Mayson when he was here in 2003. Yet in all honesty, I have never encountered a single bottle of 1985 VP that had any VA issue whatsoever. Granted, I've probably only had about 150-200 bottles from that Vintage, but still ... you'd think that one of them would show signs if it was SO prevalent. [shrug.gif]

So, is it possible this "phenomenon" like a virus ... is limited just to the UK?

Here are some TN's that may be of interest:

Cockburn 1985
Croft 1985
Croft 1985
Croft 1985
Niepoort 1985
Royal Oporto 1985
Royal Oporto 1985

DRT wrote:Here are some TN's that may be of interest:

Cockburn 1985
Croft 1985
Croft 1985
Croft 1985
Niepoort 1985
Royal Oporto 1985
Royal Oporto 1985

i've hit it with the croft more often then not of all the 85's I've had.

Roy Hersh wrote:Like Andy, Glenn and Marc, I have only heard rumors of this ... originally from Richard Mayson when he was here in 2003. Yet in all honesty, I have never encountered a single bottle of 1985 VP that had any VA issue whatsoever. Granted, I've probably only had about 150-200 bottles from that Vintage, but still ... you'd think that one of them would show signs if it was SO prevalent. [shrug.gif]

So, is it possible this "phenomenon" like a virus ... is limited just to the UK?

Interesting remark, especially when you compare it to Miguel Corte-Real's comment, quoted below (taken from the Cockburn 1985 tasting note:

jdaw1 wrote:Miguel Côrte-Real sent AHB some of his own notes on the various vintages, some obviously drafted in advance, some from the day itself.

Miguel Côrte-Real wrote:1985

Generic Information
1985 was declared by all the main shippers and Martinez

Year/Viticulture
The 1984/5 Winter was one of the wettest (and coldest) on record. The summer was long and extremely hot.

Other
Great bottle variability with a high degree of volatile acidity in a high percentage of bottles and houses. (From recent tastings, Cockburn's, Niepoort, Churchill, Sandeman, Ramos Pinto and Calém appear to be experiencing varying degrees of high volatile acidity.)

MC-R notes
Just turning, but too high VA. 6.5/10

I have been unlucky enough to experience VA in a number of 1985's, of which Niepoort and Warre were clearly the worst. But thenagain, I've only experienced good bottles of Cockburn 1983, and we all know Roy's luck with that one...

I know of Niepoort having VA issues from the 1980's through late 1990's (it's too early to tell if it will rear its ugly head in newer vintages) as Dirk has publicly stated he doesn't know what has been causing it. And some bottles are fine and others from the same vintage are heavily damaged by VA.

Cockburn's has some on and off VA issues in the 80's and 90's I'm aware of as well, but I've not experienced it with any other houses I can think of besides these two. I don't doubt MC-R, as he would know far more than any of us, but I've just not experienced it personally.

VA does tend to bloom more when bottles are exposed to warmer temps, so I wonder of those bottles stored in passive, and slightly warmer, cellars are causing the VA to bloom more and become more pronounce. Just thinking out loud there....

Hi Andy,

as mentioned before by others I fear the initial question VA & 1985 is not really a "consistent" issue and therefore a biased thread. Do not get me wrong I agree with the thread, since I had quite a few 1985s which had VA (Croft and Niepoort being the worst culprits). Overall though I fear we enter a minefield of debate since i believe as well that the better the storage, the less VA can be an issue. Even worse in the days of cutting edge wine making, storage of wine has become sometimes quite an issue itself. Especially in the very overripe vintages which sometime require very cool cellars for the brillance of these wines&ports to flourish imho. This sounds strange I admit but experience tells me that storage matters and some vintages of wines/ports are more affected than others. Based on my experiences so far i am not a big fan of 1985s ports. Even the Fonseca 1985 I had was very good indeed but not special. But there lays the problem.It was the bt I had. I had a similar experience with Fonseca 1977. I was happy with Gould Campell and SWC1977 until a friend of mine and myself stumpled upon a perfectly stored case. No movements after shipped to England in 1979, temparture perfect and after haveing had a bt from this case I immediately understood why this is so much better. There are vintages e.g. 1977, 1985 to start where storage makes a big difference. The 1977s are essentially all very tannic and not very sweet, therefore they are probably much more vulnerable to temprature and storage than other Ports. Also how often they are moved can be an issue. The 1985s I had so far i have not really understood. The structure is very good but I was so far not really attracted to them and therefore so far have not got the hang of this vintage. For me the vintage is overhyped. You can lough about me currently i prefer some 1980s and 1983 in general. Do not worry I believe all of you on the Portforum who said the Fonseca 1985 is brilliant, unfortuntaley i had so far none of these brilliant bts. All the other shippers i had were good but not great.

regards

WS1

Never having noticed this thread before I read it with the eagerness of a child.

I have not had any difficulties with VA in the 85s but then again I have never tried the Croft or the Niepoort. I wonder if any of the earlier protagonists would care to update their findings with a few more years of experience to draw on.

I rather liked the idea that particular vintages need different cellarage, hot years needing more careful handling and a cooler cellar. The 2003s are a good example of this and the 85s to a lesser extent. Besides being a nice idea I can produce no evidence to support it.

Please keep up the general badmouthing of the 85s, it is one of my favourites as a vintage and I am sure that suspicions around VA keep prices reasonable.

LGTrotter wrote: I rather liked the idea that particular vintages need different cellarage, hot years needing more careful handling and a cooler cellar. The 2003s are a good example of this

I'd take the "2003 - hot vintage" mantra with a pinch of salt when it comes to port....but that's a different debate!

RAYC wrote:

LGTrotter wrote: I rather liked the idea that particular vintages need different cellarage, hot years needing more careful handling and a cooler cellar. The 2003s are a good example of this

I'd take the "2003 - hot vintage" mantra with a pinch of salt when it comes to port....but that's a different debate!

VA has nothing to do with storage issues or movement. Sans, if VA is already present, it can often be kept under control so long as the wine is kept cool so it doesn't bloom and become more pronounced. Regardless, VA is either there or it isn't from the start.

What has changed for the better since the 80's and 90's, is wine-making methods/technology and more sanitary conditions in the wineries. There is a reason one rarely sees such issues now days, even in dry wines.

So there is no need to cellar different vintages/wines differently.

LGTrotter wrote:Never having noticed this thread before I read it with the eagerness of a child.

I have not had any difficulties with VA in the 85s but then again I have never tried the Croft or the Niepoort. I wonder if any of the earlier protagonists would care to update their findings with a few more years of experience to draw on.

The weakness of both vintages above are not due to VA, but just not good examples of the vintage. It's been a while since I had the '85 Croft, but it's the joke of the vintage. I had the Niepoort in December and it was embarrassed against the '85 Fonseca, but what port wouldn't fall short against it? Had some weird "chemical" taste that I wasn't digging. Will have to open another bottle to see if that is consistent. 1985 Sandeman is another historic name that fell short on the vintage.

mosesbotbol wrote:1985 Sandeman is another historic name that fell short on the vintage.

I quite liked the odd bottles of this I had, simple but good value I thought. It is strange that the Croft still seems quite expensive given that it is so widely ridiculed.

Andy Velebil wrote:So there is no need to cellar different vintages/wines differently.

Thank goodness. I don't have any alternatives to my already less than perfect arrangements.

LGTrotter wrote:It is strange that the Croft still seems quite expensive given that it is so widely ridiculed.

I'vr only had Croft 85 a couple of times but on both occasions it was quite pleasant and thankfully unaffected by VA - including here (brought by Oscar Quevedo from BBR stock if i remember correctly).

Other TNs on this site going back to 2008/9 suggest that it is a respectable wine when not suffering from VA, and that Moses has been drinking bottles from unusually bad stock! (e.g.: here and here)

I haven't ever had either Sandeman or Cockburn 85 (as far as i can recall) but the only other ports i can remember having personally experienced VA issues with from the 85 vintage are Niepoort, Calem and occasionally Churchill (though usually mild in the case of the latter). I have heard people grumble about Warre 85 as well.

WS1 wrote:Hi Andy, [...]

regards

WS1

Wolfgang is rolling, folks.

I think the producers have been very honest in their assessments of their successes and failures, especially the period from 1975-1985. I don't think I've heard many of them boast about their 85s, and I know a few that have openly acknowledged lower production standards as a culprit to a weaker wine.

Based on this thread, I am happy to learn that I seem to have had atypically bad performances. I have had flawed bottles from nearly all shippers (certainly Noval, Niepoort, Churchill, Dow, Warre, Croft, and Taylor, in approximate order of frequency%). In the extreme cases, I've had at least as many misses as hits (Noval, springs to mind). Now, in Noval's case, I'm not sure I ever called it 'VA,' so if we wanna get to that level, I think that only for Talyor and Niepoort did I write or allude specifically to VA in my notes. Instead I have said "cloudy," "murky," "offputting" "smelling like the intersection of awful and stink," etc. From a buyer's perspective, the vintage is suspect, generally on a shipper-specific basis, akin to 1977.

1985 Graham, on the other hand, has consistently provided pleasure and is developing nicely. I am pleased to have a small arsenal of magnums.

1985 Fonseca has been (and may for the moment still be) the king of the vintage (or at least I think that would be the TPF consensus). While I had been of this view for some period, the last....2, maybe 3 years of F85 have felt it recede a bit into its shell. Happy to check in later, but I suspect the Grahams may overtake it and not look back. Happy to own this wine, and look forward to tracking the next ....+ decades of development

The rest, I would generally not seek out, but would take a flyer ~$50.

Chris Doty wrote:

I think the producers have been very honest in their assessments of their successes and failures, especially the period from 1975-1985. I don't think I've heard many of them boast about their 85s, and I know a few that have openly acknowledged lower production standards as a culprit to a weaker wine.

I have often referred to this time span as the "Lost decade of Port." Something to which I have been told I am wrong about or exaggerating about from at least one person. Yet it is very clear from many here that I am not wrong. There was a huge amount of issues overall and across many producers.

For a variety of reasons, this was the decade in which a lot things just didn't turn out as planned. Such is life. They've learned, fought back, and won...which we all are happily now and into the future enjoying the results of.

I think the "lost decade" as Andy puts it was probably a result of the changes in the industry as a result of or following on from the revolution combined with the most significant change to affect VP in over a century which was the cessation of bulk shipments and overseas bottling. We should probably be thankful that only one decade was "lost" in those circumstances

Andy Velebil wrote:

Chris Doty wrote:

I think the producers have been very honest in their assessments of their successes and failures, especially the period from 1975-1985. I don't think I've heard many of them boast about their 85s, and I know a few that have openly acknowledged lower production standards as a culprit to a weaker wine.

I have often referred to this time span as the "Lost decade of Port." Something to which I have been told I am wrong about or exaggerating about from at least one person. Yet it is very clear from many here that I am not wrong. There was a huge amount of issues overall and across many producers.

For a variety of reasons, this was the decade in which a lot things just didn't turn out as planned. Such is life. They've learned, fought back, and won...which we all are happily now and into the future enjoying the results of.

The great thing about Port, though, is that even though the declarations in the 80s were overall rather uneven, there were still some stunning Ports produced. A careful collector can easily fill in that decade with classic Ports, though the variety will likely be more limited than from the 1970s or 1990s.

1980 Dow
1983 Graham
1985 Fonseca or Graham
1987 Taylor Vargellas or Graham Malvedos

I'm obviously most familiar with Grahams from the 1980s, but there are a couple of Gould Campbell and Smith Woodhouse Ports that could be on that list as well.

Glenn E. wrote: The great thing about Port, though, is that even though the declarations in the 80s were overall rather uneven, there were still some stunning Ports produced. A careful collector can easily fill in that decade with classic Ports, though the variety will likely be more limited than from the 1970s or 1990s.

Exactly.

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote: The great thing about Port, though, is that even though the declarations in the 80s were overall rather uneven, there were still some stunning Ports produced. A careful collector can easily fill in that decade with classic Ports, though the variety will likely be more limited than from the 1970s or 1990s.

Exactly.

For reasons that Owen has already alluded to I beg you not to post a list of the stunning ports produced in the 1980s

I have had a look back at this thread and can't think what the fuss is about the eighty fives.

Apart from Calem, Churchill, Cockburn, Noval, Niepoort, Dow, Warre, Taylor, Croft, Royal Oporto, Oh OK I get the point...

LGTrotter wrote:Royal Oporto, Oh OK I get the point...

Now you're just being gratuitous...

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Royal Oporto, Oh OK I get the point...

Now you're just being gratuitous...

I was just reading the list as given. I have had no problem with Warre and Dow. Not that I like either of them that much.

Andy Velebil wrote:What has changed for the better since the 80's and 90's, is wine-making methods/technology and more sanitary conditions in the wineries.

This is an idea that I have often heard and would like to take issue with. I would have thought that there have been many other times in the history of port when for reasons of financial constraints, or just 'cos they didn't care that port was made poorly. But there are fantastic vintages in times of no technology when the region was in the doldrums. 1945 through to 1955 for example. I also wonder how good some of these new technologies will seem when the wines are fifty or sixty years old.

Yours,

The Curmudgeon.

I have long been of the view that the technological advancements and improvements in hygiene have raised the bar considerably in terms of overall quality, but it remains to be seen through the test of time whether or not they have led to a slightly homogenised product that will lack the real superstars of the past. How on earth those superstars were created I will never understand, but I can't help thinking that at least part of the story was pure luck combined with the genius of the winemaker. The luck element seems to have been removed in recent times, leaving the winemaker with only his genius as a means of re-creating a Croft 1945 or Dow 1896. Will that happen? It might do, but few or none of us here will live long enough to see the proof.

DRT wrote:but few or none of us here will live long enough to see the proof.

I feel in pretty good shape, you never know.

It's the yeasts I worry about.

DRT wrote:or Dow 1896

Do you really rate Dow 1896 over the seventy-eight?

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:or Dow 1896

Do you really rate Dow 1896 over the seventy-eight?

Admittedly, there is some bottle variation in my remaining cases of D86 and much more consistent quality in my cases of the '78. I try not to let it bother me too much.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:but few or none of us here will live long enough to see the proof.

I feel in pretty good shape, you never know.

It's the yeasts I worry about.

You can get something from the chemist to sort out the yeasts.

...but you will have to live another seven decades to find out if any of the 2011s are as long-lived as the Croft 1945.

DRT wrote:...but you will have to live another seven decades to find out if any of the 2011s are as long-lived as the Croft 1945.

I was thinking of the 94s as the start of the technological age.

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:...but you will have to live another seven decades to find out if any of the 2011s are as long-lived as the Croft 1945.

I was thinking of the 94s as the start of the technological age.

If you think you will be here in five decades from now you are a better man than I am, Gungga Din.

The 94s are twenty and I think that you could reasonably pronounce on the long term prospects of a wine at age fifty. That only leaves three more decades of dodging bullets.

LGTrotter wrote:The 94s are twenty and I think that you could reasonably pronounce on the long term prospects of a wine at age fifty. That only leaves three more decades of dodging bullets.

I agree that you will be able to pronounce on the prospects, but you will not know.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:The 94s are twenty and I think that you could reasonably pronounce on the long term prospects of a wine at age fifty. That only leaves three more decades of dodging bullets.

I agree that you will be able to pronounce on the prospects, but you will not know.

Chin up goth, might never happen.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:or Dow 1896

Do you really rate Dow 1896 over the seventy-eight?

Admittedly, there is some bottle variation in my remaining cases of D86 and much more consistent quality in my cases of the '78. I try not to let it bother me too much.

I'm down to my last three methuslahs of the '86

LGTrotter wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:What has changed for the better since the 80's and 90's, is wine-making methods/technology and more sanitary conditions in the wineries.

This is an idea that I have often heard and would like to take issue with. I would have thought that there have been many other times in the history of port when for reasons of financial constraints, or just 'cos they didn't care that port was made poorly. But there are fantastic vintages in times of no technology when the region was in the doldrums. 1945 through to 1955 for example. I also wonder how good some of these new technologies will seem when the wines are fifty or sixty years old.

Yours,

The Curmudgeon.

Agree there have been fantastic bottles from the past. What has changed is instead of the occasional great or very good bottle a couple times a decade we now have some excellent to very good bottles many times a decade.

One example; In the past they didn't have temperature controlled lagars and were totally at the mercy of nature. So if the weather suddenly got hot and your lagar got to warm and a stuck fermentation occurred you were screwed and could kiss your lagar of potential high quality juice goodbye. That doesn't happen near as much anymore as there are cooling "blankets" you can insert into the lagar to keep them cool.

Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

JB vintage wrote:Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

Boo! Hiss!! Shame!

Niepoort is frustrating in that way. I've had two great bottles of 85 and 2 not good bottles of 85. Similar with 1997, and now 1994s are also showing some signs

I haven't opened recent vintages yet, but at some point will start experiments.

Chris Doty wrote:

JB vintage wrote:Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

Boo! Hiss!! Shame!

Niepoort is frustrating in that way. I've had two great bottles of 85 and 2 not good bottles of 85. Similar with 1997, and now 1994s are also showing some signs

I haven't opened recent vintages yet, but at some point will start experiments.

What about Niepoort 83 and 87? Just bought some

griff wrote:

Chris Doty wrote:

JB vintage wrote:Last week-end we had Niepoort 1985... and it was full of VA. 3 of 6 of Niepoort 1985 have been defect.

Boo! Hiss!! Shame!

Niepoort is frustrating in that way. I've had two great bottles of 85 and 2 not good bottles of 85. Similar with 1997, and now 1994s are also showing some signs

I haven't opened recent vintages yet, but at some point will start experiments.

What about Niepoort 83 and 87? Just bought some

According to Dirk, it didn't show up until the 1985 vintage. Previous vintages have been unaffected by VA.

So far there has been no signs of it since post-1997 vintage. And I've never heard of any problems with 2000 or newer vintages so far. I am hoping that is a good sign that all is better now as I own a rather large amount of these newer ones.

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Looks like I shall have to take my chances with the 87's. Judging by the few tasting notes on this vintage there seems to be a rough split between disappointment and delight.