Late Bottled Vintage Ports from 1994

[estufarian]

Late Bottled Vintage Ports from 1994

A quick primer for those not very familiar with LBV port – can be skipped by the cognoscenti.

Late Bottled Vintage (LBV) Ports should NEVER be mistaken for ‘Vintage Port’. A genuine Vintage Port requires aging for many years (typically 12-25, or even longer), while LBV’s are intended for current consumption on release – but some are capable of improving with age. Other than price (LBV’s around $12-20 US; Vintage from $40 up on release; more for an old Vintage), the best way to distinguish is through the ‘small print’ on the label. A ‘Vintage’ port will normally be bottled in the second (sometimes third) year after harvest, while an LBV is 4-6 years after harvest.

So, for this tasting of 1994 LBV, all the wines were bottled between 1998 and 2000 (in contrast, 1994 vintage ports were bottled in 1996). So most of the LBV aging occurred in barrel, which reduces the fruit notes and introduces some chocolate/coffee/toffee hints. Also ‘most’ of the LBV’s have thrown their sediment in barrel and/or are filtered to remove sediment, whereas vintage ports lie on their sediment in bottle.

So LBV is regarded as a ‘commercial’ wine and is often seen on restaurant wine lists. However, some LBV’s (often described as ‘traditional’) are bottled ‘early (after 4 years) and may throw a sediment in the bottle. Typically ‘traditional’ LBV ports are released later – maybe 8-10 years after the vintage, whereas the norm is to release when bottled.

1994 is considered an excellent vintage for vintage port, by many reports the best vintage since 1977. But LBV ports are generally considered to be dominated by a ‘House’ (i.e. producer) style, although there are certainly some variations by year. For example, Taylor (included in the tasting) issued a 1992 then followed with the 1994 – there wasn’t a 1993 (at least in the Ontario market). And when they ran out of the 1992 they had to bottle the 1994 ‘early’ to provide market continuity – this was done in 1999. But they only bottled enough to carry them through the shortfall, bottling the remainder in 2000 (Taylor usually bottles after 6 years) – so we had both samples in this tasting.

Our tastings are almost always blind – the participants know which wines will be served, but do not know the order, so any votes tallied are without knowing the identities.

General conclusion was that these wines are excellent value (priced between $15 and $25 Canadian) and very palatable – but definitely lacking the complexity and ‘grip’ of a vintage port. I’ll report my notes, but the groups ranking (based on about 80 people).

Comfortably in first place was a real surprise: Calem 1994 LBV (bottled 2000) – one of the cheapest. It also had the most sediment, which is not typical of LBV wines bottled after 6 years, suggesting that it was not filtered (maybe that explains why it showed so well). My notes suggested that more new oak was used as both toffee and vanilla were noticeable. I scored this much lower, as I don’t expect that much ‘wood’ in an LBV – but it was obviously a crowd-pleaser.

In second and third places were the two Taylor 1994 LBV with the bottled 1999 beating out the bottled 2000. However, these were obviously similar as the rankings showed. Stylistically these showed high alcohol and very ripe fruit. The 2000 bottling seemed to have a more refined bouquet (more blossoms than fruit).

In fourth place was Graham’s (bottled 1999). I placed this first overall, praising its balance of fruit and acidity, particularly the finish which seemed drier than most of the others which finished quite sweet.

Fifth was the Offley ‘Traditional’ (bottled 1998) – which surprisingly didn’t have a sediment (possibly filtered before bottling). Sixth was Dow’s (bottled 2000) – not at all typical of Dow – hot with dominant alcohol and fruit fading. Seventh was Delaforce (bottled 1999) – the most acidic wine we tasted. And in 8th (last) place Fonseca (bottled 1999) – this a real surprise as Fonseca is one of the more consistent houses. Yet all four bottles poured were defective (IMO) with strong mercaptan notes (that’s a sulphur compound often described as ‘skunky’). Too much of a coincidence for all four bottles to be that way!