Port, fortified not with brandy?

[Kent Wang]

I'm a wine newbie, so please excuse my ignorance.

Do all ports have to be fortified with brandy, or is it a requirement of the good ones at least?

The Messina Hof Papa Paulo Port, made in Texas, has received numerous positive reviews on eG and won a number of awards and it is certainly the best port I've ever had in my limited experience. However, my friend who is a chef at the Messina Hof restaurant tells me that the port is fortified not with brandy but with an "Everclear-like" liquor. I still love the taste of the wine nevertheless, but is this a common or accepted practice of fortifying port?

[jackal10]

We have had this discussion on other threads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_wine

a) Its not Port. Port is only made in Portugal.

b) Its not Brandy. Brandy is only made in the Champagne district of France. Port is fortified with a locally distilled grape spirit.

[Adam Balic]

Is b) correct? I didn't realise that Brandy had a controlled name, as it wasn't invented by the French (Brandy = brandewijn = "Burnt [distilled] wine" in Dutch).

"Champagne" grade cognacs refer to the source of the grapes (originally) used for producing the brandy, these are grown on chalky soils which is thought to give the best product.

So Cognac, Amagnac and Brandy de Jerez can't be refered to as Brandy?

[jackal10]

I stand corrected. Brandy is generic. Cognac (champagne district), Armagnac (Gascony, SW France) are controlled names

[Daniel Rogov]

Brandy is indeed a generic term while Cognac, Calvados and Armagnac (among others) are region-specific as is Port. If interested in follow-ups on each of these (and hoping not to be pompous by recommending my own articles) try:

Cognac http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/what_make...ac_special.html

Calvados http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/in_praise_of_armagnac.html

Armagnac http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/in_praise_of_armagnac.html

Port http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/englishman_port_wine.html

[Rebel Rose]

From the ATF label regulations for the USA:

(3) Dessert wine is grape wine having an alcoholic content in excess of 14

percent but not in excess of 24 percent by volume. Dessert wine having the

taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to sherry and an alcoholic

content, derived in part from added grape brandy or alcohol, of not less than 17

percent by volume, may be designated as "sherry". Dessert wines having the

taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to angelica, madeira,muscatel and port and an alcoholic content, derived in part from added grape brandy or alcohol, of not less than 18 percent by volume, may be designated as "angelica," "madeira," "muscatel," or "port" respectively. Dessert wines having the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to any of the above products and an alcoholic content, derived in part from added grape brandy or alcohol, in excess of 14 percent by volume but, in the case of sherry, less than 17 percent, or, in other cases, less than 18 percent by volume, may be

designated as "light sherry," "light angelica," "light madeira," "light muscatel" or

"light port," respectively.

What isn't mentioned here is that if a winery produces a port-style dessert wine it must designate the wine with one of these choices or a proprietary blend name. I just want everyone to understand that until the BATF-TTB changes its rulings, wineries have limited options as to what to call a dessert wine. We produce a late harvest or fortified dessert wine each year, but some years it's zinfandel and in some syrah. We prefer to use the "port" designation after the varietal name so that it's easy for our customers to recognize and order their favorites. I guess I should start thinking about proprietary names. Maybe an eGullet contest? Winner gets a case of port?

And to answer your question, Kent, the "brandy" used to fortify dessert wines is a clear distilled liquor with no oak aging. As the purpose of fortification is to raise the alcohol just enough to stop fermentation, we generally use only a cup or two per barrel.

[Kent Wang]

And to answer your question, Kent, the "brandy" used to fortify dessert wines is a clear distilled liquor with no oak aging.  As the purpose of fortification is to raise the alcohol just enough to stop fermentation, we generally use only a cup or two per barrel.

←

So this "brandy" is otherwise not very drinkable and so Messina Hof's practice is actually quite common?

BTW, have you guys tried the Messina Hof Papa Paulo Port? It is certainly my favorite Texas wine.

[Daniel Rogov]

From the ATF label regulations for the USA:

But then again, to quote Mr. Bumble, at least at times "the law is a ass"

[Rebel Rose]

So this "brandy" is otherwise not very drinkable and so Messina Hof's practice is actually quite common?

BTW, have you guys tried the Messina Hof Papa Paulo Port? It is certainly my favorite Texas wine.

Yes, it's industry standard. In a well made dessert wine, the amount of brandy used is negligible and would not affect the flavor. It's sole purpose is to "shock" the wine with a quick addition of alcohol in order to kill the yeast at a point where the winemaker feels the sugar and alcohol are in balance. With the vigorous yeasts available now, sometimes letting a dessert wine go until the yeast naturally die off results in a hot and imbalanced dessert wine. So in some cases a "port" style wine may actually be gentler and have more varietal character than a late harvest.

I haven't tried the Messina Hof, looking forward to learning more about them.

[CtznCane]

Why does an issue always need to be made over 'it isn't port if....' or 'only champagne if...' and such? It is totally, and I do mean totally absurd to make such an issue about calling or not calling a wine port. No wonder most of the world considers many/most wine fanatics as snobs. I can only gather from the time difference (since no location is shown) that Jackal10 is from the wrong side of the Atlantic. (Wrong side to us Americans that is <tongue in cheek>) Let me give my side which, I feel, would encompass a view taken not only by newbies but many Americans who do not side with this proprietary garbage of what can't be called this or that.

Inserted here (hopefully) is a picture of several California Ports (yes Ports I say) that I happent ot have on hand. I'm sure one reader of this post will at least recognize one of them.. but that aside, with the exception of one, all are called "Port" in some vein or another. 3 by their varietal grape and one (which is the traditional varieties of grape) as just "Vintage Port California" and the last one is not (I'm sure Jackal will be thrilled) called Port but is labeled "Obtuse" which, sense the unkowing soul will be left in the dark totally confounded by this obtuse name is completely accurate.

On the back of Justin Vineyards Obtuse which on the back of the label is described as a Dessert Wine, and farther down as a "port style wine." Let's get real here, is anyone going to say they want a California desert wine made in the port style? Not anyone that normal isn't going to. They will ask for a California Port. There is the generic term of "port" we use here just as we use the generic term "champagne" for a sparkling wine. As for port, where is the concern? I'm a port or port style wine drinker myself who has both California and Portugese Port's on hand at all times. Do I know the difference? Yes. There's no illusion, no confusion, and I know which is which, so what's the big deal if I refer to both as "Port's"?

If anything, it is the newbie or uninformed who beneifts most from calling a California wine a "port" as he can now associate the term "port" with a particular style of wine. If the newbie happens to enjoy the wine (and help me but I can't understand anyone not enjoying a Port style wine) and a California Port is his initiation, he/she is much more likely to be drawn into trying Portuguese Ports simply from associating the two and (as they probably will) learning the origin of Port. This general association benefits the producer of the wine, the consumer, and the orignator (in this case Portuguese Ports.)

I can respect someone from elsewhere referring to it as a fortified wine, or referring to a sparkling wine from California as such, but since we choose to have both a generic meaning for Champagne and Port as well as a specific, we sure as heck don't need somebody telling us what is or isn't correct. On the whole, we know the difference between the generic and the specific and we don't need to be told otherwise. If our viewpoint and terminology is, in your opionion, wrong, then show a little class, bite your tongue and view us as uneducated heathens. If however you want to play the pompous role and tell us what is or isn't correct, be prepared for us to ignore your arrogance and be even more adamant in our view from the other side. For myself, I think there are enough complex things in life without having to complicate wine. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, I guess it must be a duck. Same thing for port. Since I know the difference between a California Port and a port from Oporto I guess it really doesn't matter what I call it though does it?

[Daniel Rogov]

Let's say that your argument is valid. By the same argument you would then have no objection to Kraft calling their cheese "Parmesan"; labelling a mixture of soya and cotton oil as "olive oil"; making cigarettes from Turkish tobacco and putting them in packs identical to and labeled as "Marlboro"; making watches that can sell for $25, labelling them and selling them as "Patek Philippe"; Mr or Mrs Smith painting a picture that really looks like a Van Gogh and selling it to the Metropolitan Museum in New York for $30,000,000.

If you'll agree to all of those, then I'm willing to go for "Port" on wines made from grapes that have nothing to do with true Port wine and that come from South Africa, Israel, Lebanon, California or Katmandu.

I don't think its snobbish to insist that counterfeits are inferior. And even if not fully inferior, still counterfeits. May I suggest that we think of one small bit of wisdom inherent to every major and probably quite a few smaller religions as well, that to the effect" "If its like an egg, its not as good as an egg".

[CtznCane]

Let's say that your argument is valid.  By the same argument you would then have no objection to Kraft calling their cheese "Parmesan"; labelling a mixture of soya and cotton oil as "olive oil"; making cigarettes from Turkish tobacco and putting them in packs identical to and labeled as "Marlboro";  making watches that can sell for $25, labelling them and selling them as "Patek Philippe"; Mr or Mrs  Smith painting a picture that really looks like a Van Gogh and selling it to the Metropolitan Museum in New York for $30,000,000. 

If you'll agree to all of those, then I'm willing to go for "Port" on wines made from grapes that have nothing to do with true Port wine and that come from South Africa, Israel, Lebanon, California or Katmandu.

I don't think its snobbish to insist that counterfeits are inferior. And even if not fully inferior, still counterfeits. May I suggest that we think of one small bit of wisdom inherent to every major and probably quite a few smaller religions as well, that to the effect" "If its like an egg, its not as good as an egg".

←

You're just being absurd. There's no comparison and you know it. You can take anything to the extreme but frankly to do so is idiotic. If that is the best argument/retort you have your position is pretty darn weak to put it politely. If you are under the illusion that it is a marketing ploy I'd suggest you get treatment for your paranoia.

Trying to give a nice simple answer to those abroad doesn't seem to deter foreigners from wanting to visit their beliefs upon the people over here. Moreover, even when I've seen comments made in regards to American labels it is never done in a civil context which is what really irks me to no end. It is either done in some condescending authoritative 'this is how it is' tone, or through some totally absurd comparison such as what you have given. Since rationalization and respected difference of opinion don't seem to be the order of the day maybe you can relate to the following more Eastern side of the Atlantic phrasing. The simple fact is: in the United States it is called, and aptly designated as Port. If you don't care for that designation, write your congressman. Oops, you don't have one. Geez, I guess you'll just have to live with us calling it Port then.

[Daniel Rogov]

We have both presented our cases. I leave it to others to judge the validity of our arguments as well as whatever else they choose to judge in both of our texts.

Edited October 28, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[jackal10]

Yes I am from the UK. I'd suggest you try a proper traditional vintage Port and taste the difference.

You can call Californian fortified wine "Port" if you like, but all it does is show ignorance on the part of the producer and consumer, and maybe an intention to mislead. I appreciate the limitations of the US labelling rules, but responsible wineries clearly show that it is not the original meaning. I guess its OK to just label it as Port if you only intend to sell wines locally in the US, but for world trade its wise to use the world's conventions.

Appelation control is important for both producers and consumers. That way quality can be controlled, and both buyer and seller know what they are getting. Not all blue cheese is Stilton. Stilton has to be made in a specific area, in a specific way. Whisky is only made in Scotland, and if you think malt spirits made in Japan are the same you are sadly deluded.

If you say any fortified red wine is Port, you devalue the name. Calling an imitation "Port" doesn't make the wine taste like real Port nor imbue it with the generations of history of a true port house. Many manufacturers sue conterfeiters of their brand. Imitation Rolex watches are not a true Rolex and do not have the cachet, even though the electronic version may keep time better. Imitation Cola is not the real thing. Why devalue the brand name "Port"?

Edited October 28, 2005 by jackal10 (log)

[cdh]

Why devalue the brand name "Port"?

The argument made by CtznCane is that Port is not a brand name, but rather a generic. A generic cannot become a trademark.

It comes down to a dispute of fact over whether Port in the US market is a generic or an identifier of source. Don't underestimate the power of the geographical illiteracy of the market. If an absurd percentage of the market has never travelled within 500 miles of Portugal, nor could point it out on a map, expecting them to associate the word Port with wine made there is a bit of a stretch. That's how I'd go about making the case that in the American market Port is a generic descriptor.

[mrbigjas]

i believe a lot of these problems could be solved by means of a simple suffix: -esque

for instance:

joey joe-joe junior shabadoo's 1986 late bottle vintage port-esque fortified wine

or

guy incognito's 2000 port-esque fortified zinfandel wine

or

frank grimes' stilton-esque vermont blue cheese

or

kraft foods' parmesan-esque green shaker cheese

see? problem solved. everyone knows what you're shooting for, but it's also obvious that you're not making the real thing.

yours in the spirit of sensible solutions to thorny international regulatory quandaries,

jas.

[cdh]

I like -esque! Good solution.

[Adam Balic]

    Why does an issue always need to be made over 'it isn't port if....' or 'only champagne if...' and such?  It is totally, and I do mean totally absurd to make such an issue about calling or not calling a wine port.  No wonder most of the world considers many/most wine fanatics as snobs.  I can only gather from the time difference (since no location is shown) that Jackal10 is from the wrong side of the Atlantic.  (Wrong side to us Americans that is <tongue in cheek>)  Let me give my side which, I feel, would encompass a view taken not only by newbies but many Americans who do not side with this proprietary garbage of what can't be called this or that.

←

I think that there are some valid points yu have made, but one of the issues with nomeclature that these threads has raised is that non-Americans find the use of the word "Port" to be confusing, obviously this isn't going to be such an issue in a wine producing country where the mind set is likely to be Port - local or imported?". I'm afraid I automatically think of Port as being the product from Portugal. As far as I know no or little of the American product is imported here on any large basis..

Now the thing is I am Australian and Australia has a longer continuous histrory of producing fortified wines in bulk, including Port styles. While we may have refered to these products as "port" for the last 150 years or so, I don't think that there is any serious issue with dropping this in favour of less confusing terminology (on the international market). It's not a big deal. "Vintage Port" becomes "Vintage fortified Shiraz (or other grape variety), Penfold's Grandfather Port becomes "Penfolds Grandfather Liqueur Tawny".

As excellent as the Australian products are (and they are great), they are have their own identities and are definately not the Portuguese product. I actually, think that the re-naming is a good oppertunity to establish there own market and identity.

So for me at least it isn't an issue of snobbery, it is an issue of reducing confusion.

[cdh]

We do appear to be encountering a linguistic split amongst English speakers. When a word of commercial significance like Port has very different meanings to different sets of English speakers, how should the anglophone world deal with it?

Some argue for universal application of the most rigid rule, protecting any commercial significance the word has anywhere from potential dilution everywhere. This approach ruffles the feathers of commercial users of the word who would have to invest significant money and efforts in rebranding their products for little apparent return in their market.

Should the Portuguese, or the British companies that control the market in Oporto, be able to, after many years of neglecting the trademark significance of their word in the American market, suddenly be able to deploy a few lawyers to California to make wineries there relabel products that they've been making for years? Doesn't seem fair to me.

The answer would seem to be in the application of local labelling laws in different jurisdictions. Call the California Zinfandel "Port" sold in the US "Port" where the word is an indicator of style, but require that the label not mention the P word when it is imported into other countries where the word does have the ability to serve as an indentifier of source. The US has a set of different labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages that wineries or importers elsewhere have to abide by... our wineries could surely do the same if they desired to export their product to places that protect the word Port. And I'd imagine that even the -esque solution wouldn't work for this application, sadly... But the imposition of rebranding is lifted, as the export market is very different from the domestic market, and would require all of the branding effort anew anyway.

Simply put, usage of the word should be regulated in a market-by-market manner rather than universally.

Edited October 28, 2005 by cdh (log)

[Brad Ballinger]

The United States and Australia apparently will be getting their way in being able to use names the the European Union feels should be trademarked globally (article here). A final ruling has not been issued yet, but it appears we'll just have to live with champagne, port, parmesan, feta, roquefort, basmati, and even darjeeling being more generic names than actual names.

Interestingly, and almost hypocritically, there has been protectionism of U.S. based "trademarks" here. Remember when President Bush signed the law that only bottom-feeding fish could be legally called and sold as catfish. So this put the Vietnamese product (about 20% of fish called catfish were actually a Vietnamese fish raised in rice paddies at the time) on the outside looking in. Restaurants in Minnesota were selling walleye that was really a European fish called zander (also known as European walleye). There has been action to put a stop to that legally.

Even intra-U.S. examples exist. Vidalia onions can only come from Vidalia, Georgia. Onions grown elsewhere from Vidalia seeds can't be sold as Vidalias. It seems we want to have our cake and eat it too.

Edited to add: Then there was this little stink about the use of the word Napa on wine labels whose grapes weren't at least 75% Napa-grown. So Napa can make "Port" but a winery can't be called Napa Whatever unless the grapes are the right ones.

[cdh]

Well, so long as the actual source of the product is on the labels, what harm is done by allowing the continued generic use of a term such as Port? It really is an indicator of style over here, not a unique identifier of source.

There is plenty of Limburger cheese that is not made in Limburg... Little if any Bourbon whisky is made in Bourbon County... there is plenty of precedent for terms that started out as geographic identifiers becoming indicators of style over a period of time.

[Jaymes]

I really like Prager ports, from Napa Valley, and never miss an opportunity to stop by.

In fact, I'm currently in the Bay Area, and will most certainly make a trip up there to buy a few bottles of their excellent port, 'Noble Companion.'

Here's more info, for those that are interested:

Prager Port Works in Napa Valley, California, USA

[slbunge]

In a curious aside, is 'Port' the only of the name controlled proposals whose designation is not in the language of origin?

Port is most certainly the English version of 'Porto', no?

I'm actually in favor of allowing name control of food items that are traditional and tied to a specific region of a country. Using '-style' or '-esque' (or whatever) after the name of the product sure seems to be hardly a burden for producers.

[Jaymes]

I'm actually in favor of allowing name control of food items that are traditional and tied to a specific region of a country.  Using '-style' or '-esque' (or whatever) after the name of the product sure seems to be hardly a burden for producers.

On the other hand, though, that considerably lessens the opportunities to be 'helpful' to the less knowledgeable. If only true Portugese port were allowed to be thusly designated, it would remove the ability to point out the fact that other Port Pretenders were not, in fact, port.

Port is my father's favorite beverage. Of all. Bar none. And he has many stories to tell about 60+ years of avid and enthusiastic port consumption, including a particularly amusing one about an entire case of Sandeman vintage port falling out of an open door of a Flying Fortress that he was piloting during WWII.

And how I figured out, so long ago, that there was no Santa Claus when I became suspicious upon noticing that everyone else set out milk and cookies for Santa; but at our house, he got a selection of cheeses and a nice port.

So, I've often said, through the years, to those talking about this US port or that, "Well, you do know, do you not, that REAL port only comes from........blah blah blah."

I'd hate for those opportunities to be condescending helpfully instructive to evaporate entirely.

Wouldn't you?

Edited October 28, 2005 by Jaymes (log)

[CtznCane]

Interestingly, and almost hypocritically, there has been protectionism of U.S. based "trademarks" here.  Remember when President Bush signed the law that only bottom-feeding fish could be legally called and sold as catfish.  So this put the Vietnamese product (about 20% of fish called catfish were actually a Vietnamese fish raised in rice paddies at the time) on the outside looking in.  Restaurants in Minnesota were selling walleye that was really a European fish called zander (also known as European walleye).  There has been action to put a stop to that legally.

Even intra-U.S. examples exist. Vidalia onions can only come from Vidalia, Georgia.  Onions grown elsewhere from Vidalia seeds can't be sold as Vidalias.  It seems we want to have our cake and eat it too.

If (and I use to live in Minnetonka) I went to a restaurant or fish market in Minnesota I would expect Walleye Pike to be Walleye Pike. Here the deception factor is certainly present due to ones expectations. In the generic wine labeling nobody is trying to dupe anyone.

That aside, I do have a question as to the term "Port." While it is known as Port, is Port the English name (and I do believe the English owned many of the port houses in Oporto) while in Portugal it would be called "Porto"?