It is my sense that young vintage ports seem to be converging in terms of style. While this may in part be down to things such as the weather at vintage I have a suspicion that it may have as much to do with what Tom says with regard to the desire for positive critical reviews.uncle tom wrote:My suspicion is that it doesn't, that a combination of wood age and bottle age tends to produce very enduring wines, such as the Niepoort Garrafeiras.Why would exta time in the pipe compromise the wine's capacity to age?
Why then are VPs often bottled early, with minimal wood exposure prior? I think the answer lies in the quest for good critical reviews.
Dirk once invited me into his blending room where he had some vintage stock samples. Two lotes had been partly kept in pipes and partly in tonels, and there was a significant difference between the two - more wood exposure at a young age clearly made for a more dour and sober wine.
Unfortunately, it follows that critics seeking out young fruit bombs to laud are likely to be less impressed by VPs that have had more wood exposure..
I suppose I notice in my own note taking that I will automatically mark up bigger wines and mark down those which tend to the lighter, despite being someone who actively prefers the medium weight style.
Have others noted this? And if this pendulum has swung towards bigger ports (as it certainly did in table wines) can we expect it to swing back any time soon?
The point about extending ageing in wood not impacting on the longevity of the wine is one that also interests me. I am in the camp that thinks that LBVs are good for about 20 to 30 years rather than 50 plus years which is regularly found in vintage ports. I would speculate that this is more to do with the underlying quality of LBVs rather than being to do with the time they have spent in wood.