Excessive alcohol — I don’t like spirity Ports

[Chris Doty]

Is a special place. The reasons are multitude but the point is that its individual members, with perspectives and preferences as varied as their personalities, have continuously helped me think in new ways about a subject on which I have already invested so much.

You could look at 1,000 bottles of vintage port and be astounded by the apparent variety (vintage, shipper, vineyard, bottler, etc.) One detail that will be nearly identical (beyond Ivdp) will be an alcohol statement of 20%. Almost always 20. I don’t think I’ve ever seen 18 or 22. Whereas table wine can vary considerably in alcohol content (from literally zero to pushing 16pct), port at least in this respect, is consistent.

So, when we observe “excessive” alcohol (and before jdaw makes a comment doubting the very existence of such a concept...), what are we talking about?

I would say this happens when the fruit has faded and whatever else the wine may have had going for it has not been enough to overcome the ‘burden’ of a bottle comprised ~25pct of relatively inexpensive (and typically foreign) spirit. I do see it as a trouble, and I liken it to burgundy, on the other side of the alcohol and intensity spectrum. Burgundy is finesse and depth without weight. If you have no substance and no weight, however, are you anything at all? That’s why I rarely (never) drink low end burgundy. There is no low end champagne by definition, but usually I’d be open minded when it comes to slumming. Not with burgundy, not with port, and couldn’t with champagne if I tried. What’s a poor boy to do?

Anyway, back to port, to misquote (though only slightly) Lou Brown, “I like spirit in a player!” Wine is a living breathing thing. It should have a pulse. It should kick. But it should not kick like Elaine Benes.

Penny for your thoughts?

If you celebrate holidays this time of year I hope that you have been able to do so safely and soundly in the arms of those you love. And if you pop a bottle, share! I’m bringing 1985 Figeac to dinner... fingers crossed.

[JacobH]

I wonder if the spirtiness of the Port is as much to do with the quality of arguadente as the quantity? Something that David Guimaraens said at the recent TFP virtual tasting was that he thought that post-2000 Ports are much less spirity when young than in the past because of the huge improvements in the quality of the arguadente after the government monopoly ended. It’s not just him: I also remember Oscar Quevedo, years ago, saying that they also take it pretty seriously and do blind tastings from different suppliers of the spirit diluted in water to choose the one that has the least flavour.

I guess the other thing that can really affect how much spirit you need to add is the initial quantity of sugar in the grapes and how much residual sugar you are aiming for. In years where there is more sugar in the must, you can presumably reach a higher “natural” alcohol level before you fortify and similar considerations apply if you ferment the wine a bit longer to bring the residual sugar down a bit further.

In terms of ABVs, I’ve also noticed how similar they are. I guess in the past it was assumed that everyone was aiming at 20% and the window was to allow them to miss by a bit. I think modern labeling tolerances are still quite wide (i.e. between ± 0.5 and 1 % depending on country and also rounded to the nearest 0.5%). I can only think of a couple of winemakers who have said that they consciously try to do something different. Quinta do Infantado is one at about 19.5% and the Croft Pink (!) is another at 20.5%—I’m pretty sure I remember being told that they had tried making it at a lower ABV but it needed that amount of alcohol to work.

I think it is still permitted under the regulations to make a “Leve Seco” Port at 16.5%, although I’ve never tried one.

[Glenn E.]

As I recall, until recently the legal limit for Port was between 19% and 21%. I used to have the appropriate Portuguese legal documents bookmarked but alas no longer have them. I see references to 16%, but I think that's due to translation confusion about the process. 16% is where fermentation is arrested by the addition of aguardente, but it isn't legal to sell at 16%.

I wish I'd kept it, but I once had a bottle of Port that was labeled at 23%. Yes, that's not legal. As I recall it was a Noval. I've seen some 19% and some 21%, but as you say most Port is bottled at 20%.

19.5% seems to be trending lately as well.

I believe that there is a new law that allows bottling at 18%, but only Rozes and Cruz (?) are using it. What I've heard is that it was created essentially for the French market, where 18% escapes some tax that 19% does not. (Or something like that.) I've never seen one, though.

But to the question at hand, I think that phrase refers to the perception of alcohol in the wine. Meaning that in some Ports, the alcohol stands out and is easily detected while in others it is nicely balanced with the other flavors (or even imperceptible).

Acidity and sugar can also behave strangely. I once tasted a component of the Rare Wine Company Charleston Sercial (Madeira) which is a rather dry wine. However that component, an 80-year old Tinta Negra, had 300+ g/l of sugar in it. Yet it seemed dry as a bone! This was explained to be caused by the fact that its acidity was well over the legal threshold at 27 g/l. (The limit, we were told, is 18 g/l.) The wine's crazy-high acidity masked its equally crazy sugar level.

I think that the fruit flavors in a Port can mask the alcohol, and that as those fruit flavors change and fade the alcohol can become more prominent. The cleaner the aguardente, though, the longer it can remain masked and in balance with the rest of the Port.