There were two bottles of Niepoort on auction last month. A 1984 and 1990. Both having plain labels and bottled 2 years after harvest. Since they are not vintage ports (at least not released as such) I'd guess they qualify as single year crusted. Or maybe just a rare oddity.
RonnieRoots wrote:There were two bottles of Niepoort on auction last month. A 1984 and 1990. Both having plain labels and bottled 2 years after harvest. Since they are not vintage ports (at least not released as such) I'd guess they qualify as single year crusted. Or maybe just a rare oddity.[/img]
Surely a "single year port" bottled 2 years after the harvest is a VP? It cannot be anything else!!!
I think a distinction needs to be made between Crusted Ports and unapproved/unreleased Vintage Ports. The former are sanctioned by the IVDP whilst the latter are not.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
I would judge the strict classification of those Niepoort wines to be a single vintage Ruby, as neither the words Reserve nor Crusted appear on the label.
However, they could have been approved by the IVP as a Crusted port if of sufficient quality.
I am personally all in favour of single vintage Crusted ports, bottled in the same manner as Vintage, when the content is of reasonable quality, but fails to reach the standard required of a Vintage port.
There are too many Vintage ports being made now, and the standard required of them is too low. If the producers want to maintain high prices for VP, the IVDP needs to be pressured into raising the standard required for approval.
Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
I agree that rule changes may be necessary to raise the bar of what can and cannot be stated to be Vintage Port but that is something for the future. At this point in time we are in the situation where we have to go with existing classifications. The naming of these Niepoorts would very much depend on whether or not they were registered and/or approved by the IVDP. If they were, they would have to be classified as VP. If not, I'm not even sure they can be classified as "Port" never mind a spefcific style?
For the data you are collecting, I think the safest thing to do is have a column (or columns) in your database to record all that you know about them so that the wheat and the chaff can be separated at a later date.
Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
Haven't got a clue how they are classified, but at least they appear to have been approved as port; they do posess a selo de garantia! I guess you can contact Dirk if you want to know for sure. I haven't done that, because I didn't win this lot.
Tom, the standard for vintage port has always been too low. Producers like Cruz, Dalva etc. would have had a hard time declaring their VP's if the IV(D)P had set their standards correctly in the past. You and I disagree on the fact that the number of current VP's is too high. But we knew that already.
but at least they appear to have been approved as port; they do posess a selo de garantia
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that only the Special Category ports need IV(D)P approval, and that the Standard Ruby,Tawny and White ports can be marketed without passing any approval process.
Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
I didn't know that. Assumed that everything needed to be approved. But if it's a standard, unapproved ruby, would they be allowed to put a vintage year on the label? In table wines (take Dado/Doda for instance) this is forbidden.
but at least they appear to have been approved as port; they do posess a selo de garantia
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that only the Special Category ports need IV(D)P approval, and that the Standard Ruby,Tawny and White ports can be marketed without passing any approval process.
Tom
My understanding is that whilst the standard wines don't go through approval process they do have to be notified to the IVDP so that they can keep track of volumes produced and released for sale and to allow the Selo to be used. If this is the case they could only be classified as one of the existing styles.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
RonnieRoots wrote:Should this be split into "Niepoort oddity" from the point where I posted the pictures, in order not to drift too much from the "crusted" subject?
Agreed. Done.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
I was very surprised to see the picture of the Niepoort oddities. They have a vintage date but are bottled too early to be vintage port. From my memory vintage port must be bottled between June of the second year and January of the third year. The 1990 what? was bottled in March 1992, so it only had a year and a half of aging before bottling. Thus it can not be considered vintage port. Since it is not vintage port, it is hard to know what the style of wine is from the label.
I do not know the rules for "port of the vintage". What I have seen on the market over the years is the reserve tawny type. They have a vintage date, but are released with a quite a few years of age, more than a decade at least. I do not know why they are not released as a colheita, but possibly because the word colheita may scare off buyers who do not know what that word means and will not buy bottle with the word colheita on it. Perhaps in this case Niepoort is avoiding the term "crusted port" which also may scare off buyers. Crusted ports are not understood in America except for us port fans. An "early bottled" 1990 certainly will throw a crust unless it is a lighter style - ruby or reserve ruby.
Niepoort is trying something new. It could be a hit in America since wine buyers like to have a vintage date on the label. The rules of naming port probably prevent more information being added, so it is a simply a port of the vintage. Maybe it is a reserve ruby - full bodied without big tannin. It could be popular if the spirits are not harsh which normally is the case with young port.
DRT wrote:I emailed and sent a picture of these bottles to Niepoort today and their conclusion is that they are fake!!!!
If true, then this must be one of the most bizarre fakes attempted on Port.
Why?
Speaking from no particular personal experience, if I were in the business of faking wines, I would do my best to minimize the chances of detection and maximise the potential profits. With these bottles there are quite a few factors which militate against both of these aspects: i) they are odd, which will cause questions to be asked; ii) the bottles have selos, allowing them to be traced; iii) they are quite young so it is quite easy to ask Niepoort for their views (older oddities might not be recorded) and iv) they are quite young, and not from great vintage years, which will reduce their value.
I would have thought the profit in fakes comes from doing things like re-bottling 1970 Noval as 1970 Noval Nacional or getting half a case of Sandeman 1963 and pouring it into an empty Jeroboam and calling it a special bottling of a Taylor 45 (or 65 and selling it to DRT for about £15,000 :p). For the risk involved, it just seems odd to produce a fake for such a low value.
I can see your logic but I think there is probably also an opportunity to make a small killing by simply labelling a very cheap stash of crap port with the name of a well known producer and punting it into a market where that producer is well known at relatively low cost. The more expensive fakes are likely to come onto the radar of experts who will spot the flaws easily whilst selling 100 cases of this to a Dutch supermarket chain at low cost and having them fly off the shelves in double quick time is perhaps less risky?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
Also remember if these are fakes they were probably made long before people were emailing things all over the world, so it was quite easy to fake things in the old days before instant information with computers. Reminds me of a certain 1933 Croft VP bottle at a tasting...one problem, they didn't make a '33 VP and it had a plastic T-cork and photocopied Selo
Winesearcher wrote:Sorry, NO MATCHING WINES found for your search for 1931 quinta do noval nacional.
we're talking newer wines from major houses.
I might have suggested these were trial releases sent about for tasting -- cask samples of a sort -- except for that Garantia. We should be able to make out those numbers
JoshDrinksPort Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope
Now I know why i've been staring at these so long. I've never seen a Niepoort with a printed label. My 1987 empty and the 1994 in waiting are both painted, as is every other Niepoort bottle image I could find from this period (of either LBV, Colheita, or VP). Furthermore, their capsules are all yellow (tho some folks seem to have red ones), and the bottles are an impenetrable brown, not this light green.
The website, btw, listed some of those bottles as LBV, some without designation. They all sold very high for being fakes.
JoshDrinksPort Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope
Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope
