Bottle after two or three years?

[Axel P]

Having had some tastings of the 2011 quite early this year, I am becoming a big fan of a later declaration in comparison of what is sometimes happening nowadays.

Everyone who was with me on the BFT tasting around the St. Georges Day in London (which was perfectly organised by the way) would think that a later bottling might make sense.

I am presently sitting here in Ireland much enjoying a Burmester 1970 VP, which explicitly says on the label, that it was bottled three years after the harvest year, likewise the Niepoort 1970 and some others.

Personally I believe that an early bottling does not do any good to Vintage Port and that the Producers should rather go for the end of the second possible year or the beginning of the third, just as Dirk does on the Bioma.

Axel

[RAYC]

likewise the Niepoort 1970 and some others.

Not all Niepoort 70 - the bordeaux-style bottles were 72 (at least according to the label - is the reality different?) and despite the hype I am not convinced that well-stored bottles of this are worse (or better) than well-stored pota-bottlings.

In terms of current producers, is there collective knowledge on who is doing late-bottling? The Lamelas 2007 was bottled in 2010, but off-hand (and apart from Bioma) i can't recall other third year bottlings i have come across in recent vintages - whether at end of second or beginning of third year after harvest.

In terms of second year bottlings, I was interested to see the "bottling month" of bottling stated on a Niepoort 91 i had recently (it was December) - an interesting piece of information that i can't recall seeing elsewhere in recent vintages (either on bottle or in the fact sheets they sometimes produce).

[Glenn E.]

I have tasted three different bottlings of 1967 Taylor Vargellas, and believe that the 4th of the set does in fact exist. I have had Oporto 1970 bottled, London 1970 bottled, and London 1969 bottled. I have seen sufficient evidence online to believe that Oporto 1969 bottled also exists.

(There are very likely multiple London bottlings in either 1969 or 1970 or both... I refer only to Oporto and non-Oporto as the "set" in question.)

[John M]

I have had 1969 Oporto bottled. Superb stuff.

[Roy Hersh]

Axel, you make an interesting point about bottling later. But you have not explained what characteristics you notice, or prefer when the VP sits in pipas longer. Please elaborate.

[Alex Bridgeman]

You can also compare vintage ports bottled after 2 and 3 years with Unfiltered Bottle Matured LBVs bottled after 4 years.

Personally, I can't spot any significant differences in bottling date when drinking a mature port. I think that storage conditions probably have such a dramatic effect on the drinking experience that these overwhelm bottling date differences.

[RAYC]

Personally, I can't spot any significant differences in bottling date when drinking a mature port. I think that storage conditions probably have such a dramatic effect on the drinking experience that these overwhelm bottling date differences.

My recollection of Dirk Niepoort's explanation (though this could really be butchering his philosophy in a very crude manner) is that the extra time before bottling is very beneficial for stabilising the wine in a way that gives a much greater persistency of fruit, freshness and strength in decades three, four, five etc.. But the trade-off is that you loose a bit of the plush and exciting ("showy"!) fruit up-front and the wine is not quite so extravagant at the outset (i.e. its first decade). Also that you delay it too long (even by a month or two) and the wine falls off a cliff.

Not surprising that you don't notice it (or know whether you notice it) in older bottlings (who, after all, has identically-stored Vargellas 67 or Niepoort 70 two and three year bottlings to compare?), but i suspect it might be easier to see a difference in new bottlings.

[LGTrotter]

Mr Saintsbury's favourite port was one that had been in cask for 8 years I think, the one he said that had exorcised it's devil and replaced it with an angel. Irrelavent I realise but it came to me just then. I'll have to go and find the book now.

[djewesbury]

But the gem of the three was a '73, which had been allowed to remain in wood till it was eight or nine years old, and in bottle for about as much longer before I bought it. It had lost very little colour and not much body of the best kind; but if there ever was any devil in its soul that soul had thoroughly exorcised the intruder and replaced him with an angel.

Rather well remembered by Owen, I think; on balance he redeems himself against his trio of apostrophe crimes.