TPF ranking: why Taylor's LBV over Fonseca LBV?

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 20:37 Sun 15 Dec 2013

I was just promoted from Fonseca LBV to Taylor's LBV. In my opinion the Fonseca is much better (because unfiltered) than the Taylor's. So why did you chose the one over the other? Is it just because the Taylor's is more readily available in supermarkets and thus more known? Does anyone else prefer the Fonseca over the Taylor's, too? An does anyone know why the Fonseca has a stopper-cork and not a driven cork as is normal for unfiltered LBVs? (Is it not that unfiltered after all?) (By the way: it's the same with Dow's LBV; unfiltered, but stopper-cork).

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 20:53 Sun 15 Dec 2013

Gods move in mysterious ways, I among others have found inconsistencies in the ranking. All I got was a mention in 'apostrophe crimes' for my trouble.

Warre and Sandeman are the two shippers I have found recently with driven corks in their LBV.

Post by **DRT** » 21:00 Sun 15 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:I was just promoted from Fonseca LBV to Taylor's LBV. In my opinion the Fonseca is much better (because unfiltered) than the Taylor's. So why did you chose the one over the other? Is it just because the Taylor's is more readily available in supermarkets and thus more known? Does anyone else prefer the Fonseca over the Taylor's, too? An does anyone know why the Fonseca has a stopper-cork and not a driven cork as is normal for unfiltered LBVs? (Is it not that unfiltered after all?) (By the way: it's the same with Dow's LBV; unfiltered, but stopper-cork).

There is confusion about what "filtered" actually means. A common understanding is that it means that the wine has been passed through some sort of mesh that strips solids from the wine so that it cannot throw a crust in the bottle. But there are other ways of taking solids out of the wine, such as cold stabilisation followed by careful racking/decanting to leave the crud at the bottom of the tank. Those wines can be labelled "unfiltered". I think of unflitered LBVs as being treated in exactly the same way as VP with crud and all going into the bottle so that it throws a proper crust over a prolonged period in bottle. Warre and Smith Woodhouse are two well known examples of this style of LBV. I have no idea which type Fonseca LBV is.

As for the rankings, the man who put them together is no longer here to explain himself.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 21:05 Sun 15 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:As for the rankings, the man who put them together is no longer here to explain himself.

He visited me in a dream and told me they needed updating to downgrade the Warre Optima. Or was that you dressed up as him?

Post by **DRT** » 21:10 Sun 15 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:
DRT wrote:As for the rankings, the man who put them together is no longer here to explain himself.
He visited me in a dream and told me they needed updating to downgrade the Warre Optima. Or was that you dressed up as him?

I think it was Daniel.

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 21:12 Sun 15 Dec 2013

So either we ask someone from TFP, how they treat the Fonseca LBV or we do a kind of experiment by laying down a bottle of the Fonseca LBV and see if it has developed a crust after 5 years of cellaring.
But I suspect that the cold stabilisation you mentioned was used and that it will not improve in bottle. Then they would have used a driven cork in the first place.
Other LBVs with a driven cork are Niepoort, Ferreira, Noval, Ramos Pinto, Churchill, Rozes, Crasto, Vale D. Maria, Offley, Pocas, Butler & Nephew and probably Andresen and Tedo. That is quite a lot. Which I think is good for port wine in general (because it raises the overall qualitity when LBVs are not filtered to death.)

Post by **DRT** » 21:15 Sun 15 Dec 2013

I think the driven cork is the tell-tale sign that what is in the bottle is proper unflitered LBV. Another good indication is when it is released. Warre LBVs are cellared for a number of years before being released with the description "Bottle Matured", which cannot be used on wines released straight after bottling.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:35 Sun 15 Dec 2013

Does anybody feel like answering this query?

djewesbury wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
AW77 wrote:Thanks for the information.
It's the first time that I hear of a filtered Warre's LBV. Their website does not give any info on that and the price list I saw at the Graham's lodge does not include one. Do they currently produce it or was it only made in the past?
They make it currently as far as I know. I have some 2007s.
I am drinking one right now. It is less than very good: cherries, tightness, quite bitter and perhaps a little too acid. I wonder, does anybody know why they don't mention the fact that they make this filtered LBV? Same as the Smith Woodhouse: they make an unfiltered and a filtered, but do not mention anywhere online that they make the latter. Is this not a potential trap for the unsuspecting purchaser looking for something special, following a tip and not realising that they have bought a pup (*puts hand up*)?

PS Yes sorry Owen that was me. Sorry. I will leave your dreams alone.

EDIT: It was a Warre 07 LBV I was drinking.

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 21:43 Sun 15 Dec 2013

I'm just guessing: The reason might be overproduction. They made too much in one year, so they filter the surplus wine and put it straight into the market.
This surplus disposal might also be the reason why they do not mention this wine on their website. As this LBV is not that good it will not enhance their reputation (But then why do they use the Warre name and not a sous-marque name??? )

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 22:07 Sun 15 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:I'm just guessing: The reason might be overproduction. They made too much in one year, so they filter the surplus wine and put it straight into the market.
This surplus disposal might also be the reason why they do not mention this wine on their website. As this LBV is not that good it will not enhance their reputation (But then why do they use the Warre name and not a sous-marque name??? )

I'm not sure I buy the idea that it's a surplus. If they want to label it as Warre (or Smith Woodhouse - arguably these days almost a sous-marque) why not market it?

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 22:14 Sun 15 Dec 2013

Well, perhaps that's one of the questions to ask the Symingtons the next time someone from

meets one of them.

Post by **DRT** » 22:19 Sun 15 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:
AW77 wrote:I'm just guessing: The reason might be overproduction. They made too much in one year, so they filter the surplus wine and put it straight into the market.
This surplus disposal might also be the reason why they do not mention this wine on their website. As this LBV is not that good it will not enhance their reputation (But then why do they use the Warre name and not a sous-marque name??? )
I'm not sure I buy the idea that it's a surplus. If they want to label it as Warre (or Smith Woodhouse - arguably these days almost a sous-marque) why not market it?

I strongly suspect that these LBVs are made from what is left of the various lots that contribute towards the vintage blends or are specifically selected for the purpose for which they are used. "Surplus production" goes into basic categories or inferior premium wines.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 00:11 Mon 16 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:So either we ask someone from TFP, how they treat the Fonseca LBV or we do a kind of experiment by laying down a bottle of the Fonseca LBV and see if it has developed a crust after 5 years of cellaring.

TFP use t-stoppers for the unfiltered Croft LBV as well, so it may just be a company approach.

For ports intended for the "drink now" market, I'm not sure filtering is the big bad wolf people are making out here. Some vintages of Graham and Taylor filtered lbvs show very nicely against some of the "superior" unfiltered lbvs that have been mentioned. Others (e.g.: Noval) may be intrinsically better port but seem less suited for a consumer to open immediately and enjoy.

Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.

Post by **DRT** » 05:42 Mon 16 Dec 2013

RAYC wrote:For ports intended for the "drink now" market, I'm not sure filtering is the big bad wolf people are making out here.

Not sure if you are suggesting that I'm one of those but just for the record I don't see anything wrong with the concept of filtered LBVs. In fact I think they serve as a cornerstone of the premium Port market, particularly in the UK. What I dislike is the use of "unfiltered" on the label for wines not intended to be aged in bottle. Croft LBV is one such wine, as was confirmed by David Guimaraens when he visited FTLOP a couple of years ago.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 12:19 Mon 16 Dec 2013

For most producers, the T-stopper vs driven cork is a fairly good indication of whether an LBV is filtered or not. But the TFP don't play by that rule.

Taylor, I believe, is universally filtered, and Croft universally unfiltered. I have a note of a conversation with Adrian Bridge in April 2011, when he told me that old Fonseca LBVs were unfiltered, despite having T-stoppers and no mention of the fact on their labels.

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:11 Mon 16 Dec 2013

The rankings up to about 1000 posts were created by KillerB, no longer active on this forum (‟Last visited: 11:30 Fri 05 Apr 2013”). His assignments might have been a little rough-and-ready.

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 20:59 Mon 16 Dec 2013

RAYC wrote: Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.

Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:04 Mon 16 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:
RAYC wrote: Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.
Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.

I always stand anything with a T-cork upright. I would be paranoid about it leaking, and I'm not sure it needs to be kept from drying out.

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 21:05 Mon 16 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:
RAYC wrote: Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.
Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.

i stand them

i hate it when the port gets past the cork and sticks the t stopper to the bottle. Then when i try and twist it off, the nubbing of cork breaks off into the neck.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:20 Mon 16 Dec 2013

g-man wrote:
AW77 wrote:
RAYC wrote: Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.
Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.
i stand them

i hate it when the port gets past the cork and sticks the t stopper to the bottle. Then when i try and twist it off, the nubbing of cork breaks off into the neck.

+1.
Extremely annoying.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 21:52 Mon 16 Dec 2013

I have just looked up nubbing and was a little surprised. It has a lovely sound to it though.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 22:05 Mon 16 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:
AW77 wrote:
RAYC wrote: Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.
Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.
I always stand anything with a T-cork upright. I would be paranoid about it leaking, and I'm not sure it needs to be kept from drying out.

I always lie mine down. I've had 1 leak but the rest (50+) have been fine.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 00:06 Tue 17 Dec 2013

AHB wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
AW77 wrote:
RAYC wrote: Aside from that debate, are t-stoppers proven to be materially worse in terms of how a port ages? What is there to back this up? My only experience of ageing port with a t-stopper is the Croft 04 LBV, and the t-stoppers do not seem to be noticeably sub-par.
Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.
I always stand anything with a T-cork upright. I would be paranoid about it leaking, and I'm not sure it needs to be kept from drying out.
I always lie mine down. I've had 1 leak but the rest (50+) have been fine.

+1

Except in my case, no leakers.

Post by **DRT** » 00:24 Tue 17 Dec 2013

I always lie them down, but the only leakers I have had are Croft LBV 2002.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:30 Tue 17 Dec 2013

I never have before but I might lie them down from now on.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 10:49 Tue 17 Dec 2013

Do you stand the bottles up or do you lay them down? I'm not sure if a T-cork can stand long-term contact to liquids. So I suspect you stand them up.

Lay them down.

If you leave T stoppered bottles upright, the cork begins to rot and is more likely to snap off.

I've never seen a young T-stoppered bottle leak. Old ones sometimes do if they've been previously kept vertical..

ThePortForum.com