ThePortForum.com

Andy Velebil wrote:VA is a wine making issue. It will affect all the wine made. Though some bottles can show it more than others if exposed to more heat, as that will cause it to bloom and become more noticeable. Cockburn's had some issues during this period, as did some other producers.

I find this problematic - this concerned VA in a third of the bottles of a case of Ck 70, all bottles of which were presumably stored together, and so all subject to the same (variations in) heat. I have had very good bottles from particular vintages and I have had bottles absolutely ruined by VA; I can't see that the wine that does not have VA is just 'not exhibiting' the VA that it in fact contains. VA is acetic acid, it can't be there in a 'non-expressed' form, it's either there or it isn't. I have a Graham 85 next to me which is quite high in VA, though not spoilt completely. If it were the case that VA has to be present in all wine bottled from a VA-afflicated vintage, then I would expect many more ports to be written off in the way that (for example) the Ni97 has been. I think there must be more to VA than this.

djewesbury wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:VA is a wine making issue. It will affect all the wine made. Though some bottles can show it more than others if exposed to more heat, as that will cause it to bloom and become more noticeable. Cockburn's had some issues during this period, as did some other producers.

I find this problematic - this concerned VA in a third of the bottles of a case of Ck 70, all bottles of which were presumably stored together, and so all subject to the same (variations in) heat. I have had very good bottles from particular vintages and I have had bottles absolutely ruined by VA; I can't see that the wine that does not have VA is just 'not exhibiting' the VA that it in fact contains. VA is acetic acid, it can't be there in a 'non-expressed' form, it's either there or it isn't. I have a Graham 85 next to me which is quite high in VA, though not spoilt completely. If it were the case that VA has to be present in all wine bottled from a VA-afflicated vintage, then I would expect many more ports to be written off in the way that (for example) the Ni97 has been. I think there must be more to VA than this.

Disregard the heat and making it more noticeable. I was thinking Brett....That's what happens when I've just gotten up, only had one sip of coffee, and not thinking clearly. VA is a wine making issue though and will affect the whole lot.

Andy Velebil wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:VA is a wine making issue. It will affect all the wine made. Though some bottles can show it more than others if exposed to more heat, as that will cause it to bloom and become more noticeable. Cockburn's had some issues during this period, as did some other producers.

I find this problematic - this concerned VA in a third of the bottles of a case of Ck 70, all bottles of which were presumably stored together, and so all subject to the same (variations in) heat. I have had very good bottles from particular vintages and I have had bottles absolutely ruined by VA; I can't see that the wine that does not have VA is just 'not exhibiting' the VA that it in fact contains. VA is acetic acid, it can't be there in a 'non-expressed' form, it's either there or it isn't. I have a Graham 85 next to me which is quite high in VA, though not spoilt completely. If it were the case that VA has to be present in all wine bottled from a VA-afflicated vintage, then I would expect many more ports to be written off in the way that (for example) the Ni97 has been. I think there must be more to VA than this.

Disregard the heat and making it more noticeable. I was thinking Brett....That's what happens when I've just gotten up, only had one sip of coffee, and not thinking clearly. VA is a wine making issue though and will affect the whole lot.

Are you saying that all Graham 85 is affected by VA, because the one bottle I opened last night was? I wouldn't be able to agree on that. Get that next cup of coffee down you and let's have a heated debate!

Here's a really good explanation of VA in wine making.

http://www.sommelierjournal.com/article ... iclenum=77

Thanks for that article Andy - a good read and I'd recommend everyone here give it a look. It doesn't say to me, however, that a VA flaw must be present in all the wine of a vintage if it's detected in one bottle. While every bottle of port made by a particular shipper in a particular vintage will theoretically be the same blend of musts from the various harvested lotes, those blends are made in batches, and so the entirety of Graham 1985 has never sat in one place at one time before being aged and bottled. The musts have been fermented and vinified separately, and blending takes place at all sorts of stages. With some wines (e.g. the Niepoort Bioma 2011) different batches will be bottled at different times, from different barrels. So it would be possible for some balseiros of ageing VP to contain lotes afflicted by detectable VA, whilst other balseiros of the same blend of the same grapes would not have the same levels of VA. Add into this the rather variable hygiene standards that were in place across the board during the period of the worst-affected vintages, and you have what we drinkers recognise: VA is a problem that affects different wines in different measure.

Going back on topic, we had a Graham 1977 that was badly corked on the 9th Feb.

AHB wrote:Going back on topic

Should some of the above posts be split into a separate thread?

DRT wrote:

AHB wrote:Going back on topic

Should some of the above posts be split into a separate thread?

Yes, please split Andy's and my conversation about VA.

I've just opened and poured away a bottle of Croft 1991. Slightly tainted, but enough to leave me bitterly disappointed.

A 1996 Quinta do Vesuvio was mute on first pour and confirmed as corked by the better half. With port stocks in the Aussie cellar dwindling, this was a very sad turn of events. Thankfully the first of six to disappoint, with six still to go.

griff wrote:A 1996 Quinta do Vesuvio was mute on first pour and confirmed as corked by the better half. With port stocks in the Aussie cellar dwindling, this was a very sad turn of events. Thankfully the first of six to disappoint, with six still to go.

My condolences. A bit warm for port this time of year isn't it?

LGTrotter wrote:

griff wrote:A 1996 Quinta do Vesuvio was mute on first pour and confirmed as corked by the better half. With port stocks in the Aussie cellar dwindling, this was a very sad turn of events. Thankfully the first of six to disappoint, with six still to go.

My condolences. A bit warm for port this time of year isn't it?

Indeed! The temperature is usually a very effective barrier to cellar erosion. Unfortunately a wedge of mature cheddar spoke to me most forcefully.

G77 opened for the purposes of my brother-in-law's 40th and found to be riddled with VA-very disappointing and only a couple of years after similar with D77 at his birthday.

Rather surprisingly, a corked bottle of Fonseca 1985 from the cellar of The Traveler's Club in Pall Mall this evening.

It's not often that happens on a Monday

Quinta de Vesuvio 2000. Slightly corked, and still - quite noticeably - a beauty underneath. What a pity...

Skeffington 2017 sample at Uncorked tasting. No back-up. Lightly corked but even so, still happening no matter what the cork producers are saying they have done to improve things

NickA wrote: ↑15:23 Sun 09 Jun 2019 Skeffington 2017 sample at Uncorked tasting. No back-up. Lightly corked but even so, still happening no matter what the cork producers are saying they have done to improve things

That is depressing, although it is possible the cask samples have been closed with different (cheaper) corks to the finished wines?

DRT wrote: ↑18:04 Wed 12 Jun 2019 ...although it is possible the cask samples have been closed with different (cheaper) corks to the finished wines?

Often the case. Some producers use t-stoppers as the samples really should be opened and consumed within a few weeks of bring filled.

A slightly-corked Burmester 1984. This was not the first time that I have found Burmesters of both the 1984 and 1985 vintages to be corked out of the relatively small number opened over the last three years. When these years are not flawed, they make for inexpensive, albeit pleasant second-tier wines. In the event, the odds of ending up with spoiled bottles is so unacceptably high - at least in my experience - that further purchases are best avoided.

1964 Taylor’s Single Harvest Tawny was horribly corked this weekend

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑14:33 Mon 29 Jul 2019 1964 Taylor’s Single Harvest Tawny was horribly corked this weekend

That's not good considering these were a special release at a premium price. Perhaps worth providing feedback to TFP HQ?

2003 Taste The Difference — and I did — was so corked that even I could be sure how terribly corked it is.

A half bottle of Croft 2004 LBV opened to share with JDAW was the first out of 50+ of these I’ve drunk to be corked.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑20:30 Sun 22 Jun 2025 2003 Taste The Difference — and I did — was so corked that even I could be sure how terribly corked it is.

Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑07:24 Tue 24 Jun 2025 A half bottle of Croft 2004 LBV opened to share with JDAW was the first out of 50+ of these I’ve drunk to be corked.

Julian seems to be having an unlucky week.

Recently, a Warre 1960 bbr-bottled, and a Fonseca 1977.
Both in-neck and great colour bottles, both from stashes where previous bottles have been excellent.
Both taken to the same event, somewhat embarrassingly; the W60 sufficiently corked to be undrinkable, the F77 still drinkable but... Bah!

PhilW wrote: ↑22:21 Mon 15 Dec 2025 Recently, a Warre 1960 bbr-bottled, and a Fonseca 1977.
Both in-neck and great colour bottles, both from stashes where previous bottles have been excellent.
Both taken to the same event, somewhat embarrassingly; the W60 sufficiently corked to be undrinkable, the F77 still drinkable but... Bah!

That is rotten luck indeed (no pun intended). Wouldn't expect either of those to be likely candidates for corked, never mind both, together.

I’ve had a corked Fonseca 1977 before now. One of a case that was otherwise perfect, so luck of the draw.

1875 D'Oliveiras Malvasia

1 of 4 purchased from Farr Vintners in London, and of course now I'm worried that the other 3 will be corked as well.

Anyone think it's worth trying to return this bottle to them? I could bring it back in February when I come for the Fonseca tasting. I just seems weird for me to return corked bottles since I can't taste the TCA. But in this case, the bottle seems off even to me. It definitely lacks the power and lusciousness that these "Family Reserve" bottles normally have.

(This one was bottled in 2016. It's the same wine, just with ~40 extra years in wood compared to the ones actually bottled as the Family Reserve.)

Definitely worth trying to return the bottle, especially if you have the paper (or e-paper) trail showing your purchase.

You've nothing to lose really!

Hello. That is an expensive wine. I’d email them for an refund, and say you are bringing it over so they can satisfy themselves it really is off.

I have only once or twice had corked Madeira, as most of it is kept in cask a long time and thus the corks relatively recent; and also it is stored standing up; but when the cork is wrong it is wrong.

I've reached out to Farr Vintners to ask about their corked wine policy. I'll update when I hear back.

The purchase was very recent, so I've simply replied to that email chain. That will firmly establish the purchase record, as the invoice is in that same thread.

Had an awful 70 Dow Vintage a few weeks ago. Down the drain.

Glenn E. wrote: ↑00:05 Wed 07 Jan 2026 I've reached out to Farr Vintners to ask about their corked wine policy. I'll update when I hear back.

The purchase was very recent, so I've simply replied to that email chain. That will firmly establish the purchase record, as the invoice is in that same thread.

I heard back from Farr Vintners this morning. They do not accept returns of corked bottles, so I'm stuck with this one.

When you bought the bottles, was there anything on the paperwork which made it clear these bottles were being sold with no recourse if they proved to be defective?

UK consumer law gives a retail buyer quite a lot of protection if goods are sold which are not fit for purpose or not as described.

Equally, does the paperwork show that you are buying these bottles from Farr’s or were Farr’s broking these bottles from from one of their clients?

There wasn't any paperwork to speak of - they were bottles listed on their website, but since I had a couple of questions we proceeded by email.

I’m going to take a different line here. I want there to be a Port business. I want there to be a Madeira business. I want.

So who owns the risks of an old bottle? We know of the risks; they know of the risks. If they own those risks, that adds volatility — risk — to their business, and in effect uninsurable risk. Some would, indeed most should, just not play there.

Hence, when I buy a bottle, absent deliberate misrepresentation, I believe that I own the risks. It might outperform magnificently (W07 ʟʙᴠ, this evening). It might be rubbish (some, passim). If magnificent — hurray! — I do not make a late extra payment to the merchant. And if rubbish, likewise symmetrically.

Others seem to disagree.

I am one of those who disagree. If I buy a bottle at retail prices, I expect to pay a premium compared to buying at auction or in a private sale.

That premium is the retailer’s risk premium for the possibility of the product not being fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. Some of the risk should be able to be passed by the retailer back through the supply chain to the producer, and ultimately to the cork producer.

I believe that only if the cork producer ends up being financially responsible for the damage they cause to the wine, will they be economically incentivised to invest in producing TCA free corks!

I've had success returning spoiled bottles if bought at retail from my local B&M's. I've never been declined, but I've only returned 3-4 bottles ever.

One time I had a bottle of corked Bordeaux I bought a case of and retailer took back the whole case.