A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
Which, for instance, is materially different from what Roy states that it guarantees:Glenn E. wrote:I think it only "guarantees" that the Port meets/follows the IVDP's regulations.
And I have come across other statements elsewhere that seem to imply different meanings to the guarantee[url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/faqs/port-faqs]Here[/url], Roy wrote: It assures the consumer that the contents of the bottle came from the demarcated Douro region in Portugal.
Not really - Roy's statement is a subset of mine. One of the IVDP's regulations is that Port must come from the demarcated Douro region in Portugal.RAYC wrote:Which, for instance, is materially different from what Roy states that it guarantees:Glenn E. wrote:I think it only "guarantees" that the Port meets/follows the IVDP's regulations.
[url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/faqs/port-faqs]Here[/url], Roy wrote: It assures the consumer that the contents of the bottle came from the demarcated Douro region in Portugal.
So...it is a guarantee that the contents of the bottle must come from the demarcated Douro region in Portugal, despite the fact that approx 16.5% of the contents do not actually come from there...?Glenn E. wrote:Not really - Roy's statement is a subset of mine. One of the IVDP's regulations is that Port must come from the demarcated Douro region in Portugal.RAYC wrote:Which, for instance, is materially different from what Roy states that it guarantees:Glenn E. wrote:I think it only "guarantees" that the Port meets/follows the IVDP's regulations.
[url=http://www.fortheloveofport.com/faqs/port-faqs]Here[/url], Roy wrote: It assures the consumer that the contents of the bottle came from the demarcated Douro region in Portugal.
But... no, I don't have an official source or link to the actual regulation(s) other than just using the IVDP web site.
...and then acknowledge that in order to fall within that definition a wine must have been:Glenn E. wrote:it "guarantees" that the Port meets/follows the IVDP's regulations.
ok - this is interesting and i had not appreciated the fact - thanks! This is all i was really trying to confirm on this threadDRT wrote:there is no official definition of what the selo actually means.
Sorry - i never meant to give the impression that the use of non-Douro aguardente was an issue in terms of the regulations - it is quite clearly not (and my comments should not be interpreted as such).DRT wrote:As for the aguardente question, my view is that this is a non-issue....If the IVDP had a regulation which said that 100% of the contents of Port wine had to come from within the demarcated region then there would be an issue. But the regulations don't say that, so I don't think there is an issue. The issue that you are highlighting is an issue of inappropriate and confusing paraphrasing of the regulations. Unfortunately, the Regulator is contributing to the confusion
Another thread did make me think that you were not entirely stretched by your employer todayRAYC wrote:one that piqued my interest on a slow work day!
Yes - if only i had brought the backlog of TNs in with me...DRT wrote:Another thread did make me think that you were not entirely stretched by your employer todayRAYC wrote:one that piqued my interest on a slow work day!
In fact I think that the original requirement was that it NOT come from the Douro region. This was put in as a bit of appeasement to the growers whose vineyards were outside of the newly minted region and who were suddenly being excluded from making a product that they were used to making.DRT wrote:As for the aguardente question, my view is that this is a non-issue. At no time in history has it been the case that the aguardente used to fortify the wines of the Douro region have had to come from within the region.
Port has other problems along those lines, the most blatant being that "10 Year Old Tawny Port" is not 10 years old, nor is it at least 10 years old, nor does it even average 10 years old. A 10 Year Old Tawny Port has merely been judged to meet the IVDP's profile of what a 10-yr old tawny Port should taste like.RAYC wrote:But on the marketing side, i do see that there's a slight conundrum if the wine is presented as being 100% from the Douro region.
A producer can now buy aguardente from whatever supplier he/she want to, so long as it conforms to IVDP rules. Whatever aguardente you use, it has to be approved by the IVDP. Anyone who's been to the Douro will notice the tanks holding the aguardente are sealed by the IVDP. Do you have a photo of the tanks? I haven’t noticed them (though I guess I haven’t been looking) and have been wondering what they look like!Andy Velebil wrote:In the old days, a producer had to buy their aguardente from the (then called) IVP. Not the best of ideas as the aguardente scandal of the early 1970's can attest to
Does that mean no-one is producing a Douro aguardente for drinking purposes? Although I’ve never tried it, I’ve seen that for sale a few times and I think Niepoort used to sell it commercially.Andy Velebil wrote:DRT is correct, it is not viable from a cost perspective to make aguardente in the Douro. The sole processing plant near Naples is now closed and out of business.
It’s particularly odd considering that 40-year-olds are sold as ‟At least 40 years old” everywhere except the States, apparently to comply with American labelling laws! It’s a bit like saying New Zealand Pinot Noir can be sold as ‟Beaujolais” but not ‟Burgundy”...Glenn E. wrote:Granted, most if not all are at least 10 years old on average, but to meet US law it's supposed to be a requirement. (In fact I think that the contents must be 100% at least 10 years old, not just an average, but I wouldn't swear to that.) I'm not quite sure how the Port industry manages to get the labeling of tawnies with an indication of age through US customs law.RAYC wrote:But on the marketing side, i do see that there's a slight conundrum if the wine is presented as being 100% from the Douro region.
Are these new bottles? If so, they should definitely have a selo otherwise they are possibly fake.g-man wrote:none of my tawnies or rubies have a selo.
I checked my pics and I don't see one. Sorry.Do you have a photo of the tanks? I haven’t noticed them (though I guess I haven’t been looking) and have been wondering what they look like!
All the producers I've spoken to test or evaluate the Aguardente they use in some way.It must be a good thing that more effort is being put into the aguardente these days considering what a large component of the wine it makes up. Though I’d be interested in finding out how many shippers do proper tasting and experiments.
I was told last October that there is no aguadente being produced in the Douro anymore, as the sole remaining processing plant west of Quinta d. Napoles closed. I was told it isn't cost effective to do it in the Douro. From a historical perspective, many producers made their own from small stills on the Quinta. IIRC, you can still see the original stills used by Vista Allegre and Quinta da Gaivosa, which they have on display.Does that mean no-one is producing a Douro aguardente for drinking purposes? Although I’ve never tried it, I’ve seen that for sale a few times and I think Niepoort used to sell it commercially.
DRT wrote:Are these new bottles? If so, they should definitely have a selo otherwise they are possibly fake.g-man wrote:none of my tawnies or rubies have a selo.
...and it is not permissable to fortify Port with anything other than distilled grape spirit - i.e. aguardente. The producers don't have the choice to use any other form of spirit.
False.We can call it whatever we want, but it's really all ethanol, rather dated rule considering they don't even make the stuff within the country.
I am sorry, I don't see how you can draw the conclusion from anything in my last post that I was implying that whatsoever.are you implying Roy, that the aguarmente utilized would be noticeable in something like a tawny that see's so much wood time anyway?
Yes, but cheaper is not typically better when it comes to aguardente. The price differential is not that dramatic when figuring in the 4:1 ratio used for fortification. So savings may be of consequence to the producer but won't translate to much $avings by the time the finished product reaches the consumer level.Would it not be better for the customer and the producer if they are able to source one component of their drink for cheaper esp if the producer passes the savings onto the customer?
Yes, that is a nice fantasy. The savings realized by any scheme to purchase aguardente is not going to make anywhere near that type of difference. I realize if one has not been involved in the economics of Port, close up, that they may just misconstrue the realities of how things work on a tangible level, vs. what "seems to make sense." Please know this is NOT said, trying to be condescending, but in clarification of the above noted prices you mentioned.Imagine a tyalor 20 year tawny that goes for 30$ instead of 40$.
Code: Select all
that would be good in my opinion
If I'm reading this right, you're saying the price differences of cheap versus top quality aguardente isn't enough to warrant a price differential at retail? Because that is in stark contrast to what many producers have told me. A good case in point is why Croft Pink was and is so expensive. After trials they ended up having to use the same top quality aguardente they use for their VP, which drove the costs up both at wholesale and then of course at retail level.Roy Hersh wrote:Yes, but cheaper is not typically better when it comes to aguardente. The price differential is not that dramatic when figuring in the 4:1 ratio used for fortification. So savings may be of consequence to the producer but won't translate to much $avings by the time the finished product reaches the consumer level.Would it not be better for the customer and the producer if they are able to source one component of their drink for cheaper esp if the producer passes the savings onto the customer?
I'd have to throw the BS flag on this one. While I don't question your tasting skills, but I'd be very surprised that if ethanol is cut properly with water and sugars and then aged in wood for >10 years, anyone would be very very hard pressed to taste the difference.Roy Hersh wrote:I am sorry, I don't see how you can draw the conclusion from anything in my last post that I was implying that whatsoever.are you implying Roy, that the aguarmente utilized would be noticeable in something like a tawny that see's so much wood time anyway?
But for the record, the difference between a high quality aguardente and cheap/poorly made aguardente can absolutely be tasted in ANY kind of Port, but that doesn't mean it necessarily will be ... just that the type of Port has no bearing on its ability to be perceived. When a Port gives off a spirituous aroma or tastes very warm or hot ... it MAY be due to crappy aguardente. The opposite is true of a seamless and smooth Port which is made better by high quality aguardente. To see the difference go into a Gaia tasting room and taste different batches. I've done this several times (permitted by producers) and it is very telling.
Andy Velebil wrote:If I'm reading this right, you're saying the price differences of cheap versus top quality aguardente isn't enough to warrant a price differential at retail? Because that is in stark contrast to what many producers have told me. A good case in point is why Croft Pink was and is so expensive. After trials they ended up having to use the same top quality aguardente they use for their VP, which drove the costs up both at wholesale and then of course at retail level.Roy Hersh wrote:Yes, but cheaper is not typically better when it comes to aguardente. The price differential is not that dramatic when figuring in the 4:1 ratio used for fortification. So savings may be of consequence to the producer but won't translate to much $avings by the time the finished product reaches the consumer level.Would it not be better for the customer and the producer if they are able to source one component of their drink for cheaper esp if the producer passes the savings onto the customer?
You're talking about pure ethanol cut with (presumably) distilled water.g-man wrote:I'd have to throw the BS flag on this one. While I don't question your tasting skills, but I'd be very surprised that if ethanol is cut properly with water and sugars and then aged in wood for >10 years, anyone would be very very hard pressed to taste the difference.
Actually, I think the problem isn't low benchmarks, it's that the IVDP approves a cask sample before the wine goes for bottling. Think about the possibilities for compromise of quality in the bottling process if the producer is - god forbid!! - sloppy about transport, hygiene, cork quality, you name it...DRT wrote: In the case of VP, I think it should actually be capable of being relied upon as a quality guarantee given that the wines must pass a quality test prior to being bottled and released for sale. Unfortunately, there is so much mystery around that process, and so many inexplicable anomalies, that no one could actually rely on such a guarantee unless the quality benchmark was exceedingly low.
Now, if all of those elements are compulsory, does this mean that English-bottled ports (which have no selo) or Oporto-bottled ports that were shipped prior to foundation of the IVDP (and so have the IVP selo...or nothing if you go back far enough) are not really Port...?!IVDP wrote:Be careful:
- Verify if the bottle contains the appellation of origin Port (or its translations);
- Verify if the bottle contains the guarantee seal issued by IVDP (this seal has security elements);
- Verify it the label contains the indication ‟Produced in Portugal”.
- Note: all of these elements are compulsory and, therefore, must be on the labelling of the Port wine bottles
Is there anything there that indicates that the aguardente must be produced from grapes of the same harvest as the grapes from the Douro which produce the grape must? Or could Vintage Ports actually be "non-vintage" (technically/strictly speaking), in the sense of being composed from grapes of various vintages?Cynthia J wrote:Regarding aguardente, on the IVDP site go to http://www.ivdp.pt/pagina.asp?codPag=48 ... 6&idioma=1 and the third item down is the legislation regarding aguardente - click link to open PDF in portuguese only. Skimming quickly, it requires that aguardente destined for use in Moscatel do Douro or Vinho do Porto must be tested and approved by the IVDP and sets out some strict requirements about collecting and reviewing samples, the registration of the producer, the handling and tracking in transit, and more.
unless yer talking about hooch, I dont think aguardente is anywhere near 77% alcohol. I'd say 30-40% ABV is probably what I'd expect to see.Glenn E. wrote:You're talking about pure ethanol cut with (presumably) distilled water.g-man wrote:I'd have to throw the BS flag on this one. While I don't question your tasting skills, but I'd be very surprised that if ethanol is cut properly with water and sugars and then aged in wood for >10 years, anyone would be very very hard pressed to taste the difference.
Roy is talking about aguardente.
Two very different things. Aguardente is only 77% ethanol. (Haha... "only." 77% alcohol will burn steadily and brightly at room temperature.) The other 23% contains impurities no matter how high quality the aguardente is. Those impurities are what gives it flavor, or in the case of Port are what affect the Port.
The taste of aguardente will mellow with age as does the taste of Port, but the effect is still there. I would expect to be able to taste the difference between a 20-yr old Tawny made with high quality aguardente and one made with low quality aguardente just as I would expect to be able to taste the difference between ones made with high quality grapes and low quality grapes.
In that specific case, then yeah there's probably not a lot of difference. A high quality aguardente is going to be as neutral as they can make it.g-man wrote:However if you took a high quality one and had a controlled test with pure ethanol that is cut with water, after you've made the port and stuck it in barrel for 10 + years, I'd have to say that I seriously doubt anyone who tells me that the one made with ethanol would adversely affect the taste quality of the tawny.
heh wordpress is denied at work =)Glenn E. wrote:In that specific case, then yeah there's probably not a lot of difference. A high quality aguardente is going to be as neutral as they can make it.g-man wrote:However if you took a high quality one and had a controlled test with pure ethanol that is cut with water, after you've made the port and stuck it in barrel for 10 + years, I'd have to say that I seriously doubt anyone who tells me that the one made with ethanol would adversely affect the taste quality of the tawny.
And before Cynthia beats me to it... the Aguardente used for Port is 77% alcohol.
Aguardente made for drinking has much lower ABV - in the 30% range as you guessed.
You obviously have never had a 1972 Offley VP, made with industrial alcohol. Has to be the worst, and I mean worst, VP I've ever had. It was like drinking rubbing alcohol mixed with old grape juice. Roy, Glenn, Stewart, and I all had it at the same time and it was horrible.g-man wrote:
However if you took a high quality one and had a controlled test with pure ethanol that is cut with water, after you've made the port and stuck it in barrel for 10 + years, I'd have to say that I seriously doubt anyone who tells me that the one made with ethanol would adversely affect the taste quality of the tawny.
Andy Velebil wrote:You obviously have never had a 1972 Offley VP, made with industrial alcohol. Has to be the worst, and I mean worst, VP I've ever had. It was like drinking rubbing alcohol mixed with old grape juice. Roy, Glenn, Stewart, and I all had it at the same time and it was horrible.g-man wrote:
However if you took a high quality one and had a controlled test with pure ethanol that is cut with water, after you've made the port and stuck it in barrel for 10 + years, I'd have to say that I seriously doubt anyone who tells me that the one made with ethanol would adversely affect the taste quality of the tawny.
Although the Dow 72 - also supposedly made with industrial alcohol (in fact, was this in the days where it had to be purchase from the IVP?) - was actually very pleasant and showed no ill effects. So perhaps it was just a badly-made Offley.Andy Velebil wrote:You obviously have never had a 1972 Offley VP, made with industrial alcohol. Has to be the worst, and I mean worst, VP I've ever had. It was like drinking rubbing alcohol mixed with old grape juice. Roy, Glenn, Stewart, and I all had it at the same time and it was horrible.g-man wrote:
However if you took a high quality one and had a controlled test with pure ethanol that is cut with water, after you've made the port and stuck it in barrel for 10 + years, I'd have to say that I seriously doubt anyone who tells me that the one made with ethanol would adversely affect the taste quality of the tawny.
u can buy multiple grades of industry ethanolGlenn E. wrote:You also said pure ethanol, which isn't the same as industrial ethanol.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
It's late ... you're over thinking! (Or am I missing the teasing wind-up note here?) Yes, I suppose you could argue what's in the bottle it's not purely that XXXX vintage since the aguardente has to have been made at some previous time in order to be available for use during XXXX vintage. On the other hand, the sugar used for chaptalisation of all kinds of wines comes from sugar beets or cane... so is the stuff in that bottle not really wine, since it's got non-grape-derived material in there? (oh gawd I just opened a can of worms, didn't I?)RAYC wrote:Is there anything there that indicates that the aguardente must be produced from grapes of the same harvest as the grapes from the Douro which produce the grape must? Or could Vintage Ports actually be "non-vintage" (technically/strictly speaking), in the sense of being composed from grapes of various vintages?
No - i had never really thought about it before - and until now my definition of a "vintage port" would usually include the sentence "produced from the grapes of a single harvest", or some variation of that, which i suppose i should really re-consider when explaining to people who do not know much about Port.Cynthia J wrote: It's late ... you're over thinking! (Or am I missing the teasing wind-up note here?) Yes, I suppose you could argue what's in the bottle it's not purely that XXXX vintage since the aguardente has to have been made at some previous time in order to be available for use during XXXX vintage. On the other hand, the sugar used for chaptalisation of all kinds of wines comes from sugar beets or cane... so is the stuff in that bottle not really wine, since it's got non-grape-derived material in there? (oh gawd I just opened a can of worms, didn't I?)
), though this just "feels" to me like it should be regarded in the same way as the addition of yeast to start the fermentation process. But apparently the the dosage of champagne with "liqueur d'expédition" immediately after disgorging is common practice, and i suppose is a similar type of principle. I guess it is the sheer quantity of aguardente in the process that made me step back. I hope not - I've only just got used to the idea of the occaisonal decomposing insect/vermin or horseshoe ('for luck') in 'traditional' scrumpy cider, but worms in my port?! arrrrgh! (interesting thread/discussion to read btw)Cynthia J wrote:so is the stuff in that bottle not really wine, since it's got non-grape-derived material in there? (oh gawd I just opened a can of worms, didn't I?)
well if they ran out of aguardente and used tequila instead you might end up with a few wormsPhilW wrote:I hope not - I've only just got used to the idea of the occaisonal decomposing insect/vermin or horseshoe ('for luck') in 'traditional' scrumpy cider, but worms in my port?! arrrrgh! (interesting thread/discussion to read btw)Cynthia J wrote:so is the stuff in that bottle not really wine, since it's got non-grape-derived material in there? (oh gawd I just opened a can of worms, didn't I?)
Actually my logic is to take in a sufficient quantity of chocolate or cheese (or bangers and mash!) that the alcohol content is effectively reduced in my system...RAYC wrote: Anyway - i am happy with the idea that you can "overlook" the aguardente - by the same logic i can pretend that the Port is only actually 8% ABV and justify drinking so much more!
Anyway - i am happy with the idea that you can "overlook" the aguardente - by the same logic i can pretend that the Port is only actually 8% ABV and justify drinking so much more!
My logic is to regard alcohol as a foodstuff and not worry about it..Actually my logic is to take in a sufficient quantity of chocolate or cheese (or bangers and mash!) that the alcohol content is effectively reduced in my system...
Are these considered simple or complex Carbohydrate's? Or does it depend based on how simple or complex the Port is?uncle tom wrote:
My logic is to regard alcohol as a foodstuff and not worry about it..
..for the last three decades the bulk of my carbohydrate intake has been ethanol...
You joke...I remain convinced that the right amount of alcohol the night before heavy aerobic exercise acts as a very effective lactate buffer.Andy Velebil wrote:Are these considered simple or complex Carbohydrate's? Or does it depend based on how simple or complex the Port is?uncle tom wrote:
My logic is to regard alcohol as a foodstuff and not worry about it..
..for the last three decades the bulk of my carbohydrate intake has been ethanol...
I think I must be finding it difficult to judge what is "the right amount"RAYC wrote:You joke...I remain convinced that the right amount of alcohol the night before heavy aerobic exercise acts as a very effective lactate buffer.Andy Velebil wrote:Are these considered simple or complex Carbohydrate's? Or does it depend based on how simple or complex the Port is?uncle tom wrote:
My logic is to regard alcohol as a foodstuff and not worry about it..
..for the last three decades the bulk of my carbohydrate intake has been ethanol...