European scientists have been radio carbon dating select tawnies, and determined inconsistencies
The list of average age of Tawny Ports which are allegedly younger than stated age, according to the University of Groningen radiocarbon dating study (with a margin of error of two years) is below.
Royal Oporto 10 Year Tawny: aged between 1 and 4 years
Lagarada 10 Year Tawny: aged between 2 and 4 years
Varossio 10 Year Tawny: aged between 2 and 6 years.
Pocas 20 Year Tawny: aged between 15 and 17 years
Niepoort 10 Year Tawny: aged between 5 and 8 years
Pocas 10 Year Tawny aged: between 7 and 9 years
Porto Seguro 20 Year Tawny: aged between 17 and 19 years.
I understand that there can be error bars around this form of age estimation…but for some of the names above the gap seems to be too large to be explained.
Tawny’s aren’t supposed to be the age stated on the label, rather they are a mix of vintages that have been aged until the winemaker feels the wine shows as a [20] year Tawny Port from that house should show.
My understanding is that the age statement is supposed to represent the average age of the component vintages…so for example a 20 year could have some 5 year in it, as long as it was balanced by a much older vintage.
According to the Wine Bible, “[Tawny Ports] are labeled as either ten, twenty… years old, depending on the average age of the wines by flavor. In other words, a twenty-year old tawny Port tastes, to an experienced Port maker, like it is made up of wines that are about twenty years old, but in fact aren’t necessarily that old.” (italics in original)
I’ve spent an awful lot of time thinking about wine. And drinking wine. Even some port. But this is completely new info to me and totally surprising. Not sure what I think about it–at first impression it seems deceptive in the extreme. (But I haven’t bought a tawny in years.) I figured it was an average of the wines. I suppose one learns something new daily.
On a completely collateral topic, I’ve often thought this would be a good gimmick from Champagne producers: 20y or 30y or whatever Champagne. Something in between NV and Vintage.
It’s not exactly what you are suggesting, but some producers have introduced “solera style” Champagnes that have a continual range of vintages. Then there’s the Laurent-Perrier Grand Siecle (sp?) that is a three vintage year blend.
This looks like a story that will ripple over to other markets if the news has some legs.
In our area, the retail price difference between the typical 10 Yr tawny vs a regular tawny is about $10-12, so one can see the producer incentive to sell younger ports as if they were older.
It’s not new information. The idea that it is surprising to some here makes sense, but the process around Tawny Ports has been the way it is for a very long time. In terms of documentation that is easily accessible, my copy of the Oxford Companion was published is from 1994, and I bet there were common books with similar info well before that.
I’d be interested to see this done with Madeira. The Henriques & Henriques age designates seem so much more aged (in a very good way) than comparable age designates from some of the bigger names. I asked someone from H&H why that was, wondering if they over-aged theirs. I saw a big smile. He said he doesn’t know what anyone else does, but that H&H ages for the amount of time stated on the bottle (so not longer).
I don’t care if it’s ‘a rule’ or not, still deceptive. What’s to stop anyone from manufacturing a 10 or 20 year “taste”?
Mega Purple is ‘legal’ too, doesn’t mean it’s not deceptive.
This is actually a really interesting and helpful way to think about it. Like others, I’m surprised to hear about this, particularly because so much of Europe has such strict rules on wine production.
I’ve found that Kopke smells, tastes, and looks older than others labeled 10 yr. or 20 yr. I’ve also read that their blends include at least some portion that is much older than 10 or 20 years, respectively. I don’t understand taking Kopke off the shelves due to tiny amounts of “harmless, synthetic alcohol”. I wonder why the substance was not named, or a potential source identified.
I’m not unsympathetic with what the port houses are doing, in targeting a style, but why not use designations like mature / very old / very special old. Etc ?