Are Port shippers accurate about the 'age' of their tawny?

[Wes_Barton]

I drink a lot of Port. Not quite as much as Andy though!
I’ve just broached a case each of Viera de Sousa 10 year old white and tawny. It’s not just what producers claim. Each batch of wine must be presented to the IVDP, the government regulatory agency, and they must pass a tasting panel. It also should be noted that the study claimed a plus or minus of two years in their figures.

Thanks.

No one pointed this out, but I think it would be fair to account for evaporation. The older components would be more concentrated.

[andy_velebil]

I drink a lot of Port. Not quite as much as Andy though!
I’ve just broached a case each of Viera de Sousa 10 year old white and tawny. It’s not just what producers claim. Each batch of wine must be presented to the IVDP, the government regulatory agency, and they must pass a tasting panel. It also should be noted that the study claimed a plus or minus of two years in their figures.

Thanks.

No one pointed this out, but I think it would be fair to account for evaporation. The older components would be more concentrated.

While what Eric mentions of needing to be approved by the IVDP, there are numerous accounts of the IVDP rejecting samples because they were “too old” or “too young” for the class, then simply a producer resubmitting a new sample of the same port and it being approved.

Granted most companies are reputable and don’t want issues so their aged tawnies are around the “average age”, or more likely above it. The bigger issue is with a minority of producers. And the even bigger issue is with any company producing a very inexpensive BOB (Buyers own Brand). They aren’t that cheap because they contain super old stocks…thats common sense.

Regardless, many of the current IVDP regulations were established shortly after WW2. At that time they were sufficient. Everything needs updating from time to time. And the IVDP has a documented history of conflict with EU regulations.

[PeterH]

I drink a lot of Port. Not quite as much as Andy though!
I’ve just broached a case each of Viera de Sousa 10 year old white and tawny. It’s not just what producers claim. Each batch of wine must be presented to the IVDP, the government regulatory agency, and they must pass a tasting panel. It also should be noted that the study claimed a plus or minus of two years in their figures.

Thanks.

No one pointed this out, but I think it would be fair to account for evaporation. The older components would be more concentrated.

Excellent point. The older components represent a lot more starting volume.
In any case, when I buy tawny Port, it is the flavor profile that matters, not the age.

[Ed_Steinway]

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
It would be interesting to see the last time folks commenting on this thread actually drank a 20 year Tawny as an example.

We have had both the Graham’s and the Ramos Pinto 20 year in the last 3 months. The Ramos Pinto was more expensive, but both my wife and I preferred it to the Graham’s. A while ago we had watched a one-hour documentary about “A Year in Porto” (Netflix, I think) and Ramos Pinto was one of the featured Port Houses and they showed a little of the blending process that they go through to make these Ports. It was fascinating and piqued our interest in trying the Ramos Pinto. Glad we did!

Ed

[Eric_Ifune]

One other point. The article said that the study tried to measure “average” age. If a particular blend for a 10 year old was, say, 50% 7 year old, 30% 8 year old, and 20% 18 year old, how would that measure out?

[Arv_R]

I don’t know. I think the shippers are going to have to increase their transparency and provide more comfort to consumers who are being asked to pay up for a product whose labeling is apparently not as obvious as what a layperson might think.

If this was USDA graded beef, and it was sold as Prime (with the upcharge), when it was only Choice, I don’t think a valid defense would be ‘well it tasted like Prime’. Even if consumers thought that.

I don’t drink much Porto - 2 or 3 bottles a year - usually LBV or VP so this might not directly affect me. Although I did have a 10Y Malmsey a week or two ago… But if the label can’t be relied on for fairly presented information, it hurts more than just the Tawnies. How would people feel if their 85 VP was actually 84 and 86 blended together?

[David_Bu3ker]

Isn’t that more than a little bit of hyperbole Arv?

[John_Morris]

Arv -

This was all news to me, and fascinating. But I’m not too exercised by the labels/categories. It seems that if you know the Portuguese appellation laws, it’s not misleading. The problem only comes if you construe the labels literally without knowing the rules.

We accept that a wine can be labeled “Cabernet sauvignon” when it’s only 75% that grape, and until the late 1970s, it only had to be 50% to qualify. Is/was that a deception? Perhaps to someone who reads the label literally.

Is it misleading for Rhone producers to bottle wines from very inferior variants of syrah that bear little resemblance to the serine form? A syrah lover might think so, but it’s OK under the rules.

Producers of genuine traditional balsamic vinegar (aged in a solera system in progressively smaller barrels over many, many years) will tell you that they generally can’t achieve “Extra Vecchio” status until their vinegar has spent 25 years or so in barrel. But there’s no strict age requirement. If a lot is certified at one level or the other by a blind tasting panel of the producers’ consorzio, it can bear the label, no matter how old it actually is.

My point is that, if we’re going to indict the port producers, we better be sure we’ve read the local wine laws.

[Arv_R]

If the shippers defense is that consumers have to read Portuguese wine laws, then their customer base is going to be a lot narrower.

The ‘whataboutism’ discussed above are all fair points, but to me those are more arcane, and less clear wrongdoing than (allegedly) selling Tawny that might (potentially) be 1 year old, and labeling it as a 10 Year, even if that latter term has imprecision in its definition.

The whole appellation control types of systems (whatever they may be called in each area) were supposed to give stakeholders security that everyone was being fairly treated.

[David_Bu3ker]

I would be way more concerned if I cared about any of the producers who allegedly don’t meet the Berserker definition of aged Tawny Port. Maybe Niepoort, but the rest don’t come close to moving the needle for me.

Ultimately this reminds me a lot of the “arsenic in your wine” stories.

[Keith_Levenberg]

I wasn’t aware of these shenanigans either. It’s mildly disappointing, not to the point I’d get worked up over it or avoid the product, but I am fascinated by the epistemological angle. So, if a 40-year tawny is a tawny that tastes like a 40-year tawny even if it’s not a 40-year tawny, then at what point does the 40-year tawny that’s not a 40-year tawny become the model for what it means to taste like a 40-year tawny until one day nobody even knows what a 40-year tawny tastes like anymore?

[RyanC]

Arv -

This was all news to me, and fascinating. But I’m not too exercised by the labels/categories. It seems that if you know the Portuguese appellation laws, it’s not misleading. The problem only comes if you construe the labels literally without knowing the rules.

We accept that a wine can be labeled “Cabernet sauvignon” when it’s only 75% that grape, and until the late 1970s, it only had to be 50% to qualify. Is/was that a deception? Perhaps to someone who reads the label literally.

Is it misleading for Rhone producers to bottle wines from very inferior variants of syrah that bear little resemblance to the serine form? A syrah lover might think so, but it’s OK under the rules.

Producers of genuine traditional balsamic vinegar (aged in a solera system in progressively smaller barrels over many, many years) will tell you that they generally can’t achieve “Extra Vecchio” status until their vinegar has spent 25 years or so in barrel. But there’s no strict age requirement. If a lot is certified at one level or the other by a blind tasting panel of the producers’ consorzio, it can bear the label, no matter how old it actually is.

My point is that, if we’re going to indict the port producers, we better be sure we’ve read the local wine laws.

I get what you’re saying, but I’m not really on board with the analogies. Saying 20 years or 30 years in an objective assertion meant to imply something factual. To me, the notion of “Cabernet” is different. I don’t think there’s the same expectation that Cabernet is 100% Cabernet – and I really doubt that people somehow think the wine is less good or less valuable or they’d pay less for it when they learn other grapes are involved. The Port story is different. With tawny port, people are paying more to drink something that is pitched as being older – and there’s a real numerical designation to support the pricing. That’s the whole marketing concept! It’s misleading on its face and it’s not subtle. Whether people care is a different matter, but I don’t think consumers would accept Scotch that says 12 years but really was aged only 8 years. Or a Corvette that says 400hp but is really 300hp – it just feels like a 400hp car might feel. Or a house that’s 3,000 sqft but lives like a 3,500 sqft home. The fact that Portuguese law allows it is obviously relevant – but it doesn’t diminish the misleading effect.

Me personally? I don’t really care. This thread has actually reminded me to buy some Port. But I do find it mildly disappointing and damn near scandalous if it weren’t apparently so well established.

[john_stimson]

My biggest problem with Tawny port (which I love much more than other Ports) is that it really doesn’t start to get my attention until you get to 30 or 40 years. And for some reason, these are expensive.

[David_Bu3ker]

I sense some folks are mentally indicting Taylor, Fonseca, Graham’s, etc. when they were not part of this study.

[Jon_Drummond]

How about the flipside - a tawny that is actually 10 years of age, but is rejected by the IVDP as it doesnt taste like a 10 year old?

It’s all a bit of a nonsense. The authorities have a benchmark that can be made objective (eg. make it a requirement that all components at at least the age stated), however they choose to dabble in this taste testing.

[John_Morris]

My biggest problem with Tawny port (which I love much more than other Ports) is that it really doesn’t start to get my attention until you get to 30 or 40 years. And for some reason, these are expensive.

It’s not easy or cheap to make a five-year-old fortified wine taste like one six or eight times its age!

[John_Morris]

I wasn’t aware of these shenanigans either. It’s mildly disappointing, not to the point I’d get worked up over it or avoid the product, but I am fascinated by the epistemological angle. So, if a 40-year tawny is a tawny that tastes like a 40-year tawny even if it’s not a 40-year tawny, then at what point does the 40-year tawny that’s not a 40-year tawny become the model for what it means to taste like a 40-year tawny until one day nobody even knows what a 40-year tawny tastes like anymore?

Another classic problem of self-reference like those that have perplexed philosophers for several millennia.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

I’m not upset at Taylor re my 20s. For one, the article doesn’t say anything about their tawny flunking, so either they passed or they weren’t tested. For another, I like the wine and for how it tastes it’s worth the price.

I do think the rule is strange, though. It would have occurred to me that “20 year old tawny” might mean the oldest component is 20 or the youngest is 20 or the average is 20, but it would not have occurred to me that it meant “tastes like it’s 20.” Similar to a prior comment, I think that’s a bit like saying you can label a VP as 1994 if it tastes like a 1994 (though I recognize there’s a difference in precision).

I would prefer that if the designations are to depend on taste rather than age, they be something fanciful like VSOP and XO rather than something mathematical like 20 years old. Then the rule for VSOP could still be “tastes like it’s 10 years old” and XO could be “tastes like it’s 20,” etc.

Not that they’re going to ask me.

[John_Morris]

I get what you’re saying, but I’m not really on board with the analogies. Saying 20 years or 30 years in an objective assertion meant to imply something factual. To me, the notion of “Cabernet” is different. I don’t think there’s the same expectation that Cabernet is 100% Cabernet – and I really doubt that people somehow think the wine is less good or less valuable or they’d pay less for it when they learn other grapes are involved. …

But I suspect that expectation stems from the fact that you know cabernet is often blended, and (I assume) from your knowledge that US rules allow that.

My point, again, is that whether you find any of this misleading as opposed to quirky depends on your knowledge of the rules, and I think it’s a little unfair to read the tawny port labels literally and complain without knowing anything about the local laws. We’re wine geeks, after all – we’re supposed to know stuff like this!

[John_Morris]

I’m not upset at Taylor re my 20s. For one, the article doesn’t say anything about their tawny flunking, so either they passed or they weren’t tested. For another, I like the wine and for how it tastes it’s worth the price.

I do think the rule is strange, though. It would have occurred to me that “20 year old tawny” might mean the oldest component is 20 or the youngest is 20 or the average is 20, but it would not have occurred to me that it meant “tastes like it’s 20.” Similar to a prior comment that’s a bit like saying you can label a VP as 1994 if it tastes like a 1994 (though I recognize there’s a difference in precision).

I would prefer that if the designations are to depend on taste rather than age, they be something fanciful like VSOP and XO rather than something mathematical like 20 years old. Then the definition for VSOP could still be “tastes like it’s 10 years old” and XO could be “tastes like it’s 20,” etc.

Not that they’re going to ask me.

That’s a very sensible take.