Page 5 of 9
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 20:11 Mon 16 Jul 2018
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:39 Sun 15 Jul 2018
DRT wrote: ↑02:20 Thu 12 Jul 2018I now have enough data to suggest that the cost will be in the region of £240 per person, excluding food.
When do you want to be paid? Soon has the advantage of compelling decision by the indecisive.
Soon, but I have one more (WS1) to re-confirm and give me prices. I have PM'd and emailed with no reply. If someone has another form of contact please use it to point out latest British citizen in this direction.
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 01:02 Tue 17 Jul 2018
by DRT
Gents,
I have an option on two very old bottles that would take the cost per person from £240 to £300 including Port and tip for our friends at B&F. Food would be on top at cost.
I await condition reports on the bottles in question but if they look good my intention it to include both. Neither of these vintages have tasting notes on TPF.
If there is any serious objection to this please PM or email me or post in this thread. I am not trying to drive the cost up here, just trying to put a fabulous line-up on the table at reasonable cost. If there is a Brexit-style revolt I will happily "do a May" and change my mind
Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 11:40 Tue 17 Jul 2018
by jdaw1
DRT wrote:If there is a Brexit-style revolt I will happily "do a May" and change my mind
Jeremy was a serial rebeller, and May causes same. Instead my behaviour will be obedient in the style of the SNP. Is that what you want?
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 13:53 Tue 17 Jul 2018
by idj123
No objection here-if it's worth doing then it's worth doing well!
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 14:02 Tue 17 Jul 2018
by Axel P
DRT wrote: ↑01:02 Tue 17 Jul 2018
I have an option on two very old bottles that would take the cost per person from £240 to £300 including Port and tip for our friends at B&F. Food would be on top at cost.
Yes, please...
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 14:30 Tue 17 Jul 2018
by uncle tom
obedient in the style of the SNP
I sense an oxymoron coming on..
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 13:29 Wed 18 Jul 2018
by Alex Bridgeman
DRT wrote: ↑01:02 Tue 17 Jul 2018
Gents,
I have an option on two very old bottles that would take the cost per person from £240 to £300 including Port and tip for our friends at B&F. Food would be on top at cost.
I await condition reports on the bottles in question but if they look good my intention it to include both. Neither of these vintages have tasting notes on TPF.
If there is any serious objection to this please PM or email me or post in this thread. I am not trying to drive the cost up here, just trying to put a fabulous line-up on the table at reasonable cost. If there is a Brexit-style revolt I will happily "do a May" and change my mind
Oh no! Who put the completist in charge...
If there's no tasting note on TPF then I haven't tasted it before. Which means I'm up for the extra bottle(s).
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 18:39 Wed 18 Jul 2018
by WS1
Hi,
I am happy the completist is in charge! Following the "stay on winner strategy" we can look FWD to a great tasting similar to the Malvedos tasting that some mistakenly thought it was Graham's tasting
Regards
WS1
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 01:04 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by DRT
AHB wrote: ↑13:29 Wed 18 Jul 2018Oh no! Who put the completist in charge...
Is that a challenge?
Assuming by "complete" you simply mean filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977, we only have a few more to find: 1897, 1900, 1904, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1945, 1958 & 1966.
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 06:40 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by g-man
Wait, did Cockburn declare a 1966?
I thought they skipped and went for the 67' instead.
Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 08:03 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by jdaw1
g-man wrote:Wait, did Cockburn declare a 1966?
I thought they skipped and went for the 67' instead.
Declare, or make?
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 08:35 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by PhilW
jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:03 Thu 19 Jul 2018
g-man wrote:Wait, did Cockburn declare a 1966?
I thought they skipped and went for the 67' instead.
Declare, or make?
They most certainly made
Ck66.
Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by jdaw1
DRT wrote:Assuming by "complete" you simply mean filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977, we only have a few more to find: 1897, 1900, 1904, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1945, 1958 & 1966.
Please donʼt omit ʼ34, ʼ47, ʼ51, and ʼ78.
Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 08:48 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by PhilW
jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018
DRT wrote:Assuming by "complete" you simply mean filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977, we only have a few more to find: 1897, 1900, 1904, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1945, 1958 & 1966.
Please donʼt omit ʼ34, ʼ47, ʼ51, and ʼ78.
or '69...
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 14:07 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by uncle tom
Regret Co '66 is just too scarce to liberate another one at this time.
Of the seven bottles I secured in 2011, four now remain.
Unless the Symingtons uncover a stash (at the last count, they were not aware of any) it's one per decade now, I think..
Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 16:07 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018
DRT wrote:filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977
Please donʼt omit ... ʼ78.
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 16:09 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by DRT
Despite the temptation to go for a complete line-up I think we have about as many as we will find. Of those missing I think 1912 and 1945 would be top of the list to consider if we found them but the others are likely to be of academic interest only, and probably prohibitively expensive.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 17:44 Thu 19 Jul 2018
by jdaw1
DRT wrote:jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018
DRT wrote:filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977
Please donʼt omit ... ʼ78.
Not that ʼ78.
Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 01:40 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by g-man
jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:03 Thu 19 Jul 2018
g-man wrote:Wait, did Cockburn declare a 1966?
I thought they skipped and went for the 67' instead.
Declare, or make?
I see! 66' would be similar story to the 77' then?
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 19:38 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by DRT
I am delighted to inform you that we have two new additions to the line-up, which now looks like this:
1908 (Mag), 1912, 1920, 1924, 1927, 1935, 1947, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1967, 1970 & 2 x 1977
I remain hopeful that the 1896 will be on the table but await confirmation.
Not too shabby.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 19:46 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote: ↑17:44 Thu 19 Jul 2018
DRT wrote:jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018
DRT wrote:filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977
Please donʼt omit ... ʼ78.
Not that ʼ78.
Exactly which 78 falls between 96 and 77?
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 20:38 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by jdaw1
DRT wrote: ↑19:46 Fri 20 Jul 2018Exactly which 78 falls between 96 and 77?
I think that’s a misunderstanding of the misunderstanding.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018Please donʼt omit ʼ34, ʼ47, ʼ51, and ʼ78.
If these were all nineteens, only the ’78 would have been out-of-range. If they were eighteens, all would have been out-of-range. So let’s inspect your post.
DRT wrote: ↑16:07 Thu 19 Jul 2018jdaw1 wrote: ↑08:43 Thu 19 Jul 2018DRT wrote:filling the gaps between 1896 and 1977
Please donʼt omit ... ʼ78.
You even edited the post of mine that you quoted, to leave only the ’78. Which suggested a choice of century. Which is why my post hinted at requesting a reconsideration of that choice.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑17:44 Thu 19 Jul 2018Not that ʼ78.
Fair?
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 20:50 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by jdaw1
DRT wrote: ↑19:38 Fri 20 Jul 20181908 (Mag), 1912, 1920, 1924, 1927, 1935, 1947, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1967, 1970 & 2 x 1977
DRT wrote: ↑19:38 Fri 20 Jul 2018Not too shabby.
Not shabby, but a little light, so I have taken the liberty of not removing from the latest incarnation of
the placemats the 2×1975s. Obviously this is subject to the approval of the Master.
With one more bottle we could still be at a width of 2½×A4. But eighteen or more would require a width of 3×A4.
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 21:06 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by DRT
I am beginning to question my belief system.
Not more than a month ago CMAG asked for advice on buying LBV. Now JDAW is campaigning for the inclusion of not one, but two 1975s in a line-up of fabulous port.
I need to go and lie down. This is too much.
Re: Cockburn Vertical, Tue 2nd Oct 2018
Posted: 21:07 Fri 20 Jul 2018
by DRT
1975: why two?
