I hadn't realised it was deliberate placement, in which case I am happy.JacobH wrote:This is a bit of a problem. Essentially, if someone posts ‟Sandeman Ruby (bottled 2010)” then, I agree, it might make sense for it to be listed without a date, rather than with one. However, if someone posts ‟Sandeman Ruby (bottled 1910)” then there is a strong argument that that should be listed with its date, since it’s the date that makes it interesting. Also a review of a 1910 Ruby is not going to be of much use to someone looking for notes on a recently purchased bottle.
I suppose, as a compromise, I could kill the bottling dates if they are more recent, so only those which have a significant time in the bottle appear. Looking at what we have at the moment, there aren’t any non-vintage Ports with bottling dates in the 1990s, 2000 or 2001 on the list, so we could start killing the dates from 2002 onwards, or have it on a rolling basis starting a decade ago.
However, to pick up on the points you have raised, perhaps one way to keep people happy would be to sub-categorise the NV heading. In other words, you could have:
Sandeman 20 year old tawny
That way, if someone has tasted an old bottling (such as the 3* Sandeman Ruby that was estimated to have been bottled in the 1930s that Derek opened a few years ago), people can find it easily - just look up Sandeman Ruby. But the primary location would be NV port - since that's what it is.
The suggestion that I have made could also be applied to colheitas which have multiple bottling dates.
Or am I now making too much work? (In which case, put my idea in the "good idea, but impractical" basket.)