ThePortForum.com

Posted: **13:31 Wed 07 Jul 2021**

JacobH wrote: ↑11:08 Wed 07 Jul 2021
winesecretary wrote: ↑00:21 Wed 07 Jul 2021 There is a more fundamental measure, which is highly personal. What is, for you, a decent mouthful? How many decent mouthfuls do you want of one wine? That is the perfect size of bottle, if drinking alone.
It seems to me that Riedel is missing a trick. Not only could they market glasses specially designed for every grape variety under the sun, they could also offer a bespoke range where the glass is then scaled to 𝑥 × your personal mouthful size, so you never have an unsatisfying small amount left in the glass when you finish. Perhaps I should patent this idea and see if I can flog it to them?

A Tappit Hen glass…an interesting idea!

Posted: **13:59 Wed 07 Jul 2021**

A Tappit Hen glass…an interesting idea!

And now that the Tappit Hen has been redefined as a tregnum, it is worth noting that a Quart is almost exactly half that size. So anyone allergic to the notion of imperial quarts and pints can call them Half Tappits or Quarter Tappits instead..

Posted: **17:52 Wed 07 Jul 2021**

uncle tom wrote: ↑21:19 Tue 06 Jul 2021
Which is never.
The amusing bit about this debate is that whichever way you look at it, a revert to British Imperial measure makes the most sense - by chance, rather than design or contrivance admittedly, but it works best.

Only for you. If I were to buy your arguments, which I don't, then for me the reversion that makes the most sense is to American measures. The larger British sizes (and smaller ounce) make no sense to 330 million of us over here.

The rest of your arguments are largely pedantry. Yes, yes, base 60 would actually be the best counting system, but no one uses it as a general counting system anymore so it's a moot argument. Base 2 works for computers but is unwieldy for humans. I mean, who wants a 1011101110 ml bottle?

The crux of the issue is really Julian's point - what's the base unit? You argue for Imperial units (which is what, the ounce? pint? quart? gallon?) while I argue for the liter. Then if you really want to use multiples of 2, you have half and quarter liters, or 2L, 4L, etc.

Most of your argument sounds like NIHEIIIF. Not Invented Here, Especially If Invented In France. Understandable for someone from the UK, but that doesn't make it logical.

Posted: **18:34 Wed 07 Jul 2021**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑17:52 Wed 07 Jul 2021Most of your argument sounds like NIHEIIIF. Not Invented Here, Especially If Invented In France.

The score is one-all. The French thoroughly won the battle of the numbers (the universe itself is measured in m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²) but we thoroughly won the battle of the words (English is the new Latin).

Posted: **19:22 Wed 07 Jul 2021**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑18:34 Wed 07 Jul 2021
Glenn E. wrote: ↑17:52 Wed 07 Jul 2021Most of your argument sounds like NIHEIIIF. Not Invented Here, Especially If Invented In France.
The score is one-all. The French thoroughly won the battle of the numbers (the universe itself is measured in m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²) but we thoroughly won the battle of the words (English is the new Latin).

Generally speaking, that seems like it favors England over France to me. The French weren't smart enough to name their numbering system The Francic System, after all.

Posted: **19:56 Wed 07 Jul 2021**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑18:34 Wed 07 Jul 2021
Glenn E. wrote: ↑17:52 Wed 07 Jul 2021but we thoroughly won the battle of the words (English is the new Latin).
I hope it stays this way.. my Latin or Chinese is very bad...

ThePortForum.com

Port myths and their truth

Re: Port myths and their truth

Re: Port myths and their truth

Re: Port myths and their truth

Re: Port myths and their truth

Re: Port myths and their truth

Re: Port myths and their truth