Quinta dos Malvedos: 22nd March 2010

[DRT]

In case anyone is stressing that we may not have enough Port for 22nd March, the missing vintages of Malvedos are:

Graham Malvedos 1950
Graham Malvedos 1951
Graham Malvedos 1952
Graham Malvedos 1953
Graham Malvedos 1954
Graham Malvedos 1961
Graham Malvedos 1992
Graham Malvedos 1995 or 1996
Graham Malvedos 1999
Graham Malvedos 2005

We are therefore a mere 10 bottles away from a complete vertical. Do I really need to start quoting Rule 48?

[jdaw1]

At 165 pages, the Malvedos placemats are the longest print yet, stuffing the 156-page 1970 horizontal.

[jdaw1]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

[DRT]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

[DRT]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

Sorry, just got it. Rule 47(d)?

[Andy Velebil]

I hereby invoke Rule 47(b): If a member suggests adding a bottle to a tasting and no member objects prior to the Placemats being updated all subsequent objections are null and void.

If a member suggests adding a bottle to a tasting, and that bottle fits the theme of the tasting (such as being ‟vintage port”), and that bottle won’t embarrass a wine-maker who is present, the answer is yes.

Due to the clear and overwhelming concensus of opinion that it is the right thing to do, I have taken the liberty of adding GM98 to the line-up in the opening post of this thread.

Outstanding of you to do this and it will be well received on Monday

[jdaw1]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

Sorry, just got it. Rule 47(d)?

Describe the occasions on which we ‟have shared these two ports”.

[DRT]

Please, 1995 or 1996?

I will ask.

We have shared these two ports enough times for you to know the correct answer. Don’t get it wrong. Just don’t.

I will be passing on the answer I am given from the person donating one or other of these vintages.

Sorry, just got it. Rule 47(d)?

Describe the occasions on which we ‟have shared these two ports”.

We haven't. So Rule 47(d) applies and we must have both.

[DRT]

In case anyone is stressing that we may not have enough Port for 22nd March, the missing vintages of Malvedos are:

Graham Malvedos 1950
Graham Malvedos 1951
Graham Malvedos 1952
Graham Malvedos 1953
Graham Malvedos 1954
Graham Malvedos 1961
Graham Malvedos 1992
Graham Malvedos 1995 or 1996
Graham Malvedos 1999
Graham Malvedos 2005

We are therefore a mere 10 bottles away from a complete vertical. Do I really need to start quoting Rule 48?

Please note that AHB (aka "Mr Sensible and Restrained") is out of the country and apparently unable to access - So, there is no one around to stop us adding more bottles in a fit of over enthusiasm.

Wine Searcher reveals that the 92, 95, 96 and 99 are all available in either the UK or Germany at reasonable cost. We seem to be stuffed on the other 6 unless someone has them in their own cellar?

[jdaw1]

Updated current draft of the placemats:

• The ‟1995 or 1996” is 1996. Wine-Searcher doesn’t know of a GM95 anywhere.

[JacobH]

I think this tasting has just accidentally ended up as large as the Cockburn one...

[jdaw1]

Larger, IIRC.

[DRT]

But not nearly as large as the 1970, so not at risk of inducing palate fatigue.

[jdaw1]

But not nearly as large as the 1970, so not at risk of inducing palate fatigue.

But that was a horizontal completely different and so utterly non-comparable.

[Chris Doty]

Please add the 1999 to the list.

[jdaw1]

The Ports: (with thanks to the Symington Family Estates for helping us track many of the more obscure bottles)

1. 1955 Graham
2. 1957 Malvedos
3. 1958 Malvedos
4. 1962 Malvedos
5. 1964 Malvedos
6. 1965 Malvedos
7. 1966 Graham
8. 1968 Malvedos
9. 1970 Graham
10. 1976 Malvedos
11. 1978 Malvedos
12. 1979 Malvedos
13. 1982 Malvedos
14. 1984 Malvedos
15. 1985 Graham
16. 1986 Malvedos
17. 1987 Malvedos
18. 1988 Malvedos
19. 1990 Malvedos
20. 1996 Malvedos
21. 1998 Malvedos
22. 1999 Malvedos
23. 2001 Malvedos
24. 2004 Malvedos
25. 2006 Malvedos
26. 2008 Malvedos (work in progress; may not be the final blend if / when a Malvedos 2008 is produced)

I have been putting the break between the sessions at ’79/’82. Objections?

[DRT]

I just spoke to Axel: he will be bringing 2 half bottles of Malvedos 1992 and 2 half bottles of Malvedos 95 on Monday

The missing vintages are now:

Graham Malvedos 1950
Graham Malvedos 1951
Graham Malvedos 1952
Graham Malvedos 1953
Graham Malvedos 1954
Graham Malvedos 1961
Graham Malvedos 2005

I have a very tenuous lead on a 1961 but am not hopeful at all. The other oldies just don't seem to be out there and the 2005 hasn't been released so I think we are done. Not too shaby

[jdaw1]

Updated current draft of the placemats:

• +1992;
• +1995;
• +1999.

First session twelve ports; second sixteen. Objections?

[DRT]

First session twelve ports; second sixteen. Objections?

I am starting to wonder whether or not the Graham's Vintages should be served as a separate mini-flight, perhaps at the dinner table?

[Chris Doty]

That's a very interesting question, and I will most happily defer to the judgment of the port gurus, but my initial thought on this is to keep them where they are.

The primary line of reasoning is that horizontals of Grahams in themselves are not entirely uncommon, whereas being able to taste the Malvedos wines from the same decades as their big brothers would be a pretty unusual and neat experience that would shed light both on Malvedos as well as the Grahams VP.

Just my 2p

[JacobH]

First session twelve ports; second sixteen. Objections?

I am starting to wonder whether or not the Graham's Vintages should be served as a separate mini-flight, perhaps at the dinner table?

I would be quite strongly in favour of tasting the normal Graham Vintages against the Malvedos ones, rather than separately, so that we can compare the influence of one on the other and have a good benchmark by which to judge the Malvedos. That sort of comparison was something I felt we missed a bit at the Vargellas tasting.

We can certainly shuffle some Ports from the second session into the first, though it may not be a bad thing to have more in the second as it will be longer.

[Andy Velebil]

I agree about keeping the regular Graham's in vintage order with the Malvedos so we can compare the "big brother" against the "little brother."

I'd also recommend doing what we did for the Cockburn's tasting. Since there are so many vinatges, do the younger ones first, have a break (food, etc.) then do the older ones last. That way we can enjoy the older ones without having to worry about spitting them early on in the tasting if they are tasted first. And yes, I realize no one should spit, but since we're pushing 30 bottles that's a reality or none of us will make it till the end.

[Glenn E.]

but since we're pushing 30 bottles that's a reality or none of us will make it till the end.

Pfft! It's only 30 bottles for 14 people... you've done 18 bottles for 5 people before, so this should be easy!

[jdaw1]

Should I swap the two sessions so making the first session longer or have a new break, and if so, where? (Don’t forget that we now have ’92 and ’95 as well.)

[Chris Doty]

For 30 glasses of port...I'm gonna need a lot of chocolate and cheese.

[jdaw1]

For 30 glasses of port...I'm gonna need a lot of chocolate and cheese.

Which will cloud the palate.

[DRT]

For 30 glasses of port...I'm gonna need a lot of chocolate and cheese.

Which will cloud the palate.

...and it's only 28 bottles, not 30, which may have been considered exessive.

[jdaw1]

Should I swap the two sessions so making the first session longer or have a new break, and if so, where? (Don’t forget that we now have ’92 and ’95 as well.)

New page, but question shouldn’t be lost.

[JacobH]

Should I swap the two sessions so making the first session longer or have a new break, and if so, where? (Don’t forget that we now have ’92 and ’95 as well.)

New page, but question shouldn’t be lost.

I have no strong views either way. Anyone else?

Also, is anyone willing to undertake printing the placemats? I’m slightly concerned that I won’t have a chance to monopolise a photocopier for the several hours it might take to parse the PDFs...

[jdaw1]

Also, is anyone willing to undertake printing the placemats? I’m slightly concerned that I won’t have a chance to monopolise a photocopier for the several hours it might take to parse the PDFs...

The whole file is less than a megabyte, and should render quickly.

[jdaw1]

DRT has suggested some extra pages to assist pre-pouring. Will the printed pages arrive at the tasting sufficiently early for these to be of use?

[Andy Velebil]

Should I swap the two sessions so making the first session longer or have a new break, and if so, where? (Don’t forget that we now have ’92 and ’95 as well.)

New page, but question shouldn’t be lost.

I'd suggest breaking at 1982 and younger for earlier session, then the older stuff after session. That way we do 80's/90's/00's together and then later 50's/60's/70's together.

[jdaw1]

DRT has suggested some extra pages to assist pre-pouring.

Nearly ready: please don’t print yet.

Should I swap the two sessions so making the first session longer or have a new break, and if so, where? (Don’t forget that we now have ’92 and ’95 as well.)

New page, but question shouldn’t be lost.

I'd suggest breaking at 1982 and younger for earlier session, then the older stuff after session. That way we do 80's/90's/00's together and then later 50's/60's/70's together.

Will be implemented when first matter working.

[jdaw1]

Updated current draft of the placemats, now at 193 sheets and 1,271,248 bytes:

• Now added ‘Pre-Pour’ sheets: put on each tray, and then fourteen glasses on that;
• Sessions re-ordered, as ADV requested. Note that this makes the first session longer than the second: please confirm satisfactory.

[DRT]

Sorry, I disagree on having the older ports after dinner. Palate fatigue is a certainty at this event and I would rather be tasting young wines when that happens than 50 year old gems that I may never taste again.

I also think the pre-dinner flight needs to be the shorter of the two as it is time constrained.

I think the split is fine, but I think the order needs to be reversed.

[WS1]

I fully agree with Derek!!! We should taste the old ones first!!!! If not I will if required bring my own glasses and wait until they are ready and start the tasting later.

Sorry for being pedantic!

regards

WS1

[Andy Velebil]

Food between will refresh the palate so no worries there. I'd rathe be able to drink and enjoy the old ones after than have to spit them out earlier. It worked out well for the massive cockburns tasting and others this size I've done.

But I'll go with what the group decides. But I ask do you want to drink the young ones or the old ones? As there is no way anyone can drink them all or half and still have a good understanding and appreciation of them.

Just my $0.02

[jdaw1]

Britain plus Germany versus America: that’s a new combination, so I don’t know who wins. More votes would help.

[DRT]

Andy,

There should be enough glasses available so that we do not have to throw the old ones away. At the Vesuvio tasting we kept the first flight on the table and then added the seond flight so that everyone had the full line-up in front of them. I think we could do the same with this tasting

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

If we have enough glasses then I don't mind doing old first so I can save some to drink later

[DRT]

More votes would help.

Agreed. It would be good to know what the others who will be attending the tasting would prefer to do.

Another option would be to break with tradition and put all of the wines on the table at the beginning and leave each individual to decide what they want to taste first?

[jdaw1]

Another option would be to break with tradition and put all of the wines on the table at the beginning and leave each individual to decide what they want to taste first?

Are there enough glasses? Is there enough table space? Is there enough table space for the glasses and for the mid-drinking dinner?

My view that the natural division between sessions is ≤1979 and ≥1982. In which case the session of older ports is fairly small: less than a bottle each. You should be able to finish that, or nearly so, without significant inebriation, and certainly what little inebriation there is would be cleared by dinner. All of which points to having the older ports first.

Updated current draft of the placemats, now at 193 sheets and 1,271,182 bytes:

• JDAW’s preferred ordering, being older first.

[DRT]

Are there enough glasses?

The number of glasses is being checked, but the RAF Club coped with the 35 bottle 1970 tasting so this should be possible.

Is there enough table space?

I think there will be.

Is there enough table space for the glasses and for the mid-drinking dinner?

It's the RAF Club, so dinner will be in another room.

[DRT]

less than a bottle each. You should be able to finish that, or nearly so, without significant inebriation

When typing this, did you factor in that Andy is American?

[jdaw1]

Is there enough table space for the glasses and for the mid-drinking dinner?

It's the RAF Club, so dinner will be in another room.

So you’re proposing that people drink some, they choose which, leave glasses there and wonder off for dinner, then come back not necessarily all simultaneously and resume. If there really are enough clean glasses, that could work.

less than a bottle each. You should be able to finish that, or nearly so, without significant inebriation

When typing this, did you factor in that Andy is American?

Twelve bottles, fourteen people: even if Andy is a zero, it’s less than a bottle each.

[WS1]

Julian, Derek

thanks for all the effort. Placemates look great! Please let me know if additional glasses are required. I am very happy, it looks like that we can start with the old Ports first.
On the other hand if there is a majority verdict to start with the young Ports i also do not mind waiting for the old ports.

Please let me know

regards

WS1

[jdaw1]

Updated current draft of the placemats, now at 208 sheets and 1,282,761 bytes:

• Re-paginated so that each non-pedants’ decade is on a single glasses sheet;
• Sessions have matching radii, in case sheets carried over from one to other.

[Roy Hersh]

Sorry, I disagree on having the older ports after dinner. Palate fatigue is a certainty at this event and I would rather be tasting young wines when that happens than 50 year old gems that I may never taste again.

I have no horse in the race, but believe Derek's way is right on. I also prefer older ones first but rarely see it done that way, as often time people like to end with the great oldies. But, I think the tannins of young VPs affect how the old ones show, if done later on. With a meal in between it is not as much an issue, but I'd rather be sharpest for the oldies and make sure my notes were crisp, while the young ones are very likely to be had again another day.

I wish you all a wonderful tasting, filled with perfect bottlings that all show beautifully!

Cheers

[JacobH]

Are there enough glasses?

The number of glasses is being checked, but the RAF Club coped with the 35 bottle 1970 tasting so this should be possible.

The last request for glasses (made by me via Axel to the RAF Club was) 14 × 24 = 336 glasses, so am I right in thinking we need another 56?

[DRT]

Are there enough glasses?

The number of glasses is being checked, but the RAF Club coped with the 35 bottle 1970 tasting so this should be possible.

The last request for glasses (made by me via Axel to the RAF Club was) 14 × 24 = 336 glasses, so am I right in thinking we need another 56?

Yes, but the decanting team will waste some so best to ask for 400