Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declarations

[Alex Bridgeman]

Berry Brothers & Rudd have just released their new list of events from 1 Jan to the end of July. The list includes a number of tastings or events that include port. These were the ones that caught my eye, but I may well have missed others:

Fri 21 Nov - Hampshire Port Tasting (Basingstoke) - 3 tickets left @ £95
Thu 27 Nov - Port Walkaround (London) - sold out
Fri 28 Nov - Port Walkaround (London) - sold out
Thu 18 Dec - Introduction to Port, Sherry and Madeira (London) - 22 tickets left @ £85
Mon 23 Mar - Happy 21st: 1994 Rioja, Bordeaux and Port (London) - 11 @ £395
Thu 23 Apr - 6 Decades of Port Declarations (London) - 21 @ £135
Fri 24 Apr - The Best Claret and Port (Basingstoke) - 14 @ £95

I've succumbed to the lure of the 6 Decades of Port tutored tasting, the line up of which - according the BBR's website - includes
2011 Cockburn
2007 Croft
2003 Fonseca
2000 Taylor Fladgate
1997 Quinta do Vesuvio
1997 Quinta do Vesuvio
1994 Graham
1994 Graham
1985 Gould Campbell
1980 Smith Woodhouse
1977 Warre
1970 Dow
Quinta de la Rosa White Port

I'm assuming that they mean 1994 Graham and Vesuvio plus 1997 Graham and Vesuvio but perhaps they are succumbing to the kind of technical tasting we enjoy and we'll try 1994 Graham (UK cellared) and 1994 Graham (Oporto cellared). Who knows?

[flash_uk]

Presumably there will be another port which is older than 1970, otherwise that is only 5 decades being represented. The Port Walk at the end of this month is my first BBR event. I'm struggling to see the value in £135 for 13 ports, of which 8 are less than 20 years old...

[Alex Bridgeman]

Presumably there will be another port which is older than 1970, otherwise that is only 5 decades being represented.

I stand back and wait for our resident pendants to correct you.

I'm struggling to see the value in £135 for 13 ports, of which 8 are less than 20 years old...

I'm making no sales pitch, nor any comment on value for money - I am only stating that I have bought a ticket and will be attending (all else permitting). Berry's are aiming at a certain market and seem to be segmenting their market pretty well judging by how often they sell out their events.

I probably go to 4-5 of the events a year. I would go to more if they were less expensive but judging by how full BBR's rooms are they can't really accommodate more people and/or more events. Price is the only determining factor that appears to be left to them, and they seem to be judging that just about right from the speed with which these events sell out.

[RAYC]

Presumably there will be another port which is older than 1970, otherwise that is only 5 decades being represented.

Unless they're purists who think that decades should align with centuries.

[flash_uk]

Presumably there will be another port which is older than 1970, otherwise that is only 5 decades being represented.

I stand back and wait for our resident pendants to correct you.

Presumably by pointing out that 1970 is considered part of the 7th decade of the 20th century. Most definitions I can find have a decade being either a period of 10 years, or a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0. Using either definition I can't get the BBR claim of 6 decades to be valid.

[LGTrotter]

Presumably there will be another port which is older than 1970, otherwise that is only 5 decades being represented.

I stand back and wait for our resident pendants to correct you.

Most definitions I can find have a decade being either a period of 10 years, or a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0. Using either definition I can't get the BBR claim of 6 decades to be valid.

Presumably there will be another port which is older than 1970, otherwise that is only 5 decades being represented.

I stand back and wait for our resident pendants to correct you.

Where are all those resident pedants who can explain this conundrum? I don't get it either.

[RAYC]

Some claim that because there was no year "0", centuries run from 01.01.xx01 to 31.12.xy00.

I suppose you can therefore make a case that 1970 is the last year of the sixth decade of C20, and therefore 6 decades of VPs are represented at the tasting (...other pedants may then point out that the "declaration" itself was not until 2 years after harvest, so 6 decades of "port declarations" would still be incorrect).

[jdaw1]

Maybe there will be a bonus extra surprise Port from the 1960s.

[flash_uk]

Yes my point that I can't get either definition to work was incorrect. Defining a decade as 1961-1970, 1971-1980 etc, which is strictly possible as a decade only needs to be 10 years long thereby making these 10 year periods valid decades, means they do have 6 decades represented.

[Glenn E.]

Some claim that because there was no year "0", centuries run from 01.01.xx01 to 31.12.xy00.

That's because there was no year "0", arguments influenced by Prince songs notwithstanding. Zero was not a number as we know it until the 5th century, but even then it was really only used as a number in India. It wasn't until the 16th Century that Europeans fully adopted the use of 0 as a number. Use of 0 as the beginning of a series of numbers didn't really take hold until the introduction of computers in the 20th century. So from a calendar perspective, "year 0" is nonsensical. 0 was essentially a point in time, not a year.

The first year is year 1. The last year of the first decade is therefore year 10. Thus 1970 is, in fact, the last year of the 197th decade which spans 1961-1970 inclusive.

[djewesbury]

May I take this opportunity to point out that I concur entirely with Glenn?

[flash_uk]

Some claim that because there was no year "0", centuries run from 01.01.xx01 to 31.12.xy00.

That's because there was no year "0", arguments influenced by Prince songs notwithstanding. Zero was not a number as we know it until the 5th century, but even then it was really only used as a number in India. It wasn't until the 16th Century that Europeans fully adopted the use of 0 as a number. Use of 0 as the beginning of a series of numbers didn't really take hold until the introduction of computers in the 20th century. So from a calendar perspective, "year 0" is nonsensical. 0 was essentially a point in time, not a year.

The first year is year 1. The last year of the first decade is therefore year 10. Thus 1970 is, in fact, the last year of the 197th decade which spans 1961-1970 inclusive.

The first possible decade AD ends in year 10. There were plenty of decades before that one. Technically the second possible decade AD ended in year 11, running from 2AD to 11AD. So 1970 is only the end of the 197th decade of AD decades starting with years ending in 1.

[Glenn E.]

Some claim that because there was no year "0", centuries run from 01.01.xx01 to 31.12.xy00.

That's because there was no year "0", arguments influenced by Prince songs notwithstanding. Zero was not a number as we know it until the 5th century, but even then it was really only used as a number in India. It wasn't until the 16th Century that Europeans fully adopted the use of 0 as a number. Use of 0 as the beginning of a series of numbers didn't really take hold until the introduction of computers in the 20th century. So from a calendar perspective, "year 0" is nonsensical. 0 was essentially a point in time, not a year.

The first year is year 1. The last year of the first decade is therefore year 10. Thus 1970 is, in fact, the last year of the 197th decade which spans 1961-1970 inclusive.

The first possible decade AD ends in year 10. There were plenty of decades before that one. Technically the second possible decade AD ended in year 11, running from 2AD to 11AD. So 1970 is only the end of the 197th decade of AD decades starting with years ending in 1.

Thus the distinction that you pointed out earlier: does this refer to a proper decade or a simple decade?

A proper decade is a series of 10 consecutive years in which the first year ends in a '1' and the last year ends in a '0'.
A simple decade is any series of 10 consecutive years.

If using proper decades, BBR is correct.

[LGTrotter]

Great; we can't even agree how to count up to ten.

While I take the point made about the year zero not existing it still seems pedantic to the point of disingenuousness to claim 1970 as being part of the sixties. Why don't Berrys quit fooling and put a 66 in the line up, then we can all rest easy.

[Glenn E.]

Also, there's a difference between a decade referred to as "the '60s" and "the 2nd millennium."

The decade referred to as "the '60s" properly runs from 1960 through 1969. However, "the 2nd millennium" runs from year 1 through year 2000. Most people do not refer to decades in this way ("the 197th decade") which, along with Prince, is what causes much of the confusion.

[LGTrotter]

So how should I refer to the ten years comprising 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969? The fifties? No wait now I get it; 1960 doesn't exist because it's got a nought at the end and 1970 belongs in the decade with all the sixties in it. Or something. Berrys are cutting some very thin ham here.

[Glenn E.]

So how should I refer to the ten years comprising 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969? The fifties? No wait now I get it; 1960 doesn't exist because it's got a nought at the end and 1970 belongs in the decade with all the sixties in it. Or something. Berrys are cutting some very thin ham here.

As previously mentioned, that list of years is correctly referred to as "the '60s."

However BBR may not be wrong to claim that they're covering 6 decades. It's just that "the '60s" isn't one of them, while "the 197th decade" is.

[djewesbury]

You should write the copy Glenn. That's sure to pull 'em in.


EDIT Shouldn't that be "197th decade CE"?

[PhilW]

Completely disingenuous of BBR unless they intend to add a port from the sixties; of course it might also be a simple error (perhaps they did have a '66 and then removed it, and failed to rename). If not an error, or that the list is only of some ports which will be present and a port from the sixties will be added later, then this is a classic example of "marketing-speak" - literally true, but the apparent meaning as understood in general use is false.

In a similar vein (though under-sold rather than over-sold), I'm surprised no-one has pulled me up on the title of the Martinez tasting.

[flash_uk]

In a similar vein (though under-sold rather than over-sold), I'm surprised no-one has pulled me up on the title of the Martinez tasting.

At the time, I did take a moment to consider why it was named 75 years, and concluded that was not disingenuous to not name it 76 years.

[PhilW]

In a similar vein (though under-sold rather than over-sold), I'm surprised no-one has pulled me up on the title of the Martinez tasting.

At the time, I did take a moment to consider why it was named 75 years, and concluded that was not disingenuous to not name it 76 years.

I decided that since it was 75 years from the first bottle to the last, it would be acceptable.

[flash_uk]

A proper decade is a series of 10 consecutive years in which the first year ends in a '1' and the last year ends in a '0'.
A simple decade is any series of 10 consecutive years.

If using proper decades, BBR is correct.

I think you've only just invented that definition of a "proper" decade. The only definition beyond a simple decade as you put it, which seems tobe used by the dictionary people, is a series of ten years with the first year ending in 0, not ending in 1.

[flash_uk]

Is anyone familiar with the argument clinic?

[djewesbury]

No it isn't.

[RAYC]

LGTrotter wrote:So how should I refer to the ten years comprising 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969? The fifties? No wait now I get it; 1960 doesn't exist because it's got a nought at the end and 1970 belongs in the decade with all the sixties in it. Or something. Berrys are cutting some very thin ham here.As previously mentioned, that list of years is correctly referred to as "the '60s."

Since decades are most commonly thought of as 0-9 periods, it would seem odd to deny that centuries are not or should not be thought of in the same way. I'm not sure that anyone who uses the phrase "1900s" intends a distinction from "20th Century", and i think common usage of C20 to denote 1900 - 1999 and C21 to denote 2000 - 2099 is now so prevalent that to deny the meaning has not evolved or been supplemented is futile. It would certainly not be the only word of the english language to have two separate meanings, but likewise we can perhaps lament that we did not develop a distinct concept for 00-99 centuries like the Scandinavians have.

[Plus if we want to be really pedantic, the only people celebrating the millenium at the correct time on 31.12.2000 were those doing the count down to midnight GMT....]

[djewesbury]

if we want to be really pedantic

If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??

[flash_uk]

if we want to be really pedantic

If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??

No it isn't.

[djewesbury]

I don't like 1970 being considered as part of a period that is somehow 'six decades old' because it makes me feel like I'm approaching 60. I am not!

[djewesbury]

if we want to be really pedantic

If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??

No it isn't.

Don't be silly man, of course it is / n't.

[RAYC]

BBR should have just gone all-out and called it "two millenia of port declarations"

[Glenn E.]

Since decades are most commonly thought of as 0-9 periods, it would seem odd to deny that centuries are not or should not be thought of in the same way.

I'm not sure you can actually make that case. Using "the sixties" as an example, most people who utter that phrase are not thinking of 1960, or 1961, or even 1962. "The sixties" in common use generally refers to a cultural era that begin in roughly 1963 and ended in roughly 1974. It isn't even a decade! (The seventies is even less distinct and overlaps the sixties.)

I'm willing to grant that "the '60s" does in fact refer to 1960-1969, but reserve "the sixties" for the cultural definition. Which then throws a wrench into your argument in spoken language.

I'm not sure that anyone who uses the phrase "1900s" intends a distinction from "20th Century", and i think common usage of C20 to denote 1900 - 1999 and C21 to denote 2000 - 2099 is now so prevalent that to deny the meaning has not evolved or been supplemented is futile.

I suspect you are correct regarding the distinction, but that's due to lack of knowledge and inattention to detail, not to a deliberate choice. Given the level of pedantry here, an argument that claims something is true because people aren't paying attention is automatically suspect.

Besides, this might be the very first time that I've seen someone assert that the 20th Century refers to 1900 - 1999 so your claim seems hollow. It certainly isn't common usage for centuries or millenniums, and is only grudgingly true for decades because no one refers to the 197th or 200th decade. People do refer to the 20th century or the 2nd millennium, though, and especially with millenniums you'll have a hard time arguing that anyone actually means 1000-1999 when they say "2nd millennium" because there's no common use of "the 1000s".

We may be heading in the direction of 0-based references, but we're far from there.

the only people celebrating the millenium at the correct time on 31.12.2000 were those doing the count down to midnight GMT

Don't you mean at the international date line?

[RAYC]

Besides, this might be the very first time that I've seen someone assert that the 20th Century refers to 1900 - 1999 so your claim seems hollow. It certainly isn't common usage for centuries or millenniums, and is only grudgingly true for decades because no one refers to the 197th or 200th decade. People do refer to the 20th century or the 2nd millennium, though, and especially with millenniums you'll have a hard time arguing that anyone actually means 1000-1999 when they say "2nd millennium" because there's no common use of "the 1000s".

You've never hear someone assert that C20 refers to 1900-1999?

I see it all the time, if not explicitly then by implication

The fact is that 2000 is a very special vintage for Porto and not just because it ends with triple zeroes for the first time ever or that it is the first vintage of the 21st century.

The 2011vintage is only the fourth to be widely declared this century

[Glenn E.]

Besides, this might be the very first time that I've seen someone assert that the 20th Century refers to 1900 - 1999 so your claim seems hollow. It certainly isn't common usage for centuries or millenniums, and is only grudgingly true for decades because no one refers to the 197th or 200th decade. People do refer to the 20th century or the 2nd millennium, though, and especially with millenniums you'll have a hard time arguing that anyone actually means 1000-1999 when they say "2nd millennium" because there's no common use of "the 1000s".

You've never hear someone assert that C20 refers to 1900-1999?

I see it all the time, if not explicitly then by implication

The fact is that 2000 is a very special vintage for Porto and not just because it ends with triple zeroes for the first time ever or that it is the first vintage of the 21st century.

The 2011vintage is only the fourth to be widely declared this century

I will be teasing Roy about that in the very near future, I assure you, because he knows better.

But no, I had not noticed either of those references. I don't read either of those websites, for one, but also because it isn't worth the mental energy to bring it up elsewhere. Here among other pedants, or at a gathering of friends, it can be an interesting topic. Out in the general public, it is not. People simply don't care.

It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.

[jdaw1]

It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.

Their there and their they’re: they’re interchangeable with their they’re and their there. Ours aren’t.

[djewesbury]

It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.

Their there and their they’re: they’re interchangeable with their they’re and their there. Ours aren’t.

Oh dear, this is starting to remind of that old punctuation game, "Lucy while David had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the examiner".

[flash_uk]

OK, could someone please summarise the current thinking then on decades, decades where the first year ends in a 0, decades where the last year ends in a 0, millennia, C20, C21, the 60s.

[djewesbury]

OK, could someone please summarise the current thinking then on decades, decades where the first year ends in a 0, decades where the last year ends in a 0, millennia, C20, C21, the 60s.

No it isn't.
(That's the summary.)

[flash_uk]

Yes it is!

[djewesbury]

Expressing enthusiastic approval in non-mathematical terms!

[PhilW]

BBR should have just gone all-out and called it "two millenia of port declarations"

[Alex Bridgeman]

Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.

[djewesbury]

Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.

[LGTrotter]

Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.

No please. It's no trouble really. Everybody has been having a fine old time. The wonks have had an opportunity to patronise those who thought they knew how to count to ten. Others have discoursed on the cultural nature of certain decades. No actual result but everyone feels vindicated.

[flash_uk]

No they don't.

[PhilW]

No they don't.

Is this the right thread for an argument?

[Glenn E.]

No they don't.

Is this the right thread for an argument?

Is there a wrong thread for an argument?

Perhaps we should have a poll...

[JWEW]

1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?

[RAYC]

I'm suprised at the order of tasting, though I do recall it was the same at the Noval / Nacional tasting a few years ago (and I can see why - from the perspective of putting together a presentation - it makes sense).

[Alex Bridgeman]

1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?

What are you showing us? I've checked the BBR website and there's still no sign of any F66. But if it's there, I'll be even happier.

[LGTrotter]

1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?

What are you showing us? I've checked the BBR website and there's still no sign of any F66. But if it's there, I'll be even happier.

I bet you overlooked this deliberately, to sow confusion amongst us about what a decade is, you lil monkey!