ThePortForum.com

Derek T. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

• CG (have I missed his TPF ID?)

No. He's not a member. Yet.

We need to harangue him and also Ian Wright.

My brother writes “I'm in for Port if the numbers matter†. List amended.

Your not identical twins, are you?

No. And he’s nice.

I'll look forward to meeting him.

KillerB wrote:

Derek T. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

• CG (have I missed his TPF ID?)

No. He's not a member. Yet.

We need to harangue him and also Ian Wright.

I know why CG isn't a member and haranguing is not necessary and will not work. I plan to speak to him at the Offline and expect him to be a member shortly thereafter. I also know he reads this Forum so he may decide to join anyway.

I don't know why Ian Wright isn't a member, but it may be because he is too busy being a football pundit. Harangue away.

Derek

With so many people and so many wines I think we need to enforce some control on the distribution and tasting of the wines. This has developed into one of the world's greatest tastings of 1966 Vintage Port and for that reason the wines deserve some respect.

My suggestion would be that we serve the port in flights, each consisting of between 1 and 4 wines. One or two safe pairs of hands should be appointed to control the pours to ensure all participants are offered equal measure of each port. Self service will not work with these numbers.

I think it is also essential that we do not leave the expected stars to the end as (a) our tastbuds will be tired and (b) some people might be asleep or too drunk to know what they are tasting.

As a starting point I would suggest we serve the ports in the following order:

Flight 1: The Guest of Honour

• Adam's.

Flight 2: The Taylor Fladgate Trio

• Croft;
• Fonseca;
• Taylor's.

Flight 3: The Symington Quartet

• Dow's;
• Graham's;
• Warre's;
• Berry Bros.

Flight 4: The Taylor Fladgate Other Trio

• Delaforce;
• Offley Boa Vista;
• Morgan

Flight 5: The Other Three

• Avery's;
• Quinta do Noval;
• Robertson's Rebello Valente.

Thoughts?

Derek

By the time you lot have lobbed a bottle or two away, claiming it was corked! we'll be down to a bottle a guest.
If I'm asleep or very drunk, something very unusual has happened!

Otherwise, fair enough.

Alan

Works for me. I’ll rework sheets so that things can be partitioned into flights.

I very much support the idea of tasting in flights and really like the groupings that you have suggested.

My only small piece of advice would be to pour the wines in advance of the tasting starting, so that all 14 glasses are filled for all 14 people. We also need to bear in mind that we will probably want to eat before starting on the port.

We need 196 glasses so I will speak with Ian today to see if we can order more than the 144 that we already have on their way. I will also see if it would be possible for us to eat in one tunnel and then drink the port in the other. That way we will be able to set the port table up for everyone without risking knocking things over other then when we all sit down - when we should be at least risk of accidents since we will not have drunk a bottle of port each.

What time are we planning to start on Jan 28?

Alex

Great suggestion about the pre-pouring and the two tunnels. Hopefully, as its a quiet Monday, that idea might fly.

Could you also ask if there is Wireless coverage. Its not worth bringing the Laptop, if there's not.

I thought it was 13 people. Are we counting the Teddy and allocating him port?

The two tunnell approach works for me but I suppose it depends on how busy the CP is on the night. I think you should ask Ian for a few more glasses than we think we need as we may end up with more bottles on the night. I already know of 1 that is being sought as we speak

I'm staying in London so have no train to catch so start time isn't as important to me as it is to others. I can probably be there around 5:00 to 5:30 to assist with setting up the table. How does a 6:30 start sound for everyone?

What are we drinking with the steak and chips? Does anyone fancy some port?

Derek

Sometimes it feels terrible to be so far away from the island...

Anyways the Grahams Vertical is on the 02nd of Feb, so at least this time I have something to compete with.

All the best to your tasting

Axel

An opportunity has arrisen that I think we should all seriously consider.

As has been stated a number of times this Offline has reached legendary proportions in terms of the list of wines we will be drinking from what is widely regarded as one of the finest vintages in living memory. Yesterday evening I listed the known declared wines that are not yet in the line-up. The reaction to that post has been unsurprising in that some of our more enthusiatic members have gone off to seek out the wines on that list.

As a result of this I received an offer today which would allow us to add a bottle of Noval Nacional 1966 to the line-up. Without exception, commentators have hailed the Nacional to be one of the top three wines of the vintage.

The following may come as a shock to some of you if you are unfamiliar with Noval Nacional and we can explain further if that is the case.

The cost of the bottle is £550. We currently have 13 attendees, which would mean a cost of £42.30 each to add this bottle to the line-up.

This would have to be something that all attendees were happy with and i would therefore ask each of you to either respond here or PM/email me with your thoughts.

Derek

Axel P wrote:Sometimes it feels terrible to be so far away from the island...

Anyways the Grahams Vertical is on the 02nd of Feb, so at least this time I have something to compete with.

All the best to your tasting

Axel

Axel,

I know dates and locations can be inconvenient for a myriad of humdrum reasons, but theoretically, wouldn't a quiet Monday, at a quiet time of year, and with ferries available be the sort of Off-Line you could occasionally consider? Or is it too far, too much hassle, and too expensive?

London is a nuisance for me, but I have to accept that it's central(for the South of England! )

Alan.

I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

For the record:

Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 6

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 0

jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

There are many in the world that would argue that thirteen grown men spending around £3000 (without the Nacional) on port, steak, trains and hotels is in itself inherintly wasteful. But what would they know

It is all about making sure you tick off those water counters on the tasting mat to keep your palate fresh. I agree that we will tire, which is why I suggested the flights. One cannot attend a legendary horizontal tasting if the horizontal line is not of legendary proportions.

I seem to recall us having a similar debate in preparation for the F-Plan.

Derek

Derek T. wrote:Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 6

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 0

Either some of the votes have not been cast in the official ballot box (this thread), or this is Kenyan-style vote counting.

jdaw1 wrote: Either some of the votes have not been cast in the official ballot box (this thread), or this is Kenyan-style vote counting.

Voters had the option of casting their vote in the Caucusses or the Primaries. Only you have voted publicly.


Current updated score is:

Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 7

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1

jdaw1 wrote:

Derek T. wrote:Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 6

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 0

Either some of the votes have not been cast in the official ballot box (this thread), or this is Kenyan-style vote counting.

Please note:

Derek T. wrote:either respond here or PM/email me with your thoughts.

You would have thought that an admin would have checked the facts before posting, would you not?

In the past 48 hours it seems Jdaw has been suffering from some sort of trauma resulting in him:

• missing apostrophes
• missing charachters out of words
• grovelling to other Admins
• using emoticons
• not checking facts

Can it all be blamed on Baby Wiseman?

I did warn you all

link

{Looks ashamed.}

Current updated score is:

Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 8

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1

Derek

If it turns into a 13-1 vote, I'm happy to throw in another £5 each and we'll share it 13 ways in stead of 14 ways. That would be quite humerous, one of the World reknown vintages and Ports, you're tasting all the classics of that year, and you choose not to taste that one.

Odd, but would add an interesting twist to events.

Please close the poll with which this thread started (the date), and amend the title of the first post. We don’t want a last-moment overtaking of the settled result!

I would suggest that, in the unlikely event that the date will be usurped by people not committed to coming, they can go stuff themselves.

I amended so that the Poll would run for 63 days which, by my calculation, would be yesterday. Unfortunately I do not know whether or not this has worked as the only people who can see if the Poll is open are those who have not yet voted.

Not sure why you want the title of the post amended?

Derek

I know that I only voted once and can't access the poll from here or admin so it should be closed.

This is the best title for an off-line ever - do not change it.

jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:

• 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
• 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?

I say we have enough.

KillerB wrote:This is the best title for an off-line ever - do not change it.

Not even to “The Deeper Underground Offline (28 Jan 2008)†? So that when there are hundreds of tasting arranging threads, it will be easy to find and identify?

Done. Almost.

jdaw1 wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:

• 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
• 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?

I say we have enough.

I saw those too. Unfortunately, I and one other here had a near miss with a Sandeman 1966 today. I have also put out some feelers to attempt to locate some of the missing bottles to see what options we have.

My view is that the two you have referenced above are costly for what they are, especially in light of the fact that we have added things like Fonseca and Graham's at a fraction of that cost.

But let's not rule anything out just yet. There is no harm in virtual window shopping

Derek

Derek T. wrote:Done. Almost.

Ugh, ruined it.

KillerB wrote:

Derek T. wrote:Done. Almost.

Ugh, ruined it.

I am in compromise mode. But glad you think it is a good title. I thought so too.

Do you think we should keep or discard the " " ?

Derek

Leave it alone, you've done enough damage already.

Would it help if I followed Jdaw's lead and used an upside down unicode questionmark instead?

Unicode characters do not work in titles, so no. In fact:

NO

jdaw1 wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:

• 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
• 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?

I say we have enough.

The GC is a BBR bottling and looks in perfect condition

No pictures of the SW but I did spot this on their list:

Cockburn's 1966 Vintage Port - unsurprisingly marked as Sold Out

Derek

PS: Cockburn's famously did not produce a 1966 VP

Why dont you phone them up and say if they can secure you a Cockburn66 you'll pay a few thousand for it.
You can hang up knowing some poor bugger is on a rather fruitless goose chase...

The label on that doesn't show a vintage. I downloaded and it up but no sign of vintage. I was wondering if they had faed it.

Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}

jdaw1 wrote:Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}

No, you have used a compound unit there because you know that that is correct. You could not help it. If you had said 588 years then I would have growled like Marge Simpson or given you a very hard Paddington Bear stare. That would have shown you.

KillerB wrote:You could not help it.

I couldn’t. But I was hoping Derek T. would post before you.

It should, of course, have been 588 Bridgemans.

jdaw1 wrote:

KillerB wrote:You could not help it.

I couldn’t. But I was hoping Derek T. would post before you.

Damn, missed my queue.

Derek T. wrote:Damn, missed my queue.

You meant, of course, “cue†. But you missed it anyway.

Are we yet sufficiently off-topic to justify splittage? No! OK, I’ll wait.

Never having tasted NAcional, it would be a shame to pass the opportuntiy. I am for.

Current updated score is:

Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 11

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1

Votes NOT YET CAST: 1

Derek