Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Anything to do with Port.

Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Poll ended at 12:47 Thu 19 Feb 2009

I would have preferred 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 12.
1
20%
I would have preferred 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11.
2
40%
I am indifferent between the two sets.
2
40%
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

Christies, in describing [url=http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5140083]lot 15 of sale 7641[/url], wrote:Unknown Shippers Believed Vintage 1955
Assorted capsules, mostly damaged. Unlabelled. Levels top-shoulder or better
AHB and JDAW agreed to split this lot, JDAW doing the bidding and it being delivered to Sussex. Subsequent inspection by JDAW resulted in a description:
JDAW, in a PM to AHB, wrote:To recap, in a form that we might choose to quote on :tpf:, AHB and JDAW have agreed to share a lot of twelve bottles of port, described as being unlabelled mixed shippers, believed 1955. I have sorted these bottles into fill order, and labelled them 1 to 12, best being 1 and worst being 12, are have notes as follows. (All level measurements were done by eye and guess, without a rule: imprecision is guaranteed.)

Propose a split of:

1. Capsule unbranded black, perhaps same as 5 or 7 or both. Skirt of capsule removed, but glass too dark to see branding, if there be any. Level about +10mm above bottom neck.

2. Green glass; level BN+8mm. Cork says Taylor 1955.

3. Unique capsule with decorative circular pattern of dots. Brown glass. Capsule was to cut to show Taylor, and 19?5, the missing digit being hidden by a fold in the glass. BN+7mm.

4. Unique red capsule marked with ‟J H & ? Brooke Ltd”. BN+3mm. A little capsule cutting suggests an unbranded cork.

5. Capsule metallic with black at sides, perhaps the same as 1 and 7. Black glass too dark to see branding. BN+2mm.

6. No capsule. BN+2mm. Top half of cork appears reflectively silver; bottom half either not branded or not branded clearly. There might be runes or something written horizontally.

7. Capsule grey metal with patches of black. Maybe same as 1 and 5. Like those two, glass too dark to see cork.

8. BN+0. Remains of seemingly-unique capsule says ‟Adam's 1955”, though bits of some letters are missing.

9. An interesting bottle. Brown glass, with a line around the bottom of the shoulder. On cork I can read ‟Vint!”, which doesn't help, and the patches either side of the cork appear burnt -- maybe port has seeped around branding. Beige capsule might say 1900, or 19?00 though the latter would make no sense. If 1900 level not so bad at 1mm below base of neck.

10. Remains of sides of black wax capsule. BN-9mm. Green glass; no visible branding.

11. Green glass. BN-11mm. No visible brand. Capsule ‟!BRAEY AB!” who is probably a bottler.

12. Bottle shorter than others, with squarer shoulders and a line around bottom shoulder. Green glass. Mid shoulder, something like BN-14mm. No branding visible.
After some discussion these were split into two sets:
  • 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 12;
  • 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11.
Which set would you have preferred? Please vote above and comment below.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by DRT »

I voted for 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11.

9 being the clincher and based on an assumption that cost was split equally.

When is the Unknown Port (believed mostly 1955) Off-line?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
ajfeather
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 122
Joined: 20:44 Thu 16 Aug 2007
Location: London, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by ajfeather »

If 1, 5 & 7 may be the same best to only have one of them...
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

DRT wrote:9 being the clincher and based on an assumption that cost was split equally.
Your logic is perfect, but only if splitting with a stranger. But AHB and JDAW are splitting these, and whoever holds number 9 would of course bring it to a Unknown Shipper tasting so there is no advantage in being the holder.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4172
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Glenn E. »

I voted for 1,2,6,7,10,12 for two reasons.

1. Of the two positively identified bottles is in this set, this lot contains the 1955 Taylor. Yummy. Adams who?
2. Unlike ajfeather, I think it is an advantage to have 2 of the possible set of 3. That way once you open one, you have a second in reserve.

Bottles 3 and 9 are the counterweights in the other set, and 3 could be a 1945 Taylor. But I tend to be conservative and like knowing exactly what bottle #2 is.
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Glenn E. wrote:I voted for 1,2,6,7,10,12 for two reasons.

1. Of the two positively identified bottles is in this set, this lot contains the 1955 Taylor. Yummy. Adams who?
2. Unlike ajfeather, I think it is an advantage to have 2 of the possible set of 3. That way once you open one, you have a second in reserve.

Bottles 3 and 9 are the counterweights in the other set, and 3 could be a 1945 Taylor. But I tend to be conservative and like knowing exactly what bottle #2 is.
Adams was a UK shipper who tended to buy cheaper vintage ports for labelling as Buyer's Own Brand. For example, the 1963 Adams is a Royal Oporto wine. Who knows what the 1955 Adams will be , but it is likely that it will be something similar. We can but hope that in 1955 Adam's did something different and bought a parcel of Fonseca wine...
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by JacobH »

AHB wrote:Adams was a UK shipper who tended to buy cheaper vintage ports for labelling as Buyer's Own Brand. For example, the 1963 Adams is a Royal Oporto wine. Who knows what the 1955 Adams will be , but it is likely that it will be something similar. We can but hope that in 1955 Adam's did something different and bought a parcel of Fonseca wine...
Despite buying cheaper wine, that ’63 which you brought to the Blind, Initial & 30-year-plus tasting (that really was a mad theme) was really very nice, so I wouldn’t write off this bottle altogether!
Image
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Bottle number 10 was opened this evening and found to be Taylor 1948. :nirvana:
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4172
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Glenn E. »

AHB wrote:Bottle number 10 was opened this evening and found to be Taylor 1948. :nirvana:
Very nice!
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
Zelandakh
Taylor’s LBV
Posts: 167
Joined: 22:06 Wed 26 Aug 2009
Location: Buckinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Zelandakh »

Must be like Christmas every night in your house!
Nick
-----
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Sadly, no. I don't post about the bottles I open which go the opposite way. I recently opened a bottle of Croft 1950, which was identified by pencil writing on the white splash only to find the cork branded "Eadies Finest Reserve"

That bottle was very weak, basically just sugar water.

Out of every 10 bottles I open where the wine inside the bottle ends up being different from what I was expecting, there's probably 3 failures, 6 on a par and 1 pleasant surprise. But in the last 3 years, I've probably only had 2 results like this one.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
Zelandakh
Taylor’s LBV
Posts: 167
Joined: 22:06 Wed 26 Aug 2009
Location: Buckinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Zelandakh »

OK, maybe not christmas then. Perhaps more like Portuguese roulette? :-)
Nick
-----
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

jdaw1 wrote:12. Bottle shorter than others, with squarer shoulders and a line around bottom shoulder. Green glass. Mid shoulder, something like BN-14mm. No branding visible.
This was Taylor 1935.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

jdaw1 wrote:
JDAW, in a PM to AHB, wrote:11. Green glass. BN-11mm. No visible brand. Capsule ‟!BRAEY AB!” who is probably a bottler.
Believed 1935 Taylor.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

jdaw1 wrote:
JDAW, in a PM to AHB, wrote:9. An interesting bottle. Brown glass, with a line around the bottom of the shoulder. On cork I can read ‟Vint!”, which doesn't help, and the patches either side of the cork appear burnt -- maybe port has seeped around branding. Beige capsule might say 1900, or 19?00 though the latter would make no sense. If 1900 level not so bad at 1mm below base of neck.
This was broken by an airline en route to Portugal, the cork saying Taylor 1955. Untasted.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

jdaw1 wrote:
JDAW, in a PM to AHB, wrote:5. Capsule metallic with black at sides, perhaps the same as 1 and 7. Black glass too dark to see branding. BN+2mm.
#5 was 1955 Taylor.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

I was curious to know which of these bottles had been opened, and what had been the contents; so I summarised as follows:

1. Capsule unbranded black, perhaps same as 5 or 7 or both. Skirt of capsule removed, but glass too dark to see branding, if there be any. Level about +10mm above bottom neck.

2. Green glass; level BN+8mm. Cork says Taylor 1955.

3. Unique capsule with decorative circular pattern of dots. Brown glass. Capsule was to cut to show Taylor, and 19?5, the missing digit being hidden by a fold in the glass. BN+7mm.

4. Unique red capsule marked with ‟J H & ? Brooke Ltd”. BN+3mm. A little capsule cutting suggests an unbranded cork.

5. Capsule metallic with black at sides, perhaps the same as 1 and 7. Black glass too dark to see branding. BN+2mm. Taylor 1955

6. No capsule. BN+2mm. Top half of cork appears reflectively silver; bottom half either not branded or not branded clearly. There might be runes or something written horizontally.

7. Capsule grey metal with patches of black. Maybe same as 1 and 5. Like those two, glass too dark to see cork.

8. BN+0. Remains of seemingly-unique capsule says ‟Adam's 1955”, though bits of some letters are missing.

9. An interesting bottle. Brown glass, with a line around the bottom of the shoulder. On cork I can read ‟Vint!”, which doesn't help, and the patches either side of the cork appear burnt -- maybe port has seeped around branding. Beige capsule might say 1900, or 19?00 though the latter would make no sense. If 1900 level not so bad at 1mm below base of neck. Taylor 1955

10. Remains of sides of black wax capsule. BN-9mm. Green glass; no visible branding. Taylor 1948

11. Green glass. BN-11mm. No visible brand. Capsule ‟!BRAEY AB!” who is probably a bottler. Taylor 1935

12. Bottle shorter than others, with squarer shoulders and a line around bottom shoulder. Green glass. Mid shoulder, something like BN-14mm. No branding visible. Taylor 1935
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4172
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Glenn E. »

So far that seems like a really great deal - 2 x 1935 Taylor, a 1948 Taylor, and 2 x 1955 Taylor. Nice!
Glenn Elliott
griff
Warre’s Traditional LBV
Posts: 347
Joined: 09:43 Thu 03 Jun 2010
Location: Sydney

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by griff »

Lots of nice surprises there other than the aeroplane affair.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by DRT »

I recall AHB saying that another of these bottles was drunk at The Bell on Thursday. Could we have an update of this thread, please?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Who said that? It wasn't me!

Are you sure you were at the Bell on the 15th...there are a lot of conversations that you recall that I don't :oops:

None of the bottles that I contributed were from this batch. I still have 4 of my bottles left (from the 6 that I received) and my note earlier in the thread indicates that Julian should still have 3 of his bottles unless he offered one to someone as a contribution to the tasting.
Last edited by Alex Bridgeman on 11:20 Tue 20 Dec 2011, edited 1 time in total.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by DRT »

AHB wrote:Who said that? It wasn't me!

Are you sure you were at the Bell on the 15th...there are a lot of conversations that you recall that I don't :oops:
I am not passing judgement, but I was probably the most sober I have ever been at a port tasting on Thursday. My memory of the evening is very clear. Perhaps the blood-loss towards the end of the evening was a contributing factor?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by jdaw1 »

AHB wrote:None of the bottles that I contributed were from this batch. I still have 4 of my bottles left (from the 6 that I received) and my note earlier in the thread indiactes that Julian should still have 3 of his bottles unless he offered one to someone as a contribution to the tasting.
Not that I recall.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

DRT wrote:I am not passing judgement, but I was probably the most sober I have ever been at a port tasting on Thursday. My memory of the evening is very clear. Perhaps the blood-loss towards the end of the evening was a contributing factor?
You mean that by bleeding out some of the alcohol in your bloodstream, you managed to hold on to your sobriety? Is this a technique you plan to use again in the future?
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Which set of bottles would you have preferred?

Post by DRT »

AHB wrote:
DRT wrote:I am not passing judgement, but I was probably the most sober I have ever been at a port tasting on Thursday. My memory of the evening is very clear. Perhaps the blood-loss towards the end of the evening was a contributing factor?
You mean that by bleeding out some of the alcohol in your bloodstream, you managed to hold on to your sobriety? Is this a technique you plan to use again in the future?
Yes, it's how men used to be able to drink 6 pints of port in one day. Cut off a finger for each pint of port and you won't feel the effects of the alcohol.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Post Reply