2011 Declarations

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
griff
Warre’s Traditional LBV
Posts: 347
Joined: 09:43 Thu 03 Jun 2010
Location: Sydney

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by griff »

PhilW wrote:
Either way, enough houses declaring to call this a general declaration, which it makes it the first '1' year to be generally declared in the two centuries since the system began..
I guess 1931 had too few declaring to count as 'general' and 1991 was split 1991/2.

It is interesting looking at the number of times (or % of times) in which years ending with each digit are declared, to see if there might be any decision bias; The following is a rough count of general declarations for the last century (1901-2000, or 1900-1999, whichever you prefer) for years ending with each digit, with split declarations counted as a half - there might be argument about a few of the years as to whether they were 'general' or not, but the idea holds:

xxx0 5
xxx1 0.5
xxx2 1
xxx3 1
xxx4 2
xxx5 4
xxx6 1
xxx7 3.5
xxx8 1.5
xxx9 0


Overall therefore, it seems far more likely to declare in years ending in 5 and 0.. possible decision bias, though I'm sure the case could be argued for this being a coincidence, especially with 7 also have a decent count. Ok, so lets have a look at the 19th century instead:

xxx0 5
xxx1 2
xxx2 1
xxx3 3
xxx4 3
xxx5 2
xxx6 1
xxx7 3
xxx8 3
xxx9 0


These totals use TPF's list of declared years, as I do not know whether any of them were/were not general declarations. Again, years ending in zero are substantially ahead, though 5's do not feature so prominently. Interestingly again no years ending in 9 declared in this century either.
The lack of vintage declarations ending in 9 may be influenced by the subsequent year ending in 0. That and the perceived wisdom of limiting the number of vintages per decade perhaps.
User avatar
Chris Doty
Graham’s Malvedos 1996
Posts: 843
Joined: 12:30 Fri 29 Jan 2010

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by Chris Doty »

RAYC wrote:Uncorked have published their pricing on the Symington 2011.
Interesting data points. I would be a buyer of the 2011 Vesuvio below $70 (all in), but as always, it is difficult to allocate to new production when for $70 you can still find the: 1983 Graham, the 1994 Graham, the 1994 Vesuvio, etc. Unless you're bottling custom Methuselahs, the value proposition is harder to find (even though the vintage seems amazing).
Last edited by Chris Doty on 04:15 Sat 11 May 2013, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

For estimates of the likelihood of declaration patterns see the thread Declared - and declarable, some sums...
uncle tom wrote:The first thing one notices is the total absence of consecutive declarations. Are the vines so exhausted after a good year, that they cannot repeat the exercise without taking a rest? The answer, I think, is no.
jdaw1 wrote:If 30% of years are declared, what is the probability that a given year is part of a consecutive declaration?

Easy maths. Pick a year that is declared: say x. There is a 70% chance that x”“1 wasn’t declared, and a 70% chance that x+1 wasn’t declared, so a 49% chance that neither neighbour was declared. Hence a 51% chance that one (42%) or both (9%) were declared.

Thus if 30% of years are declared independently of other years, about half of all years should be part of a consecutive (not split, consecutive) declaration. Which suggests that a year being declared is not independent of neighbouring years being declared. As Tom said.
And from Advice please Gentlemen.
jdaw1 wrote:
uncle tom wrote:the total exclusion of '9' years - try working out the probability of that happening by chance
Let’s assume that each year has a one-in-four chance of being declared, all years identically independently distributed. Then the probability that, during some particular century, no 9s are declared is (3/4)^10 ≈ 5.63%, Improbable, but not special. But the wrong question. What is the probability that there is a digit, whether 9 or something else, such that in some particular century, no year ending in that digit is declared? The answer is obviously 1 - ( ( 1 - ((3/4)^10)) ^ 10 ) ≈ 43.988%. That’s quite likely.

So the existence of a digit such that, during the last century, no years ending in that digit were declared, proves, in round numbers, nothing.

Let me rephrase: what is the probability that, during the nineteen-eighties, only ’80, ’83 and ’85 were general declarations? Answer: 0.2086%. Less than one percent?! Does that prove a conspiracy? Well, what is the probability that, during the nineteen-eighties, exactly three years were general declarations? Answer: 25%. So be careful about probabilities: a more specific question (‟nines?”) has a lower probability, whereas a question better capturing the whole class of perceived unusualness (‟some digit such that!”) has a higher probability.
jdaw1 wrote:
uncle tom wrote:two recorded centuries when there has been no signficant declaration with a year ending in a 9, and that makes the odds of no '9' years come out at something less than 1000:1
Assuming a constant declaration frequency of one-in-four, the probability that there is a digit such that, over two particular centuries, no year ending in that digit has been declared, is 3.126%. That alone fails a 99% test. And if the probability of declaration was constant at one-in-five, there is a 10.949% chance of observing this outcome, and one-in-six takes that to 23.2%.

So the hypothesis that there is a shippers’ prejudice against some particular digit is statistically unproven.

Much stronger is the hypothesis that they don’t like consecutives.

Which sevens? ’27, ’77, ’97? 1907 no, ’17 I don’t know, ’37 no; ’47 not generally, ’57 no, ’67 not generally, ’87 not generally. Three or four in the last ten decades. Snorey dull.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

There is a Skeffington, though TFP are keeping it rather quiet. Front list updated.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

The Big Fortified Tasting had a 2011 room, in which I photographed some bottles.
Image
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

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

Re: 2011 Declarations

Post by jdaw1 »

Image
Post Reply