1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

[Axel P]

Sorry to be so late to respond. Yes, I am in 100%. Let me know if I can still support you with anything as I have loads of Ramos Pinto 85.

Much looking forward to attend. Thanks for the organisation.

Best

Axel

[benread]

Regrettably, my attendance has now been vetoed by 'the powers that be'!

That is a shame, for you in one way and for us in two. Is there any chance of an appeal? DRT has a very good track record of appealing to my wife that I be released with no promise of good behaviour: should he, ahem, try his charms on Nuala?

M. Gonzalez 1985 available if required, although an early indication would be required so that I can ensure it is at the Boot & Flogger for you on 25th November.

Thank you. I would really like to include it, as it would be my first taste of it. But we are now officially heavy on Port, even if a guest accepts, so do not yet know.

The M. Gonzalez 1985 is 1 of 3 still in my cellar, so making it available (I have drunk 9 of them in the last 5 years or so!) is no great hardship, particularly in the name of scientific evaluation! Happy to offer 1 up - an exchange for something of similar value would be very acceptable.

[DRT]

Happy to offer 1 up - an exchange for something of similar value would be very acceptable.

Seven bottles of Real Vinocola 1983? {please!!!!!!!}

[Alex Bridgeman]

In the interests of being properly prepared for our offline, I opened a bottle of Fonseca 1985 this weekend. It is absolutely superb - but could whoever brings it please decant it for 24-36 hours?

[djewesbury]

In the interests of being properly prepared for our offline, I opened a bottle of Fonseca 1985 this weekend. It is absolutely superb - but could whoever brings it please decant it for 24-36 hours?

Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

[jdaw1]

Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

Delicious academic snobbery: AHB is “the masses”.

[djewesbury]

Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

Delicious academic snobbery: AHB is “the masses”.

I'm glad you approve, sir. Mr. Bridgeman is certainly one of the wiser sort.

[Alex Bridgeman]

In the interests of being properly prepared for our offline, I opened a bottle of Fonseca 1985 this weekend. It is absolutely superb - but could whoever brings it please decant it for 24-36 hours?

Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

Always happy to be known as the percolator of the port knowledge of the masses - although no one has ever called me a percolator before.

But then I am the one with a glass of F85 in my hand.

[Glenn E.]

But then I am the one with a glass of F85 in my hand.

One can be called a fair number of things when one is the only one with a glass of F85 in one's hand. Admittedly, "percolator" would not have been my first guess.

[WS1]

Hi,

after having had another corked Calem 83 on Monday and remembering our ~33% cork rate on the Taylor 85 case tasting as well as generally higher cork rates of ports in the 80s I would like to suggest us to prepare a back up bt each for the ports we are opening. Since Alex kindly offered to be at the tasting early his presence could be used (or misused as you like it ) to detect corked ports and give us enough time to open and prepare them as a back up.
Please let me know what you think since it likely makes the tasting more expensive. I feel even only a 10-20% cork rate would be very deterimental for the tasting to which some even fly to and then tasting a corked port is not funny to say the least.

regards

WS1

[Alex Bridgeman]

I'm happy to volunteer to be the TCA detector. I'm also happy to double up on the bottles I'm bringing if I can (I need to check what bottles I have where first).

[flash_uk]

I can double up on the Gould Campbell and Offley.

[jdaw1]

I can double on the Churchill, and, reluctantly, on the magnum of Fonseca.

But I am very insensitive to TCA. Should I give my (first) bottles to somebody else to double-decant and attempt to detect TCA? If found, second can be decanted by me. But even this would incentivise mischief.

[DRT]

For a 1985 tasting I think this is a bad idea. We know 1985 has flawed bottles, let's find them and draw a conclusion from doing so.

If this was a "let's have some lovely port" tasting I would agree with back-ups, but it isn't. This is an evaluation of 1985. If it yields duds then so be it, we will all then know not to buy more.

[WS1]

For a 1985 tasting I think this is a bad idea. We know 1985 has flawed bottles, let's find them and draw a conclusion from doing so.

.....

I have not said flawed bts in general but corked bts should be replaced. Finding a corked bt in 85 tasting and drawing an conclusion is in my eyes wrong knowing in advance the cork rate can be easily 20-30%.

Hence I am still in favour to replace corked bts for the tasting. Obviously with regards to Magnums there is no need to since they seem to be less affected.

regards

WS1

[DRT]

I still disagree.

We take our chances with corked bottles and all accept that there will be occasions when one or more will turn up. It happens. Tough.

Starting a precedent of having to bring back-up bottles is highly likely to act as a dis-incentive for new people or those with small cellars/resources to join tastings. That is not what we are about.

[flash_uk]

I'm happy to volunteer to be the TCA detector. I'm also happy to double up on the bottles I'm bringing if I can (I need to check what bottles I have where first).

I can turn up around 4 and give a hand with set-up.

[DRT]

I still disagree.

We take our chances with corked bottles and all accept that there will be occasions when one or more will turn up. It happens. Tough.

Starting a precedent of having to bring back-up bottles is highly likely to act as a dis-incentive for new people or those with small cellars/resources to join tastings. That is not what we are about.

What is the common view here? I appear to be in a minority of one but am interested to know what others think about the concept of moving to a place where back-up bottles become the norm.

[jdaw1]

I have sympathy with Derek’s one-bottle view. It is a lot less hassle. Perhaps less off-putting to those of currently modest cellars. And any plan featuring any chance that Mike would have to take anything home is a bad idea. Very bad.

But Alex’s statistical counter-argument doesn’t convince. Assume we have twelve shippers for which one bottle in twelve is bad; and twelve shippers for which one bottle in two is bad. Open one of each. On average one of the ‘good’ houses will seem bad; and six of the ‘bad’ houses will seem good. Opening more bottles would improve the reliability of the measurement.

[djewesbury]

Yes I agree with you Derek. I do not want to start a precedent of back-up bottles at our tastings. Looking specifically at this one, 85 is known to be a ropey year. It's surely a proviso of holding an 85 horizontal that 'caveat bibentis' (or something: what I mean is, let the drinker beware). If you want a horizontal of perfect 85s then we are probably not the ones who should hold it. But looking at the more broad principle I definitely agree with Derek that this would make our tastings more exclusive affairs and I'm against that.

[flash_uk]

Ahem. [raises hand]. Ahem. Might we be slightly over analysing this?

I don't think there is any drive or intent to set a precedent here. If Wolfgang were to suggest backup bottles for a 94 horizontal, I suspect there would be universal rejection of the idea! Who cares if a few bottles are flawed.

Backup bottles for a 70s horizontal? Nah. We've tasted so much 70, we can deal with the odd bad bottle and will not condemn the shipper on one bad bottle.

1985. A year know for TCA. One which we may not have sampled that much outside the top tier of G, F, T, D, W. Landing a corked bottle of, say, Smith Woodhouse, doesn't help me judge whether to buy any or not. The Graham could as easily be corked, but I won't condemn it. An uncorked backup SW would offer me much better insight.

If backups are available, no harm. If not available, then they are not.

[DRT]

Assume we have twelve shippers for which one bottle in twelve is bad; and twelve shippers for which one bottle in two is bad. Open one of each. On average one of the ‘good’ houses will seem bad; and six of the ‘bad’ houses will seem good. Opening more bottles would improve the reliability of the measurement.

Discalaimer: what follows is nothing to do with tastings, just statistics.

So, we open twelve bottles where the expectation is that one will be bad and we find one that is bad, and we open another twelve where we expect six to be bad and six are bad. How does opening another twenty four bottles improve the accuracy of that expectation?

[DRT]

1985. A year know for TCA. One which we may not have sampled that much outside the top tier of G, F, T, D, W.

There are tasting notes from the 1985 vintage from 38 different shippers on this forum, 28 of which have multiple notes. This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

[flash_uk]

This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

Why are we doing a horizontal then?

[DRT]

This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

Why are we doing a horizontal then?

For the same reason people climb mountains.