Page 3 of 7

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 03:39 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1, in and re the first post, wrote:On Thu 05 Jan 2017 the poster was changed from djewesbury to idj123, to give the latter control over this post and the title of the thread. — jdaw1.
Ian: when a date is selected please edit the first post to add it to the title.
I wonder what Schubert would have thought of the ownership of his Symphony No. 8 being handed to Beethoven simply because he had not yet finished it?

Perhaps this Lagavulin is making me think too deeply?

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 10:13 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
“not yet finished” ≠ abandoned

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 11:15 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
Yes please.

I have GC77 in both singles and magnums.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 11:49 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by djewesbury
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1, in and re the first post, wrote:On Thu 05 Jan 2017 the poster was changed from djewesbury to idj123, to give the latter control over this post and the title of the thread. — jdaw1.
Ian: when a date is selected please edit the first post to add it to the title.
I wonder what Schubert would have thought of the ownership of his Symphony No. 8 being handed to Beethoven simply because he had not yet finished it?

Perhaps this Lagavulin is making me think too deeply?
Beethoven died a year before Schubert. What plans have you got for Ian? How long before he realises why I didn't proceed with this poisoned chalice?

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 14:48 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by idj123
jdaw1 wrote:B&F closes 10pm on Mondays. Is there a reason why not Tuesday?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Only picked a Monday as this is when we have tended to hold tastings. However, happy to slightly revise the date fort this tasting to be Tuesday 10 October 2017.
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1, in and re the first post, wrote:On Thu 05 Jan 2017 the poster was changed from djewesbury to idj123, to give the latter control over this post and the title of the thread. — jdaw1.
Ian: when a date is selected please edit the first post to add it to the title.
I wonder what Schubert would have thought of the ownership of his Symphony No. 8 being handed to Beethoven simply because he had not yet finished it?

Perhaps this Lagavulin is making me think too deeply?
Beethoven died a year before Schubert. What plans have you got for Ian? How long before he realises why I didn't proceed with this poisoned chalice?
Mr J, you have omitted to reaffirm your attendance. Would I be correct in inferring a declinature?

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 15:13 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
Include me in, with a GC 1977 in single or mag or both.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 18:14 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by JB vintage
Hi,
I reconfirm my own attendance, as well as Sten and Stefan.
I'll return with what vintages I have.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 18:18 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by CPR 1
9th or 10th both work well, I am in. Thank you resurrecting this!

I have 66, 70, 77, 80, 94

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 18:37 Fri 06 Jan 2017
by djewesbury
idj123 wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:B&F closes 10pm on Mondays. Is there a reason why not Tuesday?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Only picked a Monday as this is when we have tended to hold tastings. However, happy to slightly revise the date fort this tasting to be Tuesday 10 October 2017.
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1, in and re the first post, wrote:On Thu 05 Jan 2017 the poster was changed from djewesbury to idj123, to give the latter control over this post and the title of the thread. — jdaw1.
Ian: when a date is selected please edit the first post to add it to the title.
I wonder what Schubert would have thought of the ownership of his Symphony No. 8 being handed to Beethoven simply because he had not yet finished it?

Perhaps this Lagavulin is making me think too deeply?
Beethoven died a year before Schubert. What plans have you got for Ian? How long before he realises why I didn't proceed with this poisoned chalice?
Mr J, you have omitted to reaffirm your attendance. Would I be correct in inferring a declinature?
I'm in. But I should warn you, my childhood nickname was 'Ludwig', not 'Franz'.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 08:18 Sat 07 Jan 2017
by AHB
I'm in.

I have 1963, 1966, 1977, 1980, 1991 and 1994

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 13:12 Sat 07 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
Ian: do you want me to book the B&F (+44 20 7407 1184)?

May I edit the first post to add placemats and be generally helpful?

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 21:00 Sat 07 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
Please Mrs W. to the attendees.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 14:21 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by idj123
jdaw1 wrote:Ian: do you want me to book the B&F (+44 20 7407 1184)?

May I edit the first post to add placemats and be generally helpful?
Yes, I should be very grateful :)

Having scrolled through the original invitation I can now see that this tasting is heavily subscribed (at least in principle) no doubt partly as a result of the time period over which it has been open and so this is where I believe we stand (based on the starting assumption that all the original respondents are in):

1. Industry Guest
2.DRT (reconfirmed)
3.Ben
4.Simon (reconfirmed)
5.Mike (reconfirmed)
6.IDJ (reconfirmed)
7.JDAW (reconfirmed)
8. CPR (reconfirmed)
9.Tom (reconfirmed)*
10.AHB (reconfirmed)
11. Axel
12. Chris D
13. TC (reconfirmed)*
14. Dia
15. JB Vintage +2 (reconfirmed)
18. Phil (confirmed)
19. Dave (confirmed)
20. Mrs W.(confirmed)

*I have used executive powers to reconfirm on the grounds that TC agreed at the tasting the other night and that Tom is integral.to the tasting

So if all above do reconfirm (I will chase) and we can get an Industry Guest (is someone able to reach out?) then this means that we already have a full complement of 14 and with 6 currently on the reserve list!

If anyone has any reason to take issue with the above let me know.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 14:30 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by idj123
Just to add to my post above I would suggest (based upon bottles currently in people's possession) that the tasting should comprise vintages 1924-1994 (Inc) which has a nice symetry about it. Also means that we have 8 months to track down a 45, 55 and 60 (plus a putative 42).

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 18:32 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
Twenty?! This has not been perfectly managed. Let's start by moving Mrs W. To the waitlist. Bye bye my love.

And some others: perhaps the unconfirmed? Or the late joiners?

Re: RE: Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 19:14 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by PhilW
jdaw1 wrote:Twenty?!
or even twenty-two, since I think JB+2 is three people.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 19:24 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by idj123
jdaw1 wrote:Twenty?! This has not been perfectly managed. Let's start by moving Mrs W. To the waitlist. Bye bye my love.

And some others: perhaps the unconfirmed? Or the late joiners?
I was merely picking up from where it had been left which it appeared was 18 people.
PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Twenty?!
or even twenty-two, since I think JB+2 is three people.
No they have all been counted in the post.

Re: RE: Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 19:31 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by PhilW
idj123 wrote:
PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Twenty?!
or even twenty-two, since I think JB+2 is three people.
No they have all been counted in the post.
you're right, I missed the multiple increment; 20.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 20:05 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by forest26
Hi - yes please count me in - I have 1927 which I will keep aside.

Cheers
Tony

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 22:26 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by AHB
Please keep the numbers to 14 or less, otherwise the pours become too small to be meaningful.

I'm happy to reach out and find an industry guest. Would a member of the Symington family be appropriate? Once we have a confirmed date I can start conversations...

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 22:46 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by DRT
idj123 wrote:if all above do reconfirm (I will chase) and we can get an Industry Guest (is someone able to reach out?) then this means that we already have a full complement of 14 and with 6 currently on the reserve list!
I do not think Ian has suggested having more than 14.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 23:00 Sun 08 Jan 2017
by AHB
DRT wrote:
idj123 wrote:if all above do reconfirm (I will chase) and we can get an Industry Guest (is someone able to reach out?) then this means that we already have a full complement of 14 and with 6 currently on the reserve list!
I do not think Ian has suggested having more than 14.
You're right, I'd missed that.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 00:12 Mon 09 Jan 2017
by jdaw1
Due to an absence of previous management, people have ‘joined’ because it wasn’t clear that the event was already full. The guest list needs to be culled. I suggest as follows:
• Those bringing ≤1955 Gould Campbell are in.
• Subject to which, those reserving / re-confirming particularly early are in.
• Subject to which, executive decision.

There should be a cull. It should be soon. Some people will be unhappy. But it must be done.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 00:35 Mon 09 Jan 2017
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:Due to an absence of previous management, people have ‘joined’ because it wasn’t clear that the event was already full. The guest list needs to be culled. I suggest as follows:
• Those bringing ≤1955 Gould Campbell are in.
• Subject to which, those reserving / re-confirming particularly early are in.
• Subject to which, executive decision.

There should be a cull. It should be soon. Some people will be unhappy. But it must be done.
I believe Ian was asked to take on the organisation. I think his initial statement of intent was sufficient without any of us interfering...
idj123 wrote:Second job is to ask for reconfirmations of attendance for those that originally signed up (who will receive priority )plus confirmations from anyone else still to show their hand.
My understanding is the Ian is firstly asking those who had already confirmed whether or not they wish to stay in and if so they will have a place. Secondly, he is asking anyone else who is interested to express an interest. Ian has also subsequently said that he will chase the original attendees to re-confirm. That all seems fair.

Let's leave Ian to it. I think he is doing very well without interference.

Re: A Gould Campbell vertical

Posted: 00:40 Mon 09 Jan 2017
by DRT
And this has implications of exclusivity that I think should be avoided here...
jdaw1 wrote:Those bringing ≤1955 Gould Campbell are in.
"If you own old port you are part of our club, if not you can have the seat in the corner if there is one left"

Is that what we want to be?