Mon 24th Sept 2012 - Fonseca vs Warres head to head

[RAYC]

W63 is now safely in London.

Whilst driving for four hours through the light drizzle we have been experiencing today I thought up a scoring system that we might want to try this evening.

1. The Fonseca and Warre from each vintage are tasted side by side.

2. Each person has 6 points to allocate between each vintage pair. Fractions are allowed. All 6 points must be allocated. (e.g. F60 3.5pts, W60 2.5pts, or; F60 1pt, W60 5pts, etc.)

3. Scores are noted by each person as we work through the vintages but are not collected until the end. This allows glasses to be re-visited and score adjusted before being declared.

4. After everything has been tasted the scores are collected and we decide which Shipper won the parallel vertical.

5. Separately, we vote for WOTN in the normal manner.

Thoughts?

hmmm... i like the idea of this...but say W77 is badly corked, or heat damaged through inappropriate storage. F77 likely to get 6 points. That's a big deficit to recoup over the remaining 6 vintages. Do we discount scores for any pair in which there is an obvious flaw? Or remove the results from two "outlier" pairs and use the results from the remaining 5 pairs?

[jdaw1]

Six points, with fractions, for two ports: substantial over-precision. Surely it would suffice to have two points and no fractions (2-0, 1-1, 0-2).

[DRT]

Six points, with fractions, for two ports: substantial over-precision. Surely it would suffice to have two points and no fractions (2-0, 1-1, 0-2).

Fair. If 0-1-2 is a statistically better system I am happy.

hmmm... i like the idea of this...but say W77 is badly corked, or heat damaged through inappropriate storage. F77 likely to get 6 points. That's a big deficit to recoup over the remaining 6 vintages. Do we discount scores for any pair in which there is an obvious flaw? Or remove the results from two "outlier" pairs and use the results from the remaining 5 pairs?

Sorry, I forgot to mention that where there is an obvious duffer (corked, cooked, cloudy, full of green slime, etc) that vintage is excluded from the result. That doesn't mean that if one is just crap and the other is great we apply this rule, it is only where the wine has been damaged in some way.

[jdaw1]

is only where the wine has been damaged in some way.

Such as having been made by Hutcheson’s wine maker, for example. (Happily not applicable in today’s tasting.)

[DRT]

is only where the wine has been damaged in some way.

Such as having been made by Hutcheson’s wine maker, for example. (Happily not applicable in today’s tasting.)

Not sure that is a valid example but it does raise the question of whether or not negative scores should be allowed for spectacularly crap Port - e.g. Fonseca 70 22pts, Hutcheson 70 -20pts

[griff]

Sounds complicated. I can follow it now but I suspect I shall need assistance at the end of the night

[PhilW]

Links:

• Planning and arrangements.
• Placemats;
• 1955 Warre;
• 1960 Warre;
• 1963 Warre;
• 1966 Warre;
• 1970 Warre;
• 1977 Warre;
• 1985 Warre;
• 1955 Fonseca;
• 1960 Fonseca;
• 1963 Fonseca;
• 1966 Fonseca;
• 1970 Fonseca;
• 1977 Fonseca;
• 1985 Fonseca;
• Review of the evening as a whole;

[jdaw1]

Placemat parameters.