Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declarations

Organise events to meet up and drink Port.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

RAYC wrote:if we want to be really pedantic
If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by flash_uk »

djewesbury wrote:
RAYC wrote:if we want to be really pedantic
If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??
No it isn't.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

I don't like 1970 being considered as part of a period that is somehow 'six decades old' because it makes me feel like I'm approaching 60. I am not!
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
RAYC wrote:if we want to be really pedantic
If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??
No it isn't.
Don't be silly man, of course it is / n't.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by RAYC »

BBR should have just gone all-out and called it "two millenia of port declarations"
Rob C.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by Glenn E. »

RAYC wrote:Since decades are most commonly thought of as 0-9 periods, it would seem odd to deny that centuries are not or should not be thought of in the same way.
I'm not sure you can actually make that case. Using "the sixties" as an example, most people who utter that phrase are not thinking of 1960, or 1961, or even 1962. "The sixties" in common use generally refers to a cultural era that begin in roughly 1963 and ended in roughly 1974. It isn't even a decade! (The seventies is even less distinct and overlaps the sixties.)

I'm willing to grant that "the '60s" does in fact refer to 1960-1969, but reserve "the sixties" for the cultural definition. Which then throws a wrench into your argument in spoken language.
RAYC wrote: I'm not sure that anyone who uses the phrase "1900s" intends a distinction from "20th Century", and i think common usage of C20 to denote 1900 - 1999 and C21 to denote 2000 - 2099 is now so prevalent that to deny the meaning has not evolved or been supplemented is futile.
I suspect you are correct regarding the distinction, but that's due to lack of knowledge and inattention to detail, not to a deliberate choice. Given the level of pedantry here, an argument that claims something is true because people aren't paying attention is automatically suspect.

Besides, this might be the very first time that I've seen someone assert that the 20th Century refers to 1900 - 1999 so your claim seems hollow. It certainly isn't common usage for centuries or millenniums, and is only grudgingly true for decades because no one refers to the 197th or 200th decade. People do refer to the 20th century or the 2nd millennium, though, and especially with millenniums you'll have a hard time arguing that anyone actually means 1000-1999 when they say "2nd millennium" because there's no common use of "the 1000s".

We may be heading in the direction of 0-based references, but we're far from there.
RAYC wrote:the only people celebrating the millenium at the correct time on 31.12.2000 were those doing the count down to midnight GMT
Don't you mean at the international date line? ;)
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by RAYC »

Glenn E. wrote:Besides, this might be the very first time that I've seen someone assert that the 20th Century refers to 1900 - 1999 so your claim seems hollow. It certainly isn't common usage for centuries or millenniums, and is only grudgingly true for decades because no one refers to the 197th or 200th decade. People do refer to the 20th century or the 2nd millennium, though, and especially with millenniums you'll have a hard time arguing that anyone actually means 1000-1999 when they say "2nd millennium" because there's no common use of "the 1000s".
You've never hear someone assert that C20 refers to 1900-1999?

I see it all the time, if not explicitly then by implication
[url=http://www.wineloverspage.com/port/2000forecast.phtml]here[/url], Roy Hersh wrote:The fact is that 2000 is a very special vintage for Porto and not just because it ends with triple zeroes for the first time ever or that it is the first vintage of the 21st century.
[url=http://www.thewinesociety.com/guides-styles-port-a-rich-tradition]here[/url], Richard Mayson wrote:The 2011vintage is only the fourth to be widely declared this century
Rob C.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by Glenn E. »

RAYC wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Besides, this might be the very first time that I've seen someone assert that the 20th Century refers to 1900 - 1999 so your claim seems hollow. It certainly isn't common usage for centuries or millenniums, and is only grudgingly true for decades because no one refers to the 197th or 200th decade. People do refer to the 20th century or the 2nd millennium, though, and especially with millenniums you'll have a hard time arguing that anyone actually means 1000-1999 when they say "2nd millennium" because there's no common use of "the 1000s".
You've never hear someone assert that C20 refers to 1900-1999?

I see it all the time, if not explicitly then by implication
[url=http://www.wineloverspage.com/port/2000forecast.phtml]here[/url], Roy Hersh wrote:The fact is that 2000 is a very special vintage for Porto and not just because it ends with triple zeroes for the first time ever or that it is the first vintage of the 21st century.
[url=http://www.thewinesociety.com/guides-styles-port-a-rich-tradition]here[/url], Richard Mayson wrote:The 2011vintage is only the fourth to be widely declared this century
I will be teasing Roy about that in the very near future, I assure you, because he knows better. :)

But no, I had not noticed either of those references. I don't read either of those websites, for one, but also because it isn't worth the mental energy to bring it up elsewhere. Here among other pedants, or at a gathering of friends, it can be an interesting topic. Out in the general public, it is not. People simply don't care.

It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by jdaw1 »

Glenn E. wrote:It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.
Their there and their they’re: they’re interchangeable with their they’re and their there. Ours aren’t.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

jdaw1 wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.
Their there and their they’re: they’re interchangeable with their they’re and their there. Ours aren’t.
Oh dear, this is starting to remind of that old punctuation game, "Lucy while David had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the examiner".
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by flash_uk »

OK, could someone please summarise the current thinking then on decades, decades where the first year ends in a 0, decades where the last year ends in a 0, millennia, C20, C21, the 60s.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

flash_uk wrote:OK, could someone please summarise the current thinking then on decades, decades where the first year ends in a 0, decades where the last year ends in a 0, millennia, C20, C21, the 60s.
No it isn't.
(That's the summary.)
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by flash_uk »

Yes it is!
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

Expressing enthusiastic approval in non-mathematical terms!
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by PhilW »

RAYC wrote:BBR should have just gone all-out and called it "two millenia of port declarations"
:)
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by djewesbury »

AHB wrote:Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.
:lol:
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by LGTrotter »

AHB wrote:Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.
No please. It's no trouble really. Everybody has been having a fine old time. The wonks have had an opportunity to patronise those who thought they knew how to count to ten. Others have discoursed on the cultural nature of certain decades. No actual result but everyone feels vindicated.
User avatar
flash_uk
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4081
Joined: 20:02 Thu 13 Feb 2014
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by flash_uk »

No they don't.
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by PhilW »

flash_uk wrote:No they don't.
Is this the right thread for an argument?
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by Glenn E. »

PhilW wrote:
flash_uk wrote:No they don't.
Is this the right thread for an argument?
Is there a wrong thread for an argument?

Perhaps we should have a poll...
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
JWEW
Warre’s Warrior
Posts: 82
Joined: 13:46 Mon 09 Jan 2012

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by JWEW »

1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?
Attachments
6decades.png
6decades.png (138.94 KiB) Viewed 10619 times
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by RAYC »

I'm suprised at the order of tasting, though I do recall it was the same at the Noval / Nacional tasting a few years ago (and I can see why - from the perspective of putting together a presentation - it makes sense).
Rob C.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

JWEW wrote:1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?
What are you showing us? I've checked the BBR website and there's still no sign of any F66. But if it's there, I'll be even happier.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration

Post by LGTrotter »

AHB wrote:
JWEW wrote:1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?
What are you showing us? I've checked the BBR website and there's still no sign of any F66. But if it's there, I'll be even happier.
I bet you overlooked this deliberately, to sow confusion amongst us about what a decade is, you lil monkey!
Post Reply