Tasting Notes Section

[DRT]

Announcement or Sticky?

Sticky.

Announcements are temporary, Stickys are permanent. At least they are in my head.

[jdaw1]

Announcements are more important. They appear above stickies, and appear at the top of every page (go to page 3 of the TNs).

[DRT]

Announcements are more important. They appear above stickies, and appear at the top of every page (go to page 3 of the TNs).

You are making my point for me. The TN Index threads should (and will), under normal circumstances be at the top of the TN Forum Index. However, if we need to make an announcement to inform people of a significant event or change affecting the TN forum we would want that announcement to temporarily supercede the Index threads so that people see it first. Once the announcement has no significant meaning or impact it would be removed or down-graded to a normal topic. The TN Index threads would then resume their place at the top of the Forum.

[DRT]

Have just read your post again with the benefit of another glass of Morgan 1991. I now agree with you. Make them both Announcements. I will leave it to you to figure out how to get them in alphabetical order.

[jdaw1]

Both announcements, and also the format thread.

Meanwhile, we drink more eighty-fives than any other year. We also over-consume 2000s and 1994s, which are far too young.
75 Ã 1985
61 Ã 2000
57 Ã 1994
54 Ã 1977
47 Ã 1970
45 Ã 1963
34 Ã 1983
31 Ã 1966
31 Ã 1995
30 Ã 1991
29 Ã 1997
26 Ã 1980
25 Ã 2001
25 Ã 2001
24 Ã 1996
24 Ã 2003
24 Ã 2003
24 Ã 2003
24 Ã NV
21 Ã 1987
18 Ã 1975
18 Ã 1988
15 Ã 1992
13 Ã 1989
13 Ã 2005
13 Ã 2005
12 Ã 1955
11 Ã 1998
11 Ã 1999
11 Ã 20y
10 Ã 1978
9 Ã 1960
8 Ã 1927
8 Ã 2004
8 Ã 2004
8 Ã 2004
7 Ã 1967
7 Ã 1982
6 Ã 1990
5 Ã 1968
5 Ã 1986
5 Ã 2002
5 Ã 2002
5 Ã 2002
5 Ã 10Y
4 Ã 1912
4 Ã 1920
4 Ã 1937
4 Ã 1945
4 Ã 1948
4 Ã 1950
4 Ã 1974
4 Ã 1976
4 Ã 1979
3 Ã 1931
3 Ã 1935
3 Ã 1947
3 Ã 1952
3 Ã 1958
3 Ã 1962
3 Ã 1964
3 Ã 1965
3 Ã 2006
2 Ã 1863
2 Ã 1890
2 Ã 1908
2 Ã 1917
2 Ã 1957
2 Ã 1984
1 Ã 1830
1 Ã 1853
1 Ã 1875
1 Ã 1896
1 Ã 1900
1 Ã 1906
1 Ã 1924
1 Ã 1933
1 Ã 1934
1 Ã 1940
1 Ã 1941
1 Ã 1944
1 Ã 1961
1 Ã 1971
1 Ã ‘believed vintage’

[DRT]

Both announcements, and also the format thread.

Meanwhile, we drink more eighty-fives than any other year. We also over-consume 2000s and 1994s, which are far too young.

Agreed. But we have a higher than average consumption of 1830s

[DRT]

we drink more eighty-fives than any other year.

It is particularly entertaining to see that I have been singularly or jointly responsible for the demise of 6 x Fonseca 1985s and on each occassion commented that it is too young to drink

[jdaw1]

Whereas I am the definitive only TPF expert in 1908s. Smugness.

[Andy Velebil]

Meanwhile, we drink more eighty-fives than any other year. We also over-consume 2000s and 1994s, which are far too young.

And who says us American's are the only ones who drink them young...I guess this proves otherwise

[JacobH]

What we are really missing from the analysis is some graphs. No doubt jdaw1 could improve on the following:

[jdaw1]

I’ve marked you down as an enemy of Edward Tufte.

[Alex Bridgeman]

This? I have removed the links from the house names, because their great number would otherwise overwhelm.

Was only a little bother, but having been done, won’t be much to maintain.

I've just taken a quick look at the new "Year -> Shipper" index. Very useful and interesting. Thanks.

[jdaw1]

Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.

[DRT]

Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.

I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.

[JacobH]

I’ve marked you down as an enemy of Edward Tufte.

That was oddly serendipitous. For a while now I’ve cited the critique on the use of PowerPoint by NASA in the Columbia Crash when explaining why PowerPoint is almost always unhelpful and possibly detrimental to the quality of a talk, without knowing who it was by, or that the author had written extensively on this and similar subjects. I might have to acquire a copy of his book! (If it’s any good?)

Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.

I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.

Although there is a bit of UK bias on this board…I was a bit surprised when I realised that we don’t have any 30 year-old or 40+ year-old TNs.

[jdaw1]

I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.

So you want VPs oldest-to-youngest, but tawnies youngest-to-oldest. OK. Is that the consensus?

And yes, Tufte is excellent.

[JacobH]

I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.

So you want VPs oldest-to-youngest, but tawnies youngest-to-oldest. OK. Is that the consensus?

That would make sense to me (though I might be tempted either to put Tawnies before the VPs, as there are so few of them, or have a note at the start mentioning that they are at the end).

And yes, Tufte is excellent.

As one of a very few Americans who uses Gill Sans, I though he might . Shame there are no super-cheap versions on Amazon…I might have to splash out the cost of a bottle of Port on a book for once!

[jdaw1]

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Edward R. Tufte, costing a mere $25.20, and cheap at twice the price. (Costing £26 at .co.uk: buy it in the USA.)

[JacobH]

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Edward R. Tufte, costing a mere $25.20, and cheap at twice the price. (Costing £26 at .co.uk: buy it in the USA.)

Thanks for that, unfortunately a bit late: I ordered one from the .co.uk site from an affiliate. At £13, I think it was about the the same price, depending on how low the GBP has fallen.

[DRT]

Although there is a bit of UK bias on this board…I was a bit surprised when I realised that we don’t have any 30 year-old or 40+ year-old TNs.

I know that ADV, SEAN C, Stewart Todd and I shared the Noval 30 and 40 yr old with in VNG last year and ADV, AHB, Stewart Todd and I shared the Taylor equivalents at Vargellas in 2006. I have no notes from either of these tastings but I am fairly certain AHB and ADV will have so perhaps they could fill the void?

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

Although there is a bit of UK bias on this board…I was a bit surprised when I realised that we don’t have any 30 year-old or 40+ year-old TNs.

I know that ADV, SEAN C, Stewart Todd and I shared the Noval 30 and 40 yr old with in VNG last year and ADV, AHB, Stewart Todd and I shared the Taylor equivalents at Vargellas in 2006. I have no notes from either of these tastings but I am fairly certain AHB and ADV will have so perhaps they could fill the void?

Derek

Sadly, I do not have any notes on the Taylor 30 and 40 yo tawnies. As has been commented on from time to time, I am slower than average in my tasting and note making. On our visit to Vargellas, there were a large number of vintage ports that I wanted to taste and to record my thoughts thereon. To make sure I had enough time to work at my pace, I decided not to taste the tawnies.

Alex

[jdaw1]

Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.

I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.

So far there have been two opinions, Derek and I disagreeing. Please could others express a preference? Oldest-to-youngest, or smallest-number-to-largest-number?

[Glenn E.]

I think anything with a year - VP, colheita - should be listed oldest first.

And I agree with Derek that 10Y, 20Y, 30Y, 40Y is a natural progression for tawnies with an indication of age.

So I guess that means I don't see a problem with the current sorting... it just works out.

[DRT]

Current score:

Common Sense: 2
Pedantry: 1

[Alex Bridgeman]

Common sense 3
Pedantry 1