Lists received from WS and from RAYC (and previously from AHB and DRT and PW).
RAYC wrote:Wolfgang - I trust you don't have one of your usual early morning gym sessions planned for Tuesday then!
Placemat-maker confusion also possible: earlier today, by PM, I asked for clarification.
Three are but half bottles. I therefore think it entirely reasonable a fourth is added, and in no way should my earlier comment be read as discouraging this!
It does place WS1 at a disadvantage if points are to be awarded for correct identification of vintage/producer (fewer chances that the usual wild guess will pay off...).
The flip side, if the guess recorder really is to be posted online, is that he will have somewhat less scope than the rest of us for embarrassment!
Given that everything else is blind, could we please have placemats that would allow the blinding of the Mg91? (that might also necessitate a reallocation of the responsibility to supply the Mg91)
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote:Given that everything else is blind, could we please have placemats that would allow the blinding of the Mg91? (that might also necessitate a reallocation of the responsibility to supply the Mg91)
I have wanted to try the Mg 91 for a while and this seemed a good occasion - for those familiar with it, I thought it would make a nice (low cost) benchmark by which to judge the others.
Given the extra admin that re-foiling/re-covering the bottles to conceal who brought what would involve, is it necessary to do that one blind as well?
Perhaps someone else should also bring a blind bottle of Morgan 1991 so that we can all see whether we can identify the blind bottle against the benchmark bottle.
Or perhaps I will ignore the instructions of the Director of Tasting and bring a blind bottle of Morgan 1991 anyway.
Or perhaps I won't...
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
That’s too easy. People would need to make just one comparison: ‘AHB’ versus ‘Mg91’. Easy.
But if ten bottles are labelled completely information-free (α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ) then there are ½n(n”“1) = 45 comparisons to be made, which is much more work.
Lists received from WS and from RAYC (and previously from AHB and DRT and PW).
RAYC wrote:Wolfgang - I trust you don't have one of your usual early morning gym sessions planned for Tuesday then!
Placemat-maker confusion also possible: earlier today, by PM, I asked for clarification.
Three are but half bottles. I therefore think it entirely reasonable a fourth is added, and in no way should my earlier comment be read as discouraging this!
It does place WS1 at a disadvantage if points are to be awarded for correct identification of vintage/producer (fewer chances that the usual wild guess will pay off...).
The flip side, if the guess recorder really is to be posted online, is that he will have somewhat less scope than the rest of us for embarrassment!
Indeed! I stumbled upon the 4th halve when locating the other three and thought this maybe a good idea especially if one of them is showing not so well. On top I remebered JDAW's comments about thirsty people and the initially slim port outline of our American friends and I thought: Let us do this differently in the old world!
cu
WS1
"Sometimes too much to drink is barely enough" Mark Twain
benread wrote:Please may I join you on Monday? I shall send JDAW1 an email with options, in the hope there is space for a (not so) little one at the table!