The best intentions and futility of scoring port

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 18:06 Wed 31 Oct 2007

I thought for a laugh and to get me in the mood for drinking some port later in the day, that I would take a look at the ports that I have drunk so far in 2007 and see how I have scored them.

Remember, according to Tom's scale I am supposed to award my 5% best ports of the year a 10, the next best 10% a score of 9, the next best 10% a score of 8 and so on. Here are the results (only for Vintage Ports) together with the 100 point scores to see if there is a general correlation:

0 - 1 bottle; score 72
1 - 1 bottle; score 87
2 - 7 bottles; scores 84, 85, 85, 85, 85, 86, 87
3 - 6 bottles; scores 84, 84, 85, 87, 87, 88
4 - 9 bottles; scores 86, 86, 88, 88, 88, 88, 88, 88, 90
5 - 15 bottles; scores 87, 88, 88, 88, 88, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 90, 90, 90, 92
6 - 11 bottles; scores 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 92
7 - 10 bottles; scores 90, 90, 90, 91, 91, 92, 92, 92, 92, 92
8 - 10 bottles; scores 92, 93, 93, 93, 94, 94, 94, 95, 97, 98
9 - 5 bottles; scores 93, 94, 96, 96, 97
10 - 4 bottles; scores 96, 96, 97, 99
Total number of bottles:- 79

The conclusion that I come to is that I struggle with being able to allocate bottles to a linear scale. However, I am sure that with more practice I will be able to do so better next year.

Mathematicians and statisticians - I leave it open to you to do something of more general interest with this base data.

Is anyone interested to see what the 79 bottles are that got these scores? Anyone want to hazard a guess first as to what the best and worst bottles were?

Alex

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 18:08 Wed 31 Oct 2007

Alex,

you got to much time on your hands this morning...shall I pick you up earlier and spare you the number crunching

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 18:12 Wed 31 Oct 2007

Alex,

My head hurts!

I'd happily guess which ones came first and last, but dont I need to know what you drunk? I might have a slim chance out of 79 bottles. If its out of the whole world of Port, my heads hurting again...

Alan

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 18:32 Wed 31 Oct 2007

Sorry Alan, you have to guess out of the whole world of port.

If you really need a clue then you can research on here and on FTLOP to see what I have commented on in the past. However, you know me and moy port drinking tastes well enough to be able to hazard a pretty accurate guess as to best and worst. Give it a try - you might be surprised how accurate you are!

Alex

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 18:53 Wed 31 Oct 2007

If its Cruz as the worst and Vesuvio as the best, then your right, its not too hard. But I would have thought you'd have headed for a 48 or a 66 in something. But the whole world of Port? Thats far to big...thank goodness.

Alan

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 19:07 Wed 31 Oct 2007

OK. Cruz was the worst and Vesuvio was one of the best, so it wasn't that difficult now, was it.

Anyone fancy going a step further and speculating on the vintages for these two wines?

Anyone fancy going two steps further and speculating as to what the other 3 bottles that received a Tom10 ranking were?

Alex

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 19:14 Wed 31 Oct 2007

Sorry to hog things. But I did remember you going all of a flutter over a year that surprised me, 1960? Now I'm sure it was a Noval, but cant remember whether it was NN or normal. If it wasn't a 10, you gave it really good marks. And with that, I give up, as I haven't got a clue beyond that.

Alan

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 19:20 Wed 31 Oct 2007

You're doing very well so far and giving lots of clues to anyone else who wants to join in.

Yes indeed, the Nacional 1960 is one of the other top 10 ports in that short list of 4.

So, so far we have:
Worst 1 = Cruz, vintage not yet identified
Best 4 = Vesuvio, vintage not yet identified
Nacional 1960
2 others as yet unidentified

I'll throw in another teaser in a while if I need to, but for now you're doing well. Perhaps I should have put this into the meaningless quizzes thread...

Alex

Post by **DRT** » 21:50 Wed 31 Oct 2007

Cruz 1989

Vesuvio 1994

Noval 1931

SW Madelena 1988

Dow 1980

Nacional 63

... Without looking at any TNs

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 02:01 Thu 01 Nov 2007

Derek,

That list you've supplied has 5 best bottles, and doesn't include the Nacional 60 he's coughed to.

Alan

Post by **DRT** » 09:07 Thu 01 Nov 2007

I can't count when I'm drunk

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 09:54 Thu 01 Nov 2007

You have a distribution that I would expect to see - it's called Normal. It is very diificult to turn a Normal distribution into a linear scale because it is not natural. You have the largest number in the middle which is very noble and realistic. You have too many top ones and not enough rubbish ones - you're too nice to some Ports, but generally your results look good, slightly skewed to the top.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 20:07 Thu 01 Nov 2007

Derek T. wrote:Cruz 1989 CORRECT

Vesuvio 1994 CORRECT

Noval 1931 WRONG (only an 8)

SW Madelena 1988 WRONG (only a 7)

Dow 1980 WRONG (only a 4)

Nacional 63 CORRECT

Conky wrote:...doesn't include the Nacional 60 he's coughed to. CORRECT

Very impressive so far. One missing from the top 10 list - if you need a clue then ask Andy which empty bottles he has in his house...

Alex

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 20:12 Thu 01 Nov 2007

KillerB wrote:You have a distribution that I would expect to see - it's called Normal. It is very diificult to turn a Normal distribution into a linear scale because it is not natural. You have the largest number in the middle which is very noble and realistic. You have too many top ones and not enough rubbish ones - you're too nice to some Ports, but generally your results look good, slightly skewed to the top.

You're dead right, it's very difficult to take that normal distribution and to "linear-ise" it. However, with some practice I might get better at it.

I prefer to think that rather than me having a skewed top, that I am able to choose vintage ports to drink with some skill and learning and therefore am able to avoid drinking those that would be expected to end up in the bottom quartile. Would this be an alternative explanation for my scoring?

It was quite good fun to try this analysis - but I'm concerned that some people might consider this analysis to be a little geeky. However, since it hasn't appeared on Derek's list of geeky behaviours to look out for, I feel thoroughly reassured on this concern.

Alex

Post by **DRT** » 21:14 Thu 01 Nov 2007

AHB wrote: I'm concerned that some people might consider this analysis to be a little geeky. However, since it hasn't appeared on Derek's list of geeky behaviours to look out for, I feel thoroughly reassured on this concern.

No. You have been logged in the Geeky behaviour database and will appear in the next issue of the list.

...but has anyone else noticed that AHB's distribution looks like the mid-torso of a man holding a machine-gun

Derek

Post by **DRT** » 21:18 Thu 01 Nov 2007

AHB wrote: I prefer to think that rather than me having a skewed top, that I am able to choose vintage ports to drink with some skill and learning and therefore am able to avoid drinking those that would be expected to end up in the bottom quartile. Would this be an alternative explanation for my scoring?

Quite honestly I think ths exposes a fundamental flaw in Tom's system. The linear scoring system based on an individuals experience over 12 months allows for the possibliy that both Nacional 63 and Cockburns Special Reserve could score 10-10

Derek