If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??RAYC wrote:if we want to be really pedantic
Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declarations
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
No it isn't.djewesbury wrote:If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??RAYC wrote:if we want to be really pedantic
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
Don't be silly man, of course it is / n't.flash_uk wrote:No it isn't.djewesbury wrote:If? IF? Because we're not already, is that what you mean??RAYC wrote:if we want to be really pedantic
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
BBR should have just gone all-out and called it "two millenia of port declarations"
Rob C.
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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.)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 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.
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.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.
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.
Don't you mean at the international date line?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
Glenn Elliott
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
You've never hear someone assert that C20 refers to 1900-1999?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".
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.
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
I will be teasing Roy about that in the very near future, I assure you, because he knows better.RAYC wrote:You've never hear someone assert that C20 refers to 1900-1999?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".
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
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
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
Their there and their they’re: they’re interchangeable with their they’re and their there. Ours aren’t.Glenn E. wrote:It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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".jdaw1 wrote:Their there and their they’re: they’re interchangeable with their they’re and their there. Ours aren’t.Glenn E. wrote:It won't be long before there, they're, and their are interchangeable as well.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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.
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
No it isn't.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.
(That's the summary.)
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
Expressing enthusiastic approval in non-mathematical terms!
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
-
- Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
- Posts: 3545
- Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
- Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
RAYC wrote:BBR should have just gone all-out and called it "two millenia of port declarations"
- Alex Bridgeman
- Fonseca 1966
- Posts: 15026
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
- djewesbury
- Graham’s 1970
- Posts: 8166
- Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
AHB wrote:Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
-
- 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
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.AHB wrote:Well, it was a slow burning fuse but I now feel smug at the havoc I have caused.
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
No they don't.
-
- Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
- Posts: 3545
- Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
- Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
Is this the right thread for an argument?flash_uk wrote:No they don't.
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
Is there a wrong thread for an argument?PhilW wrote:Is this the right thread for an argument?flash_uk wrote:No they don't.
Perhaps we should have a poll...
Glenn Elliott
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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?
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 (138.94 KiB) Viewed 10827 times
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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.
- Alex Bridgeman
- Fonseca 1966
- Posts: 15026
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: Thursday 23rd April 2015 - 6 decades of Port Declaration
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.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?
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
-
- 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
I bet you overlooked this deliberately, to sow confusion amongst us about what a decade is, you lil monkey!AHB wrote: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.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?