1992 Dow Bomfim

Tasting notes for individual Ports, with an index sorted by vintage and alphabetically.
Forum rules
Tasting notes for individual Ports, with an index sorted by vintage and alphabetically.
Post Reply
User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

1992 Dow Bomfim

Post by jdaw1 » 13:54 Sun 31 Jan 2016

In Streatham, on Saturday 30th January 2016, Mr and Mrs Gandhi were the guests of Mr and Mrs Wiseman, as was Mrs W’s brother.

Links:

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1992 Dow Bomfim

Post by jdaw1 » 14:06 Sun 31 Jan 2016

DB92, decanted 2pm. Bright red, 80% opaque. Much drier than the Grahams and Warres. Good structure and weight, red cherry fruit, and also darker cherries. Well-made drinking. Despite the colour, ready to be drunk. Enjoy—we did.

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1992 Dow Bomfim

Post by jdaw1 » 18:21 Mon 01 Feb 2016

Two days later still yummy. Only marginally dry, red cherry fruit, good size and weight and presence, and long. And empty—this last quality being reprehensible. Cheeky Symingtons, thinking that just because a a bottle is labelled “750ml” they can get away with putting in only 8.857×10^-52 cubic light years of Port. That is only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008857 l.y.³, less than an atto-atto-femto l.y.³, which is self-evidently inadequate.

T-shirts?
• “0.8857 atto-atto-femto l.y.³ of Port is not enough”?
• “0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008857 l.y.³ of Port is not enough”?

Light years versus parsecs? For this purpose I prefer the former. Others?

† Please could somebody competent confirm the calculations.

Image

PhilW
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2441
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: 1992 Dow Bomfim

Post by PhilW » 23:58 Mon 01 Feb 2016

jdaw1 wrote:† Please could somebody competent confirm the calculations.
Agree with 8.857×10^-52 cubic light years; or 0.2553x10^-52 cubic parsecs (so alternatively: “25.53 atto-atto-atto parsecs³ of Port is not enough”).

User avatar
jdaw1
Taylor 1900
Posts: 19631
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1992 Dow Bomfim

Post by jdaw1 » 00:03 Tue 02 Feb 2016

Thank you.

I think the term parsec is not widely known outside its specialist field of use (e.g., the writers of Star Wars movies). Whereas almost everybody knows that a light year is a great distance.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests