Glenn E. wrote:and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.
Wilco.
But what if there aren’t placemats? What if it’s stickies? AHB’s suggestion of a water-box sticky is growing on me and it wouldn’t have to be stuck to a glass.
Or...
we could invest in some of these for use at tastings, obviating the need for tick boxes altogether!
In which case there is some merit to the solution of tick boxes on stickers (that are then stuck to the table/a glass/a watch face/ the back of your palm)
However, tick boxes on placemats should, i feel, be the default. There are not too many tastings that do not involve placemats.
Last edited by RAYC on 18:46 Mon 19 Dec 2011, edited 1 time in total.
RAYC wrote:However, tick boxes on placemats should, i feel, be the default. There are not too many tastings that do not involve placemats.
That is already agreed. We are dealing with the difficult cases, not the ordinary cases.
RAYC wrote:In which case there is some merit to the solution of tick boxes on stickers (that are then stuck to the table/a glass/a watch face/ the back of your palm)
Next I need to think about how to parametrise this.
jdaw1 wrote:To assess, look at the circle text through about 1cm of port in a titled glass.
Perhaps we could devise a standard way of doing this by using a feature on the placemats?
Imagine a horizontal bar about 5mm wide running across the bottom of a Placemat or TN sheet. The bar is white at one end and black at the other, with all of the shades of grey in between. Written inside the bar, in a black font, are the gradients 0%, 10%, 20% ! 100%, the latter of which would be invisible.
Now place a tilted glass above one end of the bar and move it along until you cannot read the number below it. That is the opacity of the wine.
Would that work?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
➊ I’d like the test to be based on something standard, recommended by those expert in this field.
âž‹ Different printer resolutions can make different greys appear quite different. Might that confound the attempt at standardisation? (Also, but I think less, different toners might be a problem.)
➊ I’d like the test to be based on something standard, recommended by those expert in this field.
âž‹ Different printer resolutions can make different greys appear quite different. Might that confound the attempt at standardisation? (Also, but I think less, different toners might be a problem.)
On 2, provided the 100% was invisible or as good as, and the graduation of grey looked consistent, I don't think the variation of printer/toner would have much effect.
Perhaps if someone very clever could produce a test sheet we could each print a copy of it and bring them to the Bunghole to test whether or not the printer variation is significant. The test sheet does not have to part of the placemets.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
➊ I’d like the test to be based on something standard, recommended by those expert in this field.
âž‹ Different printer resolutions can make different greys appear quite different. Might that confound the attempt at standardisation? (Also, but I think less, different toners might be a problem.)
On 2, provided the 100% was invisible or as good as, and the graduation of grey looked consistent, I don't think the variation of printer/toner would have much effect.
Perhaps if someone very clever could produce a test sheet we could each print a copy of it and bring them to the Bunghole to test whether or not the printer variation is significant. The test sheet does not have to part of the placemets.
I agree with DRT - if the 100% is invisible then this should be a self-balancing test.
An alternative approach might be to print a small ruler along one edge of the test; then to tip the glass and measure the distance from the rim at which the ruler becomes invisible. We could conduct some tests to develop an agreed standard.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
AHB wrote:An alternative approach might be to print a small ruler along one edge of the test; then to tip the glass and measure the distance from the rim at which the ruler becomes invisible. We could conduct some tests to develop an agreed standard.
This is similar to (better than, really) the method I use to judge very young Ports. I judge pencil-widths visible at the rim, but a ruler would be more precise and allow for rating older Ports as well.
The key to this system is a consistent fill level in a standard shape glass. This might be difficult at a larger tasting where pour sizes are smaller, but I think it's a relatively easy system to use.
In the sake world, clarity is measured by putting the sake into a white ceramic glass with two blue circles in the bottom (bullseye-like). At equal pour for each sake, the judge can differentiate clarity and color.
JoshDrinksPort Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope
People might want to do the opacity test in different light, so will want to be able to hold it. Hence it must be on the TN sheets rather than the glasses sheets.
You are, of course, correct. My idea was in the early stages of development when I wrote the first post. Thankfully there are people here who can take semi-flawed ideas and make them work
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
That is what I had in mind, although the version I had in my head had white on the left and black on the right.
That's because you're Scottish.
jdaw1 wrote:Are you sure? I think the ‟9” of ‟90%” needs to be against very pale grey. If you can’t see black on 10% grey, then the port is ≈90% opaque.
The numbers are reversed to me. We're judging opacity, not the printed greyscale, so to me the numbers should indicate the opacity of the Port. I cannot be expected to do math while consuming alcohol.
Printing on two laserprinters gives different apparent greys. As a form of standardisation, this is miserable. (Though within each printer, the four lines are very similar.)