The "Deeper Underground" Offline (28 Jan 2008)

[Conky]

If it turns into a 13-1 vote, I'm happy to throw in another £5 each and we'll share it 13 ways in stead of 14 ways. That would be quite humerous, one of the World reknown vintages and Ports, you're tasting all the classics of that year, and you choose not to taste that one.

Odd, but would add an interesting twist to events.

[jdaw1]

Please close the poll with which this thread started (the date), and amend the title of the first post. We don’t want a last-moment overtaking of the settled result!

[KillerB]

I would suggest that, in the unlikely event that the date will be usurped by people not committed to coming, they can go stuff themselves.

[DRT]

I amended so that the Poll would run for 63 days which, by my calculation, would be yesterday. Unfortunately I do not know whether or not this has worked as the only people who can see if the Poll is open are those who have not yet voted.

Not sure why you want the title of the post amended?

Derek

[KillerB]

I know that I only voted once and can't access the poll from here or admin so it should be closed.

This is the best title for an off-line ever - do not change it.

[jdaw1]

I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:

• 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
• 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?

I say we have enough.

[jdaw1]

This is the best title for an off-line ever - do not change it.

Not even to “The Deeper Underground Offline (28 Jan 2008)”? So that when there are hundreds of tasting arranging threads, it will be easy to find and identify?

[DRT]

Done. Almost.

[DRT]

I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:

• 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
• 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?

I say we have enough.

I saw those too. Unfortunately, I and one other here had a near miss with a Sandeman 1966 today. I have also put out some feelers to attempt to locate some of the missing bottles to see what options we have.

My view is that the two you have referenced above are costly for what they are, especially in light of the fact that we have added things like Fonseca and Graham's at a fraction of that cost.

But let's not rule anything out just yet. There is no harm in virtual window shopping

Derek

[KillerB]

Done. Almost.

Ugh, ruined it.

[DRT]

Done. Almost.

Ugh, ruined it.

I am in compromise mode. But glad you think it is a good title. I thought so too.

Do you think we should keep or discard the " " ?

Derek

[KillerB]

Leave it alone, you've done enough damage already.

[DRT]

Would it help if I followed Jdaw's lead and used an upside down unicode questionmark instead?

[KillerB]

Unicode characters do not work in titles, so no. In fact:

NO

[DRT]

I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.

So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:

• 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
• 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?

I say we have enough.

The GC is a BBR bottling and looks in perfect condition

No pictures of the SW but I did spot this on their list:

Cockburn's 1966 Vintage Port - unsurprisingly marked as Sold Out

Derek

PS: Cockburn's famously did not produce a 1966 VP

[Conky]

Why dont you phone them up and say if they can secure you a Cockburn66 you'll pay a few thousand for it.
You can hang up knowing some poor bugger is on a rather fruitless goose chase...

[KillerB]

The label on that doesn't show a vintage. I downloaded and it up but no sign of vintage. I was wondering if they had faed it.

[jdaw1]

Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}

[KillerB]

Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}

No, you have used a compound unit there because you know that that is correct. You could not help it. If you had said 588 years then I would have growled like Marge Simpson or given you a very hard Paddington Bear stare. That would have shown you.

[jdaw1]

You could not help it.

I couldn’t. But I was hoping Derek T. would post before you.

[KillerB]

It should, of course, have been 588 Bridgemans.

[DRT]

You could not help it.

I couldn’t. But I was hoping Derek T. would post before you.

Damn, missed my queue.

[jdaw1]

Damn, missed my queue.

You meant, of course, “cue”. But you missed it anyway.

Are we yet sufficiently off-topic to justify splittage? No! OK, I’ll wait.

[Overtired and emotional]

Never having tasted NAcional, it would be a shame to pass the opportuntiy. I am for.

[DRT]

Current updated score is:

Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 11

Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1

Votes NOT YET CAST: 1

Derek