A little port quiz

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 13:24 Thu 01 May 2008

Arising through a fortuitous combination of good weather and good growing conditions and the existence of historic precedence, this port event occurred only three times in the whole of the 20th century.

What was the event?

Ask a question, and I will (attempt) to answer.

I've tried to make my question not too easy but also not too difficult.

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 13:29 Thu 01 May 2008

AHB wrote:Arising through a fortuitous combination of good weather and good growing conditions and the existence of historic precendence, this port event occurred only three times in the whole of the 20th century.

What was the event?

Ask a question, and I will (attempt) to answer.

I've tried to make my question not too easy but also not too difficult.

Julian missed a greengrocer's apostrophe

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 14:04 Thu 01 May 2008

Strangely enough, that wasn't what I had in mind.

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 14:40 Thu 01 May 2008

The silver jubilee?

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 14:43 Thu 01 May 2008

g-man wrote:The silver jubilee?

Hang on - QE II had one, Juliana had one in NL and I think King Wanka Loss. What about the Danish and Swedish ones? No clue on them nor the Belgians. Wossat gorra doowiv Port?

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 14:47 Thu 01 May 2008

1977 and 1935 were incredible years in port no? =)

Post by **DRT** » 15:17 Thu 01 May 2008

Is it the highest number of recorded declarations in a vintage, with 3 vintages tied for 1st place?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 15:46 Thu 01 May 2008

It's not directly to do with the number of shippers declaring, nor anything to do with jubilees of Kings, Queens or any other form of nobility.

Keep thinking.

10Anos · Post by **10Anos** » 15:57 Thu 01 May 2008

Is it an event that needs to be organized?

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 16:11 Thu 01 May 2008

Are two of the years 1970 and 1992 by any chance??

Tom

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 16:25 Thu 01 May 2008

AHB wrote:Arising through a fortuitous combination of good weather and good growing conditions and the existence of historic precedence, this port event occurred only three times in the whole of the 20th century.

What was the event?

Ask a question, and I will (attempt) to answer.

I've tried to make my question not too easy but also not too difficult.

wines declared during great wars??

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 16:30 Thu 01 May 2008

A split declaration?

Post by **jdaw1** » 17:07 Thu 01 May 2008

18XX and 19XX both widely declared? (Assuming that “existence of historic precedence† meant to say “precedent†.)

Sideways · Post by **Sideways** » 19:56 Thu 01 May 2008

Demarcation by parishes?

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:59 Thu 01 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:18XX and 19XX both widely declared? (Assuming that “existence of historic precedence† meant to say “precedent†.)

This might need a slight alteration: years the same distance into a pedant’s nineteenth and twentieth centuries both widely declared. (Thus including the 1900/2000 pair.)

My books are in boxes, but from memory I believe including ’63 and ’75. As well as the ’00, of course.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 18:30 Fri 02 May 2008

Julian is almost spot on, but not quite. For example, I am not the pedant that he is.

I decided them on a purely arbitrary basis, but which were the three years I chose?

Alex

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 19:06 Fri 02 May 2008

AHB wrote:Julian is almost spot on, but not quite. For example, I am not the pedant that he is.

I decided them on a purely arbitrary basis, but which were the three years I chose?

Alex

adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47? maybe the 34?

Post by **DRT** » 19:19 Fri 02 May 2008

1847 & 1947
1863 & 1963
1870 & 1970

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 21:57 Fri 02 May 2008

g-man wrote:adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47? maybe the 34?

Two out of three

Post by **DRT** » 22:01 Fri 02 May 2008

If we were playing Mastermind, how many white pegs would I get?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 22:03 Fri 02 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:1847 & 1947
1863 & 1963
1870 & 1970

Again, 2 out of 3 - but bear in mind that this is purely arbitrary and was decided solely on my whim whilst in a sozzled state.

Post by **DRT** » 22:07 Fri 02 May 2008

AHB wrote: bear in mind that this is purely arbitrary and was decided solely on my whim whilst in a sozzled state.

Does that mean that the entire basis of the question is invalid in that you used the words "only happened 3 times"?

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:21 Fri 02 May 2008

As my books are in boxes, I don’t feel disgraced by that outcome.

Post by **DRT** » 22:27 Fri 02 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:As my books are in boxes, I don’t feel disgraced by that outcome.

Agreed. But perhaps Magnus Magnusson should feel disgraced for asking a question that doesn't have an answer

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 22:29 Fri 02 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:
AHB wrote: bear in mind that this is purely arbitrary and was decided solely on my whim whilst in a sozzled state.
Does that mean that the entire basis of the question is invalid in that you used the words "only happened 3 times"?

No. The question is valid, but you simply have to identify the criteria that seemed important to me at the time that I made the question up and from there you have to deduce the three years that would have been considered to be the ones that fit said criteria.

And Julian retains the "looking-smug" rights until such time as someone identifies the three years in my mind.

Post by **DRT** » 23:49 Fri 02 May 2008

34, 47 & 63?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 23:51 Fri 02 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:34, 47 & 63?

Nope - we've already had that combination of three although I confess that in my current more sober (?) state I might easily have chosen this combination of three.

Pull out Broadbent and see what else you can suggest.

Post by **DRT** » 23:55 Fri 02 May 2008

AHB wrote: Pull out Broadbent and see what else you can suggest.

I got those three from Broadbent

Post by **DRT** » 23:57 Fri 02 May 2008

OK - let's test how drunk you were...

11, 78 & 93?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 00:02 Sat 03 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:OK - let's test how drunk you were...

11, 78 & 93?

Close, but certainly no cigar

Post by **DRT** » 00:15 Sat 03 May 2008

34, 63 & 70?

Post by **jdaw1** » 00:17 Sat 03 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:34

In what sense was 1934 a general declaration?

Post by **DRT** » 00:24 Sat 03 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
Derek T. wrote:34
In what sense was 1934 a general declaration?

In the sense that Broadbent gave it 4 stars, even though only 12 shippers declared, and AHB was p**sed when he picked the 3 repeated vintages.

Derek

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 00:42 Sat 03 May 2008

Gentlemen....I'll get the blankets.

Post by **DRT** » 00:48 Sat 03 May 2008

Rubbish. You couldn't fit more than two A3 Placemats on that table

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 08:31 Sat 03 May 2008

OK. You can heap the abuse on me now. I did consider 1834/1934 but instead went for the three vintage pairs of 1847/1947 (1947 being declared, but not widely), 1863/1963 (both being widely declared) and 1897/1997 (1897 being a top quality vintage but not widely declared because of the quality of the 1896 wines).

The criterion applied was simply: "A top quality vintage in both centuries".

I fully accept that if the question had been written on a communal basis with input from all on the forum, then it would have been both more robust and more accurate (and would therefore probably also have included 1834/1934 and 1900/2000).

But it wasn't. I wrote the question while I was the worse for wear but you still (almost) got the answer spot on so I can't have been too far off the mark.

Thanks for playing along ... now, where do we get a larger table for that balcony in Alan's picture?

Post by **jdaw1** » 12:58 Sat 03 May 2008

AHB wrote:The criterion applied was simply: "A top quality vintage in both centuries".

Since the criterion was quality rather than breadth of declaration, I’m pleased that ’75 wasn’t correct.

ThePortForum.com