That edges away from ‘tasting’ and towards ‘party’.uncle tom wrote:We are probably looking at a two bottle event here.
Is there a date?
That edges away from ‘tasting’ and towards ‘party’.uncle tom wrote:We are probably looking at a two bottle event here.
No matter how many times I read that sentence I keep hearing the word "Magnum" in my headuncle tom wrote:We are probably looking at a two bottle event here.
1. The voices of any respectable gentleman would keep saying ‟Imperial”.DRT wrote:I keep hearing the word "Magnum" in my head
We know the venue. What is the date?Cookie wrote:I am extremely happy to report that the date and venue for this event has now been confirmed
Cookie wrote:Date now confirmed 25th July 2012.
I think this is also the first day of Olympic competition - the football starts before the opening ceremony. What chance a game involving Portugal v GB that night?Cookie wrote:Date now confirmed 25th July 2012.
In plain sight.AHB wrote:Where have you hidden them?
Found it - I really like this designjdaw1 wrote:In plain sight.AHB wrote:Where have you hidden them?
Different flags have different width:height ratios, including 2:1, 19:10, 5:3, 18:11, 3:2, and 10:7. So if each flag is left-aligned and the height of that Port’s TN rows, the most obvious features would be the non-consistent lengths. But if the lengths are consistent, the variations in heights would be obvious. They could be arranged diagonally across the page, evenly horizontally spaced, but I don’t like that either.AHB wrote:but - perhaps - include them as a watermark on the tasting note sheet.
Are you suggesting that it is easy to find a vector description of the flags of Canada and the USSR? (Mexico and Spain are forfeiting their heraldry.)JacobH wrote:Considering the inclusion of flags, it’s a good thing that the you decided to stop at 1948 and didn’t try going back to the first London Olympics, or even the games before 1948...
Oh, no, just that the historically-accurate flag of the host of the 1936 Olympics is not one that is particularly acceptable today...jdaw1 wrote:Are you suggesting that it is easy to find a vector description of the flags of Canada and the USSR? (Mexico and Spain are forfeiting their heraldry.)JacobH wrote:Considering the inclusion of flags, it’s a good thing that the you decided to stop at 1948 and didn’t try going back to the first London Olympics, or even the games before 1948...
Agreed.jdaw1 wrote:Please agree that the flags can be deleted.
jdaw1 wrote:[Separately, as a result of this task I have noticed that in the official specification of the Australian flag the drawing is inconsistent with the marked measurements. It’s as bad as a port shipper not knowing whether it produced 1844.
jdaw1, to the appropriate Australian authorities, wrote:I wish to draw, accurately, the Australian flag. To be accurate I am working from the specification at
www.itsanhonour.gov.au/publications/sym ... l_flag.pdf
That says that the centre of Gamma Crucis is 1/6 of the fly below the top, and that the centre of Alpha Crucis is 1/6 of the fly above the bottom. Yet in that PDF the distances of those centres to the nearest edges are not equal, Alpha Crucis being closer. Indeed, the bottom of the blue of the Cross of St. Andrew should be below the top of the flag by one third of the hoist of the Union Jack, so one sixth the height of the whole flag. But extensions of those St Andrew lines do not go through the marked centre of Gamma Crucis, and Alpha Crucis is a different distance again.
So at least one of the following is true.
• The words are correct, the drawing is wrong;
• The words are wrong, the drawing is correct;
• I have mis-understood.
Please, which? Please, what is correct?
Whoops! How very embarrassing.A representative of those Australian authorities wrote:We have found that there is some distortion of the flag elements in the pdf file so please go by the words.
Regards
Webmaster
Thanks!Cookie wrote:For those asking to be placed on the reserve list, your request is duly noted, however, I do know that the venue can accomodate 24 but I do not know if the Ambassador has any other dignitaries or sports officianados that he would like to attend.
Enquiries are being made at this time and I will update the attendees list as and when I have an answer.
No, we didn't. I decanted every bottle of Port for the Malvedos tasting and can confirm that there was only one bottle of each vintage, and the Organisation Thread shows 14 attendees.Cookie wrote:I know we are capable of hosting a tasting of up tp to 24 because we did that at the RAF Club for the Malvedos tatsing.
We already have 13 paying people who have registered interest (assuming Oscar is a 6th guest). If all were ready to commit, does that make the 2-bottle line-up work?DRT wrote:No, we didn't. I decanted every bottle of Port for the Malvedos tasting and can confirm that there was only one bottle of each vintage, and the Organisation Thread shows 14 attendees.Cookie wrote:I know we are capable of hosting a tasting of up tp to 24 because we did that at the RAF Club for the Malvedos tatsing.
As far as I can recall, we have never had more than 14 glasses of each wine at a tasting. We have not been inundated with applications to join recent large tastings and have invariably been scrambling around in the few days before the event trying to fill vacant seats. Are we perhaps being too ambitious here?
I didn't check the first post before suggesting limiting to 14. If the 13 TPF attendees are willing to commit now then this might work. But, as this is a fixed line-up, and in order for it to be safe for the organiser to proceed to buy these wines, I would suggest that the 13 should commit on the basis of coughing up £200 by 28 Feb to put the organiser in funds. If anyone pulls out they would lose their £200 unless they find someone to take their seat. A settling-up against real cost can happen neared the time.RAYC wrote:We already have 13 paying people who have registered interest (assuming Oscar is a 6th guest). If all were ready to commit, does that make the 2-bottle line-up work?
To reduce that to 8 seems to be a bit of a departure from the spirit of how TPF events are organised on the board, though I understand if it has to happen.
I think this is a very fair way to proceed. I would be happy to pay up sooner than that if it helps.DRT wrote:I didn't check the first post before suggesting limiting to 14. If the 13 TPF attendees are willing to commit now then this might work. But, as this is a fixed line-up, and in order for it to be safe for the organiser to proceed to buy these wines, I would suggest that the 13 should commit on the basis of coughing up £200 by 28 Feb to put the organiser in funds. If anyone pulls out they would lose their £200 unless they find someone to take their seat. A settling-up against real cost can happen neared the time.RAYC wrote:We already have 13 paying people who have registered interest (assuming Oscar is a 6th guest). If all were ready to commit, does that make the 2-bottle line-up work?
To reduce that to 8 seems to be a bit of a departure from the spirit of how TPF events are organised on the board, though I understand if it has to happen.
Does that sound fair?
AHB is normally quite accurate in his estimations for such events. If this is indeed going to cost in the region of £300 per head I am sorry to say that it is not for me as most of these wines are likely to be curiosities. If others are more keen that I am them please drop me down to a possible attendees and allow someone lower down the list to take my place.AHB wrote:The cost could be underestimated. My experience is that if we supply ports for a tasting from our personal cellars then we usually beat Wine Searcher prices by about 20%. Wine searcher has a line up similar to the one suggested by Tom priced at £2,750 for the 16 bottles. Take off the 20% and add on glass hire and you get an cost estimate of £2,500. If this is a one bottle tasting with 6 guests and 8 TPF paying attendees then this works out to be £312.50 per TPF member. Fill the table with 24 attendees, of which 18 are TPF paying members and have two bottles of each wine and the cost works out to be about £280 per TPF member.
Whilst I agree Alex is usually correct in his estimation of cost, I am assured that there will be a 'considerable' contribution by our host and his guests...once I know the full details I will then be able to advise on actual cost nearer the time...meanwhile attendees remain as posted.DRT wrote:AHB is normally quite accurate in his estimations for such events. If this is indeed going to cost in the region of £300 per head I am sorry to say that it is not for me as most of these wines are likely to be curiosities. If others are more keen that I am them please drop me down to a possible attendees and allow someone lower down the list to take my place.AHB wrote:The cost could be underestimated. My experience is that if we supply ports for a tasting from our personal cellars then we usually beat Wine Searcher prices by about 20%. Wine searcher has a line up similar to the one suggested by Tom priced at £2,750 for the 16 bottles. Take off the 20% and add on glass hire and you get an cost estimate of £2,500. If this is a one bottle tasting with 6 guests and 8 TPF paying attendees then this works out to be £312.50 per TPF member. Fill the table with 24 attendees, of which 18 are TPF paying members and have two bottles of each wine and the cost works out to be about £280 per TPF member.
Don’t rob our host of his accent: ‟His Excellency Dr João de Vallera”.Cookie wrote:1. His Excellency Dr Joao de Vallera
I can see the squiggly line for such occasions but I have no idea on how to get it on top of the 'a'...perhaps you could enlighten me please.jdaw1 wrote:Don’t rob our host of his accent: ‟His Excellency Dr João de Vallera”.Cookie wrote:1. His Excellency Dr Joao de Vallera