One quiz at a time

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 22:19 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:MacDonald was exonerated within months and the rumours (that he was having sexual relations with young boys in Ceylon) dismissed as malicious gossip.
My reading slightly different to yours. Some appeared to retain doubts about his character as a result of similar concerns in other parts of the Empire. Heaven forbid that the British establishment would even dream of making excuses and covering up the wrongdoings of a national treasure

Yes, actually, your reading is right. But it's quite amazing that the official report spoke so glowingly of him.

Post by **DRT** » 22:22 Sun 01 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:Yes, actually, your reading is right. But it's quite amazing that the official report spoke so glowingly of him.

Yes, truely amazing.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 22:23 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Yes, actually, your reading is right. But it's quite amazing that the official report spoke so glowingly of him.
Yes, truely amazing.

You are far too cynical.

Post by **DRT** » 22:24 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Owen!!

Pay attention. It's your question.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 22:29 Sun 01 Dec 2013

I wish I had held back the information about Take That pants now.

Lovely question Daniel. If only I could think of one.

I have already gone on about Dorothy L Sayers and Lord Peter Wimsey and the 1847 port. The books mention several others. I have a particular one in mind, the date and the shipper if you please.

Clues are available at the usual rates.

Post by **DRT** » 22:35 Sun 01 Dec 2013

{engage "I-don't-have-a-clue-what-Owen-is-on-about" random guessing mode}

Sandeman 1873?

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 22:38 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:{engage "I-don't-have-a-clue-what-Owen-is-on-about" random guessing mode}

Sandeman 1873?

Good plan. Younger and not Sandeman. And it's not a name/shipper you come across much these days.

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 22:41 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Feuerheerd 1890

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 22:43 Sun 01 Dec 2013

For clarification; Dorothy L Sayers wrote interwar detective fiction (good stuff in my opinion). Her sleuth was Lord Peter Wimsey. He, and other characters around him often drank port. Often it was just given as 'port'. A few were given dates, as in the 1847 which appears in the 'port and literature' thread. Even fewer were given dates and shippers. This is one of those few.
And now I can't find the book so I can only hope that my memory is sound.

AW77 wrote:Feuerheerd 1890

Younger and an English marque. Edit; british I think.

Post by **DRT** » 22:49 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Morgan Brothers' 1904?

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 22:54 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Robertson's 1910

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 22:55 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:Morgan Brothers' 1904?

No, too old still, just. There is more than one name in the shippers title.

I just hope I am right that it was a British shipper back then.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 22:59 Sun 01 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:Robertson's 1910

Too young, just a little. Might well have been bottled in that year. Not Robertson's.

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 23:07 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Lets get the year first: 1908

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:07 Sun 01 Dec 2013

I am finding references to Cockburn 96 and 08 in Sayers. But you say it has two names. Butler Nephew 08? (Nephew is not a 'name' as such but I have no other idea).

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:11 Sun 01 Dec 2013

AW77 wrote:Lets get the year first: 1908

Exactly.

djewesbury wrote:I am finding references to Cockburn 96 and 08 in Sayers. But you say it has two names. Butler Nephew 08? (Nephew is not a 'name' as such but I have no other idea).

Just more than one person mentioned. As in Butler Nephew, or Skinner and Rooke.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:12 Sun 01 Dec 2013

This port is mentioned twice in the book, once near the start and once when Lord Peter is having lunch with his man, Bunter at Walbeach.

Post by **DRT** » 23:17 Sun 01 Dec 2013

MacKenzie 1908?

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:19 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:MacKenzie 1908?

Nope, two words in the shippers name. (Do I need an apostrophe in 'shippers'? Oh well I shall find out soon enough.)

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:20 Sun 01 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:(Do I need an apostrophe in 'shippers'? Oh well I shall find out soon enough.)

I thought you carried your apostrophes at all times around here these days.

Post by **DRT** » 23:21 Sun 01 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:
DRT wrote:MacKenzie 1908?
Nope, two words in the shippers name. (Do I need an apostrophe in 'shippers'? Oh well I shall find out soon enough.)

Self disclosure gets you off the hook. "Shipper's name", "Shippers' names".

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:24 Sun 01 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:(Do I need an apostrophe in 'shippers'? Oh well I shall find out soon enough.)
I thought you carried your apostrophes at all times around here these days.

I have a rather haphazard relationship with them. Sometimes I scatter them like rice at a wedding, at others I hoard them back, with no real reference to the rules of punctuation.

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:
DRT wrote:MacKenzie 1908?
Nope, two words in the shippers name. (Do I need an apostrophe in 'shippers'? Oh well I shall find out soon enough.)
Self disclosure gets you off the hook. "Shipper's name", "Shippers' names".

Ta.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:27 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Quarles Harris.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:29 Sun 01 Dec 2013

It's a story about campanology. If anyone still is interested. I liked Daniel's question better. The self doubt creeps in.

djewesbury wrote:Quarles Harris.

No.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:30 Sun 01 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:It's a story about campanology. If anyone still is interested. I liked Daniel's question better. The self doubt creeps in.
djewesbury wrote:Quarles Harris.
No.

Never read Sayers, but I think I heard some LPWimsey stories on the Home Service many years ago.
You're too kind.
This is a good question.

Post by **DRT** » 23:31 Sun 01 Dec 2013

Tuke Holdsworth?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:32 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:Tuke Holdsworth?

Good guess. I'm putting my money on this one.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:33 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:Tuke Holdsworth?

Derek got it right!

Somewhere on the interweb, the interweb wrote:" Tell him to keep his spirits up. Such a nasty, depressing complaint. But he's over the worst now. I will send a little bottle of port wine as soon as he is able to take it. Tuke Holdsworth '08," added the Rector, in an aside to Wimsey.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:34 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:Tuke Holdsworth?

Yes!

Now you'll be off on your solo career again I s'pose?

Post by **DRT** » 23:36 Sun 01 Dec 2013

The BBC have a long tradition of making comedies in two series of six episodes. Which of those am I watching now?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:37 Sun 01 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:The BBC have a long tradition of making comedies in two series of six episodes. Which of those am I watching now?

Fawlty Towers

Post by **DRT** » 23:40 Sun 01 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:Fawlty Towers

No.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:49 Sun 01 Dec 2013

The young ones?

Post by **DRT** » 23:52 Sun 01 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:The young ones?

No, but I am glad to see you are both paying attention.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:13 Mon 02 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:The young ones?
No, but I am glad to see you are both paying attention.

Well I don't know how many series of things the BBC makes!

Post by **DRT** » 00:15 Mon 02 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:The young ones?
No, but I am glad to see you are both paying attention.
Well I don't know how many series of things the BBC makes!

Would you expect your students to give up after one obvious guess or would you expect them to put in some graft and do their research?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:16 Mon 02 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:The young ones?
No, but I am glad to see you are both paying attention.
Well I don't know how many series of things the BBC makes!
Would you expect your students to give up after one obvious guess or would you expect them to put in some graft and do their research?

Sigh. Yes sir.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:27 Mon 02 Dec 2013

Do you think this Christmas cake is done?

This is not a euphemism. Now back to the library.

Post by **DRT** » 00:31 Mon 02 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:Do you think this Christmas cake is done?

No.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:33 Mon 02 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:Do you think this Christmas cake is done?
No.

The answer will be known on Christmas eve.

The office?

Post by **DRT** » 00:35 Mon 02 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:The office?

No.

Clue: it is on this list.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:37 Mon 02 Dec 2013

Before I look; is it a long list or a short one?

Post by **DRT** » 00:39 Mon 02 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:Before I look; is it a long list or a short one?

It is described as "incomplete".

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:41 Mon 02 Dec 2013

His Lordship Entertains.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:41 Mon 02 Dec 2013

May I just say that your clues so far are rubbish?

Post by **DRT** » 00:43 Mon 02 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:May I just say that your clues so far are rubbish?

But you haven't asked for a clue. Do you want one?

Assuming yes, this sitcom is relatively modern and is not mainstream stuff from a BBC point of view.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:44 Mon 02 Dec 2013

I can't guess again yet. I am thinking though.

Post by **DRT** » 00:47 Mon 02 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:His Lordship Entertains.

No.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:51 Mon 02 Dec 2013

Mongrels?

Go the Dan!

Post by **DRT** » 00:54 Mon 02 Dec 2013

LGTrotter wrote:Mongrels?

No. A bit older.