1991 & 1992, date TBD

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:44 Wed 04 Dec 2013

This post to hold agreed plans and arrangements.

Theme: 1991 and 1992

Date: Wednesday 23^rd April 2014 (the evening before The B.F.T.) being re-scheduled.

Venue: The Bung Hole (57 High Holborn, London WC1V 6DT, â˜ +44 20 7831 8365, streetmap.co.uk, maps.google.co.uk, bing.com).

People:

Sophia B.;
Julian W.;
Daniel J.;
Rachel B.;
Christopher G.;
Derek T.;
Charles R.;
Axel P.;
Axel P.’s +1.;
Ian J.;
Alex B.;
Mike M.

People (waitlist, and possibles):

Rob C.

Bottles available:

1991 Quinta de la Rosa (Sophia B., and Axel P.);
1992 Quinta de la Rosa (Sophia B., and Axel P.);
1991 Niepoort (Axel P.);
1992 Niepoort (Axel P.);
1991 Burmester (Axel P.);
1992 Burmester (Axel P.);
1991 Churchill (Axel P.);
1992 Churchill (Axel P.);
1991 Kopke (Axel P.);
1992 Kopke (Axel P.);
1991 Smith Woodhouse (Axel P.);
1992 Smith Woodhouse (Axel P.);
1991 Vesuvio (Axel P.);
1992 Vesuvio (Axel P.);
1991 Graham (Axel P.);
1992 Graham Quinta dos Malvedos (Axel P.);
1991 Dow (Axel P.);
1992 Dow Quinta do Bomfim (Axel P.);
1991 Warre (Axel P.);
1992 Warre Quinta da Cavadinha (Axel P.);
1991 Taylor Quinta de Vargellas (Axel P.);
1992 Taylor (Axel P.);
1991 Fonseca Guimaraens (Axel P.);
1992 Fonseca (Stephen Eggins via DRT, and Axel P.);
1991 Delaforce Quinta da Corte (Axel P.);
1992 Delaforce (Axel P.).

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:44 Wed 04 Dec 2013

Last month, in Belfast, Daniel and I lunched with Sophia Bergqvist of Quinta de la Rosa. Amongst other things we discussed the 1991 and 1992 split declaration: which was better? The obvious suggestion was made, and Sophia agreed to bring de la Rosa from both years.

We have agreed a date of Wednesday 23^rd April 2014, that being the evening before The Big Fortified Tasting.

Who is in, and who has which years, both full-declaration and single-quinta declaration?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 15:51 Wed 04 Dec 2013

Please add a +1 (Rachel B.) and note that I'm not certain what 91/92 we have. But I also expect that much will change in that regard between now and April. I will update.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 16:21 Wed 04 Dec 2013

jdaw1 wrote:Who is in, and who has which years, both full-declaration and single-quinta declaration?

Wait...you're ruling out Graham and Fonseca from attending...

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:53 Wed 04 Dec 2013

RAYC wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Who is in, and who has which years, both full-declaration and single-quinta declaration?
Wait...you're ruling out Graham and Fonseca from attending...

Perhaps slightly careless phrasing by me. Who has which ’91s and ’92s, of either type? The intention was and is to include both Symington and Taylor-Fladgate brands.

Christopher · Post by **Christopher** » 23:20 Wed 04 Dec 2013

Please can you add me to this tasting. Many thanks

Post by **DRT** » 23:42 Wed 04 Dec 2013

Please count me in. I will have to check what I have and get back to you.

Post by **DRT** » 23:49 Wed 04 Dec 2013

I just remembered that we have a small supply of Fonseca 1992 that were donated to the team by Stephen Eggins.

Please add one of those to the list.

CPR 1 · Post by **CPR 1** » 09:46 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Count me in please,

I have the Fonseca G 91, but only in 1/2 bottles (but lots of them

) will see what else I have

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 10:58 Thu 05 Dec 2013

CPR 1 wrote:Count me in please,

I have the Fonseca G 91, but only in 1/2 bottles (but lots of them ) will see what else I have

Good, we can see if they're more developed. Wonder if anyone has 75cls?

Post by **DRT** » 11:15 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Are we only doing shipper pairs (e.g. Graham 1991 + Graham Malvedos 1992) or is it simply a list of 1991s v a list of 1992s?

I have Morgan 1991 in storage but will take it out if no one else can contribute a bottle.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 12:29 Thu 05 Dec 2013

By all means yes. Let me know what to bring. Shall we ask Dirk to join as well?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 12:48 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Axel P wrote:Shall we ask Dirk to join as well?

Yes. Did they release anything at all in 91?

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 12:57 Thu 05 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote: Yes. Did they release anything at all in 91?

Both a colheita and a VP. Possibly LBV as well. Think it was also the first vintage that Redoma was produced.

I had the 91 and 92 Niepoort VPs on consecutive weeks recently - both nice albeit slightly unremarkable at this stage - 92 being the slightly fruitier / more accessible.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 13:48 Thu 05 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:both nice albeit slightly unremarkable at this stage - 92 being the slightly fruitier / more accessible.

I agree, but believe that the 91 is the superior wine.

Axel

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:04 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Axel P wrote:
djewesbury wrote:both nice albeit slightly unremarkable at this stage - 92 being the slightly fruitier / more accessible.
I agree, but believe that the 91 is the superior wine.

Axel

Odd then that they don't list it on their website.. The only 91 shown is the Colheita.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 14:11 Thu 05 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:
Axel P wrote:
djewesbury wrote:both nice albeit slightly unremarkable at this stage - 92 being the slightly fruitier / more accessible.
I agree, but believe that the 91 is the superior wine.

Axel
Odd then that they don't list it on their website.. The only 91 shown is the Colheita.

They don't show several VP vintages (85, 91, 94, 97). I suspect because they are often problematic due to the well-known issues affecting Niepoort ports in that era (but that's pure speculation on my part!)

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:29 Thu 05 Dec 2013

RAYC wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
Axel P wrote:
djewesbury wrote:both nice albeit slightly unremarkable at this stage - 92 being the slightly fruitier / more accessible.
I agree, but believe that the 91 is the superior wine.

Axel
Odd then that they don't list it on their website.. The only 91 shown is the Colheita.
They don't show several VP vintages (85, 91, 94, 97). I suspect because they are often problematic due to the well-known issues affecting Niepoort ports in that era (but that's pure speculation on my part!)

Wasn't aware that the 91 was afflicted in the same way as the 97. Oh dear.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 14:31 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Well with the 85 and 97 I am not happy to open a bottle due to VA and TCA, but 91 and 94 are on track, at least to my knowledge and the approx. 10 bottles I opened from both vintages.

Axel

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 14:49 Thu 05 Dec 2013

For another thread perhaps, but i have had problems with both (eg: here and am not alone - here and here)

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 18:18 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Please put me down +1

Thanks

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:02 Thu 05 Dec 2013

DRT wrote:Are we only doing shipper pairs (e.g. Graham 1991 + Graham Malvedos 1992) or is it simply a list of 1991s v a list of 1992s?

My intention had been pairs and pseudo-pairs. If there is a clear consensus the other way I’ll give way to it, but failing that, comparing the years is best done with ‘pairs’.

Does the current list of people include all that it should?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 19:11 Thu 05 Dec 2013

jdaw1 wrote:
DRT wrote:Are we only doing shipper pairs (e.g. Graham 1991 + Graham Malvedos 1992) or is it simply a list of 1991s v a list of 1992s?
My intention had been pairs and pseudo-pairs. If there is a clear consensus the other way I’ll give way to it, but failing that, comparing the years is best done with ‘pairs’.

OK. Let's stick with (pseudo-) pairs. I agree.

idj123 · Post by **idj123** » 19:41 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Late to put my hand up again! Can I be added to a reserve list if no immediate place available (as it looks)? I'll have a root around to see what I've got or else I'll secure in hope.

Ian

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 19:43 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Has someone already asked Dirk?

EDIT: I have asked Dirk.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 21:09 Thu 05 Dec 2013

So what possible pairs are we looking for:

Niepoort both
La Rosa both
Burmester both
Churchill both
Kopke both
Smith Woodhouse both
Vesuvio both
Graham 91 full, 92 Malvedos
Dow 91 full, 92 Bomfim
Warre 91 full, 92 Cavadinha
Taylor 91 Vargellas, 92 full
Fonseca 91 Guimaraens, 92 full
Delaforce Corte 91, 92 full

Which one(s) am I missing? Let me know which ones I should supply

Axel

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:23 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Axel P wrote:Niepoort both
La Rosa both
Graham 91 full, 92 Malvedos
Dow 91 full, 92 Bomfim
Warre 91 full, 92 Cavadinha
Taylor 91 Vargellas, 92 full
Fonseca 91 Guimaraens, 92 full

Excellent, thank you. If necessary, would you be willing to provide most, with financial equalisation?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 22:31 Thu 05 Dec 2013

Dirk is unable to join us that evening.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 22:41 Sat 07 Dec 2013

Please put me down for a seat at the table, if there is still space.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:07 Sat 07 Dec 2013

jdaw1 wrote:People:
Sophia B.;
Julian W.;
Daniel J.;
Rachel B.;
Rob C.;
Christopher G.;
Derek T.;
Charles R.;
Axel P.;
Axel P.’s +1.;
Alex B.

AHB added. Anybody missing?

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:08 Sat 07 Dec 2013

jdaw1 wrote:Bottles available:
1991 Quinta de la Rosa (Sophia B., and Axel P.);

1992 Quinta de la Rosa (Sophia B., and Axel P.);

1991 Niepoort (Axel P.);

1992 Niepoort (Axel P.);

1991 Burmester (Axel P.);

1992 Burmester (Axel P.);

1991 Churchill (Axel P.);

1992 Churchill (Axel P.);

1991 Kopke (Axel P.);

1992 Kopke (Axel P.);

1991 Smith Woodhouse (Axel P.);

1992 Smith Woodhouse (Axel P.);

1991 Vesuvio (Axel P.);

1992 Vesuvio (Axel P.);

1991 Graham (Axel P.);

1992 Graham Quinta dos Malvedos (Axel P.);

1991 Dow (Axel P.);

1992 Dow Quinta do Bomfim (Axel P.);

1991 Warre (Axel P.);

1992 Warre Quinta da Cavadinha (Axel P.);

1991 Taylor Quinta de Vargellas (Axel P.);

1992 Taylor (Axel P.);

1991 Fonseca Guimaraens (Axel P.);

1992 Fonseca (Stephen Eggins via DRT, and Axel P.);

1991 Delaforce Quinta da Corte (Axel P.);

1992 Delaforce (Axel P.).

Does anybody other than Axel have stocks of ’91s or ’92s?

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 23:13 Sat 07 Dec 2013

Apologies - did not see i had been added to the list.

I found my enjoyment of BFT slightly compromised last year by the drinking that went on the night before, so think i will be having a quiet night at home on 23rd.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:31 Sat 07 Dec 2013

RAYC wrote:Apologies - did not see i had been added to the list.

No harm done. Due to a slight failure of belief on my part, I’ve moved you to a new section entitled ‟People (waitlist, and possibles)”.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:38 Sat 07 Dec 2013

What format?

Let’s assume that we are about a dozen people, and have about 1.6 bottles each. (So a dozen people and a score bottles, or a fortnight of people and twenty-two bottles.)

I think that blind would be difficult in the limited working room of the Bung Hole. So I propose sighted.

If somebody disagrees, wanting blind, complete or partial” , that person has to take charge of set-up. As in, plan, devise, be there, arrange, oversee, supervise, and make happen in all relevant ways. Absent same, it will be sighted.

” Possibilities. Lots of bottles, totally blind. Or, lots of pairs of bottles, shipper matching but unidentified, and also unknown being which is ’91 and which is ’92. Or, lots of pairs of bottles, identified shipper (e.g., these two are Smith Woodhouse), but which is ’91 and which is ’92 being unknown.

Post by **DRT** » 23:48 Sat 07 Dec 2013

I think partially sighted with only the vintage within each shipper pair unknown. I think that is the only practical way to eliminate vintage bias whilst having relevant "this is better than this" commentary relating to each pair. Croft 1991 being thought better than Cavadinha 1992 would be a redundant outcome in the context of this tasting. Malvedos 1992 being better than Graham 1991 would be enlightening.

Post by **PhilW** » 00:37 Sun 08 Dec 2013

I agree with Derek, but as I am unlikely to be able to attend, can be ignored. Would also require considerable co-ordination.

Post by **DRT** » 00:48 Sun 08 Dec 2013

PhilW wrote:I agree with Derek, but as I am unlikely to be able to attend, can be ignored. Would also require considerable co-ordination.

A plan:

The bottles are assembled in the home of one of the attendees that is within six miles of the venue.
The bottles are decanted fully sighted by the home-owner and DRT.
DRT takes each shipper pair to the kitchen where the {wondering what all the fuss is about} spouse of the home-owner awaits.
The home-owner's spouse wraps the bottles in foil and places them in a box.
Repeat for each shipper.

Post by **jdaw1** » 00:48 Sun 08 Dec 2013

I agree that it would be nice to have. But I don't agree with my doing it in the Bunghole.

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:33 Sun 08 Dec 2013

In the [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=68124#p68124]thread about a ’60-’63 double horizontal[/url], jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
TheBFT wrote:the b.f.t. 2014 on Thursday, 24th April
So Wednesday 23^rd April is a possibility for ’60 versus ’63.
I’m sorry folks, but I completely forgot this when arranging the ’91-’92 with Sophia Bergqvist of Quinta de la Rosa.

My fault. I’m sorry about forgetting the date of the ’60-’63.

My fault. Dates for two events need to be finalised, one of which is to be Wednesday 23^rd April 2014.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 09:38 Sun 08 Dec 2013

idj123 wrote:Late to put my hand up again! Can I be added to a reserve list if no immediate place available (as it looks)? I'll have a root around to see what I've got or else I'll secure in hope.

Ian

Should I be number 12 with Ian as number 11?

Post by **jdaw1** » 10:02 Sun 08 Dec 2013

AHB wrote:Should I be number 12 with Ian as number 11?

Names are being accepted in order of request: IDJ = 10; AHB = 11.

Ian: sorry I missed your post.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 11:07 Sun 08 Dec 2013

If this has already been arranged with Sophia we should stick with this date.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:15 Sun 08 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:If this has already been arranged with Sophia we should stick with this date.

Over four months in advance, and only a little time after Sophia was asked, she might understand and forgive a careless clash. If Dirk was asked first, and he accepted, then his stands. If not, Sophia’s stands.

Post by **PhilW** » 11:29 Sun 08 Dec 2013

If this is replacement, rather than as well as the 60vs63, then I'm in also.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 11:33 Sun 08 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:I have emailed EDN to clarify.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 14:44 Sun 08 Dec 2013

jdaw1 wrote:I’m sorry folks, but I completely forgot this when arranging the ’91-’92 with Sophia Bergqvist of Quinta de la Rosa.

As did everyone - me included - when volunteering to attend!

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:14 Sun 08 Dec 2013

AHB wrote:As did everyone - me included - when volunteering to attend!

Everyone except Tom.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:10 Sun 08 Dec 2013

djewesbury, [url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652&p=68168#p68168]here[/url], wrote:
Dirk Niepoort, in an email, wrote:it looks to me that 23 april is just fine for me !
what is the audouze method?? i would rather taste the 60 / 63 side by side. clearly.

We need a new date for the 91/92 tasting. Julian, when would suit Sophia?

Post by **jdaw1** » 17:56 Sun 08 Dec 2013

djewesbury wrote:We need a new date for the 91/92 tasting. Julian, when would suit Sophia?

On task.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 20:29 Mon 09 Dec 2013

Taylors and Vargellas are vv, meaning vice versa not vinhas velhas.

Axel