The Taylor 1985 Debate

[Glenn E.]

Taylor has a place in my balanced cellar and planned future drinking even if it does cost a little more than some of the other ports.

I cannot fault your conclusion, as it is the same as mine.

I have ~2 cases {of G85} left and will acquire more as I find them for good prices. I need more F85, too, as I am down to 10 bottles. My 2 bottles of T85 are sufficient, I think.

T85 has a place in my cellar, but only to supply tastings or events in which variety is desireable. And for that purpose, paying extra for a couple of bottles of Taylor is reasonable as it gives me access to a tasting or event where I may get to try any number of interesting Ports.

But I am more than happy to fill my cellar with F85 and G85 to supply my own personal drinking needs.

[DRT]

{lots of sense}

A masterful post

+1

[Alex Bridgeman]

A masterful post, how can I disagree with it? Well let me try:

The Taylor 80, well taste is an individual thing but this is nothing short of shoddy. Which when I compare with the Warre 80 that cost a third less than the Taylor...

The 85 Taylor I do not know well but I may have a look, the 80, never in hell.

Love those prices, not recent, I assume.

The main point you make about wanting variation is the most compelling point I have seen on this thread, matched only by Derek's point; when faced with a purchase where I can have almost any other port for between 2/3 and 1/2 of the price of Taylor I have never chosen Taylor and have had only odd bottles which have passed through my 'cellar'.

I do agree that the Warre 1980 is a good wine, and one which I enjoy from time to time (usually when one of my port chums is kind enough to share a bottle with me) but I feel it is too young still and will be better in the future. On the other hand, the Taylor 1980 was rubbish about 5 years ago but has turned itself into a very pleasant, fully mature mid-weight and mid-quality port that is at its best today. While I would prefer to drink Warre 1980 in the future, I prefer Taylor 1980 today.

And I don't know what you mean by T80 being more expensive. I paid £55 for my Dow 1980 (I was desperate for some more), £35 for Gould Campbell, £32 for Roeda, £34 for Smith Woodhouse, £43 for Warre and only £30 for Taylor. The dates of acquisition ranged from October 2007 (Smith Woodhouse) to September 2011 (Warre) and with the Taylor being bought in August 2012.

[LGTrotter]

It is a very fair point you make about the Taylor 80, but I have not seen it so cheaply. It is easy to get caught up in degrees of subjective qualities. The reason you enjoy the Taylor is the same reason (I think) that I enjoy Cockburn and Martinez of off vintages, they make an elegant middle-weight wine that has a 'secondary' (brownish) palate.

I think if you are prepared to be flexible about what you buy and wait there are still bargains of the kind you describe. They are less common with Taylor than with other shippers.

[Alex Bridgeman]

It is a very fair point you make about the Taylor 80, but I have not seen it so cheaply. It is easy to get caught up in degrees of subjective qualities. The reason you enjoy the Taylor is the same reason (I think) that I enjoy Cockburn and Martinez of off vintages, they make an elegant middle-weight wine that has a 'secondary' (brownish) palate.

That is a perfect description of what I am currently enjoying about the T80 and T85. They won't be as good in 20 or even 10 years (I don't think), but by then I hope the Graham 1985 and Fonseca 1985 will have got their acts together.

[LGTrotter]

Isn't that the point you make about the Taylor but in reverse? I think wines like the Graham and Fonseca are at their best now and over the next ten years or so, a different style of wine should be drunk at a different stage. Both the Graham and Fonseca can hardly be thought of as young wines even by you and it is fantastic to drink such a vigorous thirty year old wine.

And I'm not sure about those Taylor wines running out of steam over the next ten or even twenty years, they have a reputation for having slow declines into senility.

Edit; The Fonseca 85 I shall keep a bit yet.

[LGTrotter]

I think wines like the Graham and Fonseca are at their best now and over the next ten years or so

Which made me wonder what sort of wines the 85s will make in old age. I know that the perceived wisdom is that the Graham will go phut about ten years from now but I have been hearing this for, well, more than ten years. And still it grows. The Fonseca everyone is sure will last, but what will it grow into?

My knowledge of old wines is limited but I can't think of an immediate comparison for the 85s. What kind of old bones will they make?

[uncle tom]

Which made me wonder what sort of wines the 85s will make in old age. I know that the perceived wisdom is that the Graham will go phut about ten years from now but I have been hearing this for, well, more than ten years. And still it grows. The Fonseca everyone is sure will last, but what will it grow into?

The history of vintage port is littered with people calling time prematurely on a vintage. My own observations suggest that around 90% improves between the ages of 30 and 40, and that most (but by no means all) peaks during the following ten years, although the downslope is often very gradual

1985 was made at a time when the producers were still in love with labour saving technology and cost-cutting, which led to some unwelcome consequences. I'm not sure how those that exhibit traces of varnish (in varying degrees) will evolve over time, as the problem was virtually unknown before; but those that are clear of such problems strike me as middle distance players, so probably good for a full two decades yet.

Never forget Mark Twain's letter to The New York Journal in June 1897:

" The report of my death was an exaggeration "

[Glenn E.]

Next year's 30-yr horizontal will no doubt inform our opinions on the vintage, but I lean with Tom regarding its potential so far. I may not think that T85 is a fabulous Port, but I don't see it as over-the-hill nor do I see that it is in any particular danger of suddenly dropping off a cliff. Another 10 years seems very reasonable for the bulk of the 1985s that I have tried, while the Fonseca and Graham will easily go another 20. Dow as well, probably.

As others have said before, after 50 years it's mostly a crap shoot based on provenance. Given good storage and handling, F85 could easily be an 80+ year Port. I'm not entirely sure why, but G85 doesn't seem like it will live quite that long, and not just because I will make a valiant attempt to drink all of it before then. But even so my guess is that it's a 70-80 yr Port.

[LGTrotter]

As others have said before, after 50 years it's mostly a crap shoot based on provenance. Given good storage and handling, F85 could easily be an 80+ year Port. I'm not entirely sure why, but G85 doesn't seem like it will live quite that long, and not just because I will make a valiant attempt to drink all of it before then. But even so my guess is that it's a 70-80 yr Port.

That is quite a ringing endorsement, whilst acknowledging the truth about crap shoots I would venture to say that the Graham hasn't finished growing yet. Each time I open a bottle (I may have been lucky/intoxicated) it seems bigger, something I have not noted with the Fonseca, ergo; the Graham will outlive the Fonseca.

1985 was made at a time when the producers were still in love with labour saving technology and cost-cutting, which led to some unwelcome consequences. I'm not sure how those that exhibit traces of varnish (in varying degrees) will evolve over time, as the problem was virtually unknown before;

Could you make so bold as to name and shame? Your reference to middle distance I assume to mean less than Glenn's suggested longevity, I ask as I am aware that 'middle distance' may have a different meaning to a man who's cellar reaches rather further back in time than my own.

[DRT]

I love all of this speculation.

I, like many here, have an extensive history of tracking the evolution of VP for perhaps a decade, or maybe two. It therefore seems absolutely fitting that we should distinguish between youngish VPs that have either a 70 or 80 year development period.

Splendid.

[LGTrotter]

Is there an answer as to which vintage, or vintages, are like the 85s? As I said before I can't think of any.

[DRT]

Is there an answer as to which vintage, or vintages, are like the 85s? As I said before I can't think of any.

1873 was quite similar, but slightly different.

[TLW]

Is there an answer as to which vintage, or vintages, are like the 85s? As I said before I can't think of any.

Perhaps it is my imagination, but it seems that before 1977, so many of the vintages were either spectacular or very ordinary.

[Glenn E.]

I love all of this speculation.

I, like many here, have an extensive history of tracking the evolution of VP for perhaps a decade, or maybe two. It therefore seems absolutely fitting that we should distinguish between youngish VPs that have either a 70 or 80 year development period.

Splendid.

I wasn't that precise. One "could easily be an 80+ year Port" and the other "guess is that it's 70-80 yr Port." In other words, lots of hand waviness should be assumed.

But even so, you can do calculus, too, without actually knowing how to do calculus. You do it every time you stop your car at a stoplight, and every time you catch a ball. You don't need to see the entire trajectory in order to estimate the length.

[DRT]

You don't need to see the entire trajectory in order to estimate the length.

As the actress said to the Bishop?

[DRT]

I wasn't that precise. One "could easily be an 80+ year Port" and the other "guess is that it's 70-80 yr Port." In other words, lots of hand waviness should be assumed.

"hand waviness" being + or - 5 decades?

OK - I accept that your estimate was accurate

[LGTrotter]

I wasn't that precise. One "could easily be an 80+ year Port" and the other "guess is that it's 70-80 yr Port." In other words, lots of hand waviness should be assumed.

"hand waviness" being + or - 5 decades?

OK - I accept that your estimate was accurate

Surely we may be allowed a degree of latitude? I did not reject Glenn's idea of 80+ years for the Fonseca and then said the Graham would last longer. So there we are, Seckfords should keep your Graham for the next sixty years.

Furthermore; 1955=1985. (How could I possibly know?)

[DRT]

Surely we may be allowed a degree of latitude?

yes, we should. But speculating about the difference between 70 and 80 years or 80 years+ is, in my opinion, nonsense. If we had tasted the 1931s on release we could competently compare their longevity to the 1985s. But we didn't, so we can't.

Are F85, T85 and G85 likely to be long-lived? The educated guess of a 20 year Port-drinker would suggest yes. Could any of us accurately predict that one would drop off the cliff 10 years before the others more than half a century from now? Really? Really?

Roll back five years and read the evaluation of these three Ports again. Then roll forward five years. And another five years, And again. And again. Yes, it's abundantly clear that F85 will last about 10 years more than G85 in about a thousand years from now. Maybe. Perhaps. Hmmm?

Or we could just go on with what they taste like now and what we think they might turn into in the foreseeable future?

[Glenn E.]

Port generally does not change radically even in its constant change. By which I mean that we can observe the present aging arc of these Ports, take the wisdom of those who have come before us into account, and then make a reasonable projection based on that information.

80 is roughly 15% more than 70. That is a pretty significant difference. Perhaps more importantly, 50 is 25% more than 40 - the remaining time being estimated. That's even more significant, especially given the information we have already gleaned from their first 30 years. It doesn't seem that outrageous to me to be able to estimate a 25% difference in advance.

/shrug

[LGTrotter]

Surely we may be allowed a degree of latitude?

yes, we should. But speculating about the difference between 70 and 80 years or 80 years+ is, in my opinion, nonsense. If we had tasted the 1931s on release we could competently compare their longevity to the 1985s. But we didn't, so we can't.

Nonsense? Well of course, and pointless too when you consider the chances of any of us making it to find out. But I do not think this precludes us from discussing it anymore than, say, discussing the temperature of the rubber bands you can smell in your port. It also is fair enough that it is pointed out when we are talking nonsense.

As to the point about the 1931; no, none of us tasted it on release, but the 85s are 30 years old and there are notes on the 31 from the sixties, and the people who took those notes which allows some comparisons to be made. Probably not that accurate, but still, maybe enough to work with in making educated guesses/wildly inaccurate presumptions.

And as the 85s are half way to sixty it does not seem too much of a reach to speculate about whether they will make it that far. There are people buying 70, 80, even 100 year old vintage ports in the hope of a good drink, and sometimes they get something over the hill and sometimes they hit the jackpot. (And as Glenn has said this seems to have more to do with provenance than the name and year on the bottle). And while it may be unprovable I think Glenn is on balance right that should I die at ninety and they open my last bottle of Graham 85 it will still be good.

The reference to two decades of port drinking set me thinking, but I may return to this later.

[Glenn E.]

should I die at ninety and they open my last bottle of Graham 85 it will still be good.

I hope to be there. If not, then I hope you are there for my "wake bottle" whatever it may be.

Derek, of course, will out-live us both because he has more 1965 Port than anyone else on the planet.

[LGTrotter]

The reference to two decades of port drinking set me thinking, but I may return to this later.

It being later: The first port I drank and can remember was in (I think) 1987 and it was a 1966 and I think the shipper was Warre. I had it a couple of times, maybe more. I still think of the 66 as it was then, all hard and sooty. It often puts me in mind of the 1980 Warre.

Anyway; I think if I can remember the 66 at the same age the 94 is now (which I still think of as a young wine) then surely I can pronounce on whether the 85 Graham will last another forty years? And I should be interested to know how far back this forum's collective memory reaches.

[Glenn E.]

While it is certainly possible that I had Port prior to the "first bottle" that I remember, I don't remember it so it doesn't count.

I was given my first bottle of Port for my 40th birthday in 2004. It was a half bottle of Porto Rocha 20-yr old Tawny. I really liked it, and so started trying Port here and there. It didn't take long before I discovered the 1977 Porto Rocha Colheita which I thought was just mind-blowingly amazing. I bought all of it that I could find, basically clearing out Seattle in the process. Little did I know at the time that Porto Rocha had accidentally bottled all of their remaining 1977, so what I had was a significant portion of the remainder in the US.

I don't recall when I first tried VP or LBV, but it was certainly before 2007. My guess would be 2005 or 2006, probably just to see what it was like. By 2007 I enjoyed Port enough that my wife and I visited Portugal for 4 days during our vacation in France for our 20th Anniversary. I started buying online in about that time frame as well and still have both of the first two bottles that I bought. My "first" aged VP tasted was a 1983 Warre that didn't impress me. I still have the bottle, though, because it was my first.

My first tasting was the Old & Odd in NYC in November of 2007 or 2008. That is where I met several TPF members for the first time.

So I'm only now approaching 10 years of Port experience, but I'm still comfortable making some kinds of projections just based on the breadth of Port that I have tasted in those 10 years.

[DRT]

All very sensible since my last (grumpy (sorry!)) thread on the subject.

My beef with this subject is not the fact that we or other wine lovers/critics try to predict the likely future of individual wines and Ports, it is the implied accuracy that confounds me.

Take 1966 as an example, it being the oldest vintage for which anyone in this conversation has experience of since its relative youth. If in 1980something Owen had been asked "how long will the Warre 1966 last?" his answer could only have been a guess. That guess might have been three, four, five or six decades. All of which would have been correct depending on which bottle you open in the future. Provenance, storage, original bottling conditions, cork integrity, voodoo and all sorts of other things contribute to how a wine ages, when it peaks and when it goes into a gentle or sudden decline. For a wine like VP the timescale over which that occurs and the number of variables involved

To say that one shipper from a vintage will outlast another to within a few years over a period of decades just doesn't seem meaningful. Drinking a VP when it is 30 and thinking any of:

1. I should drink these up
2. I should have drunk these before now
3. How do I sell bottles on Ebay?
4. I shouldn't touch my other bottles for at least a decade
5. This feels like it will be long-lived
6. This will probably outlive me and still be going strong

...all make sense to me.

[Glenn E.]

it is the implied accuracy that confounds me.

I shall endeavor to be more vague and hand-wavey in the future, though I cannot guarantee that I will be so even if the opportunity presents itself, because I cannot be certain that I will remember this thread, nor can I guarantee that even if I do remember this thread that I will then think it necessary to be any more vague and hand-wavey than usual. Maybe. Or maybe not. It's hard to predict relative levels of hand waving when you don't even know how far into the future you're trying to predict.

[DRT]

Can we all get Kenny Everett big hands and wave them together?

[LGTrotter]

I feel I may be raising myself up only to be struck down but to return to the Warre 66 analogy; Derek is of course right that I cannot accurately define the arc of a particular wine the first time I tried it. But if I had tasted the 66 aged 20, then thirty then forty and now nearly fifty, then repeat with the 70, 75, 77, 80, etc at various stages then it is not such an extraordinary thing to speculate how wines similar to the 85 might develop. This is not hand-waviness but the nearest thing we have to an individual or collective memory about how port behaves.

I would of course concur that to predict to within five or ten years is not possible over an eighty year life span but this is not a definitive answer, Glenn is not instructing that all Graham 85 must be drunk between the age of sixty and seventy-five. It is merely the expression of a confidence in that wine and the firmness with which the confidence is held. And if this is too esoteric for something entitled 'The Port Forum' then I shall simply have to go back to boring my friends with it.

Can we all get Kenny Everett big hands and wave them together?

No, I think that the least said about 'personalities' from his era the less we are likely to hear from the solicitors.

[jdaw1]

I fully concur with Owen's post.

[LGTrotter]

There is however nothing I can substantially disagree with in Derek's post, except that the list at the end is deliberately reductionist.

Glenn is not instructing that all Graham 85 must be drunk between the age of sixty and seventy-five. It is merely the expression of a confidence in that wine and the firmness with which the confidence is held.

Which is sort of the same gripe I had with Glenn's use of the 100 point system, but still.

I fully concur with Owen's post.

I feel I'm walking into a trap...

[Glenn E.]

It is merely the expression of a confidence in that wine and the firmness with which the confidence is held.

A fair and hopefully sufficiently hand wavey summation.

I fully concur with Owen's post.

I feel I'm walking into a trap...

trap.png (85.11 KiB) Viewed 4907 times

[Alex Bridgeman]

I fully concur with Owen's post.

I feel I'm walking into a trap...

trap.png

Remind me again - what was this thread about?

[jdaw1]

Remind me again - what was this thread about?

It was a tasting note of Fonseca 1985. Then it became a discussion about Taylor 1985, some saying that it is currently better than F85, even if that won’t be true long-term (F85 having acne but better cheekbones). Then there was more discussion about T85. Then we discussed how and what we can know about what will happen to Port. Apparently very few of us tasted the 1912s/1927s/1931/1945s/1955s in their youth, so cannot predict what will happen to the 1985s. Then we went off topic.

Did that help?

[LGTrotter]

Remind me again - what was this thread about?

It's a freewheeling giddy whirl, in other words it's about you, it's all about you.

Apparently very few of us tasted the 1912s/1927s/1931/1945s/1955s in their youth, so cannot predict what will happen to the 1985s.

Is there nobody here who drank a 55 in the mid to late seventies?

[PopulusTremula]

Is there nobody here who drank a 55 in the mid to late seventies?

Alas, my parents were not big drinkers and thus my exposure to the 55s happened after my years as a toddler...

[djewesbury]

But Owen has a point: our age profile is too low. We are all far too young to speak about these things with any confidence or authority.

[DRT]

But Owen has a point: our age profile is too low. We are all far too young to speak about these things with any confidence or authority.

So Owen agrees with me and you agree with Owen. I can live with that.

Incidentally, I just tasted some Smith Woody 1983 and I am absolutely certain it will expire at 21:45 on 23rd September 2034.

[djewesbury]

But Owen has a point: our age profile is too low. We are all far too young to speak about these things with any confidence or authority.

So Owen agrees with me and you agree with Owen. I can live with that.

Incidentally, I just tasted some Smith Woody 1983 and I am absolutely certain it will expire at 21:45 on 23rd September 2034.

21 45 23 09 34?

Is that your phone number?

[DRT]

21 45 23 09 34?

Is that your phone number?

You wish. I'm not that easy.

[djewesbury]

21 45 23 09 34?

Is that your phone number?

You wish. I'm not that easy.

One bottle of F70 and you're anyone's.

(NB SCP-DFC: NOT TRUE)

[LGTrotter]

Then it became a discussion about Taylor 1985, some saying that it is currently better than F85,

Some? That would imply more than one. The 'some' being one, who like Queen Victoria shall probably begin referring to themselves as 'we'.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Then it became a discussion about Taylor 1985, some saying that it is currently better than F85,

Some? That would imply more than one. The 'some' being one, who like Queen Victoria shall probably begin referring to themselves as 'we'.

So what does "better" mean? Does it mean "will eventually be nicer than", or "at its best will taste nicer than the other one when that was at its best", or "has more potential than", or "will live for longer than", or "was preferred by Queen Victoria", or...

I want to put myself firmly in the camp of stating clearly and unequivocally that one of these is better than the other. Which is better depends on which one is open and in my glass.

I still get more enjoyment from drinking T85 today than I do from drinking F85. And G85 is just bilge-water. No-one should have any of these in their cellars.

[jdaw1]

Then it became a discussion about Taylor 1985, some saying that it is currently better than F85,

Some? That would imply more than one.

I still get more enjoyment from drinking T85 today than I do from drinking F85.

Two.

[LGTrotter]

So what does "better" mean?

Oh dear, poor old chap, the beginning of the twilight. Can anyone help Alex out with what 'better' means? Or a mini mental state exam.

Then it became a discussion about Taylor 1985, some saying that it is currently better than F85,

Some? That would imply more than one.

I still get more enjoyment from drinking T85 today than I do from drinking F85.

Two.

Having established that one of the two has forgotten what 'better' means I think we can strike him from the electoral roll. Back to one. Unless you have other loyal subjects to call on.

[LGTrotter]

But Owen has a point: our age profile is too low. We are all far too young to speak about these things with any confidence or authority.

So Owen agrees with me and you agree with Owen.

Hold hard, I thought you would have noticed my line about being reductionist. While in essence the list is true it is does not travel as far as I would venture along the road of guessing the lifespan of a port. If all we can say is that 'this is nice and might get better', or 'this is nice and probably won't' then it seems to me we have all been wearing out our keyboards in vain on this forum. Which may also be true.

So what does "better" mean? Does it mean "will eventually be nicer than", or "at its best will taste nicer than the other one when that was at its best", or "has more potential than", or "will live for longer than", or "was preferred by Queen Victoria", or...

I want to put myslef firmly in the camp of stating clearly and unequivocally that one of these is better than the other. Which is better depends on which one is open and in my glass.

I should be more moved by your claims to a relativist positition if you were not prone to use the hundred point score, discussion of WOTN, etc.

I still get more enjoyment from drinking T85 today than I do from drinking F85. And G85 is just bilge-water. No-one should have any of these in their cellars.

And this is an opinion. One that demands respect, oh yes, there is nothing here that would strike a seasoned port drinker as outré. And that's fine. Just fine.

[jdaw1]

I should be more moved by your claims to a relativist positition if you were not prone to use the hundred point score, discussion of WOTN, etc.

I’ll quietly accept that we are off whatever the current subject was, so will rise to the challenge.

This is a tequila-and-Port type of claim, in which you have stirred together two quite different things. The “hundred point score” is meant to be absolute. By using this there is an implicit claim that today’s 89 is as good as, but not better than, last week’s 89. A bold claim. But WOTN is memory-free and amnesiac-friendly, merely comparing the glasses on the scorer’s placemat.

These two are of different types.

[Glenn E.]

And G85 is just bilge-water. No-one should have any of these in their cellars.

I am suddenly feeling a great need to buy a boat.

[LGTrotter]

I should be more moved by your claims to a relativist positition if you were not prone to use the hundred point score, discussion of WOTN, etc.

I’ll quietly accept that we are off whatever the current subject was, so will rise to the challenge.

This is a tequila-and-Port type of claim, in which you have stirred together two quite different things. The “hundred point score” is meant to be absolute. By using this there is an implicit claim that today’s 89 is as good as, but not better than, last week’s 89. A bold claim. But WOTN is memory-free and amnesiac-friendly, merely comparing the glasses on the scorer’s placemat.

These two are of different types.

First a disclaimer; I may have had a glass.

I mentioned the 100 point system because having read Alex's stout defence of this on other threads I thought it important to point out to this turncoat that there is none of his relativism about 100 points. Reductio ad absurdum indeed.

Then there is the matter of WOTN; I mentioned this to show the diaphanous (chalk it up, it counts) quality of Alex's other line of argument;

I want to put myslef firmly in the camp of stating clearly and unequivocally that one of these is better than the other. Which is better depends on which one is open and in my glass.

whereby should he be presented with both wines he would give WOTN to each in turn! I ask each of you, each member of the jury, to search inside themselves, are you going to put the honour of Graham 85 into the hands of such a frail vessel as Bridgeman? See him cowering in the dock, his half truths and sleights of hand revealed for what they are! Do not let the wily counsels of Julian distract you from the palpable truth; Fonseca and Graham 85 are most likely to prove a bit nicer overall than the Taylor. The case rests.

[jdaw1]

I ask each of you, each member of the jury, to search inside themselves, are you going to put the honour of Graham 85 into the hands of such a frail vessel as Bridgeman? See him cowering in the dock, his half truths and sleights of hand revealed for what they are! Do not let the wily counsels of Julian distract you from the palpable truth; Fonseca and Graham 85 are most likely to prove a bit nicer overall than the Taylor. The case rests.

a disclaimer; I may have had a glass.

Yes indeed, you might have.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Then there is the matter of WOTN; I mentioned this to show the diaphanous (chalk it up, it counts) quality of Alex's other line of argument;

I want to put myslef firmly in the camp of stating clearly and unequivocally that one of these is better than the other. Which is better depends on which one is open and in my glass.

whereby should he be presented with both wines he would give WOTN to each in turn! I ask each of you, each member of the jury, to search inside themselves, are you going to put the honour of Graham 85 into the hands of such a frail vessel as Bridgeman? See him cowering in the dock, his half truths and sleights of hand revealed for what they are! Do not let the wily counsels of Julian distract you from the palpable truth; Fonseca and Graham 85 are most likely to prove a bit nicer overall than the Taylor. The case rests.

I do believe that Owen's logic is far too complex for my simple brain. When I said

Which is better depends on which one is open and in my glass.

it was because I only ever open one of these at a time. The one that is best is therefore, by definition, the WOTN.

However, if Owen is willing to open both (or all three) for me at some point in the next few weeks I will be delighted to pronounce one of them (the Taylor) as WOTN.

And like Glenn, I have decided to buy a boat. Only so that I have somewhere to store my Taylor 1985, of course.