One quiz at a time

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 15:55 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Vargellas 1925

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:59 Mon 05 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:Vargellas 1925

Yes, Vargellas. No, not ’25.

jdaw1 wrote:
JWEW wrote:Quinta do Retiro Novo 1926
(Not second-equal: clues, clues!)

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:03 Mon 05 Jan 2015

The answer is obvious (and has been for some time), but lacking a question I shall abstain. I will PM the answer to jdaw1 as proof.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:07 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Actually, having just PM'd Julian, I'm quite certain that I am wrong. My guess was 1927 Vargellas.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:09 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Vargellas 1925
Yes, Vargellas. No, not ’25.
jdaw1 wrote:
JWEW wrote:Quinta do Retiro Novo 1926
(Not second-equal: clues, clues!)

It's not my turn but this doesn't stop me ruminating a little, helping someone else over the line..
Taylor.pt tells me that in the 1920s, Vargellas was declared in 1925 and 1926 only. '25 is wrong. '26 is wrong, but only just. In accuracy it is

the cryptician wrote:second only to the correct year.

Prior to the 1920s, Vargellas was officially released in '05, '07, '11 and '14.
I'm now looking for a numerical pattern between one of these and 26. I confess I cannot see one.

Glenn E. wrote:Actually, having just PM'd Julian, I'm quite certain that I am wrong. My guess was 1927 Vargellas.

Oh, it is my turn now. Well, there's no official mention of Vargellas 1927. This is less obvious than it appears.
(It was also declared in '34 and '37.)

Vargellas 37?

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:12 Mon 05 Jan 2015

If the guessed year was second best answer in an arithmetic sense, it would wrong by one, so second-equal. But you’ve been told that it isn’t second-equal, so the sense of ‘best’ cannot be arithmetic.

And you know it is a year I haven’t had. Have you ever heard or read of a pair of Vargellas vintages of that era? Perhaps read in a book penned by somebody with a connection to Christie’s?

Edit in response to Daniel: not ’37.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:12 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Vargellas '24

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:15 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:And you know it is a year I haven’t had.

No TN exists on

for any Vargellas before 1961, so I know nothing about any vintages you may or may not have had before that date...

jdaw1 wrote:Have you ever heard or read of a pair of Vargellas vintages of that era? Perhaps read in a book penned by somebody with a connection to Christie’s?

This may be a case for Owen. I go to continue my researches in the virtual port bookshelf.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:20 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Vintageport.se tells me that two private bottlings were made, in 1926, and 1930. I cannot guess yet.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:26 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Interesting.

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:28 Mon 05 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:Vintageport.se tells me that two private bottlings were made, in 1926, and 1930. I cannot guess yet.

jdaw1 wrote:
JWEW wrote:Quinta do Retiro Novo 1926
The year is wrong, but in accuracy second only to the correct year. (Not second-equal: clues, clues!) And well done for going single-Q, but not that one.

Getting there.

Post by **flash_uk** » 16:28 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Vargellas 1930

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:33 Mon 05 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:Vintageport.se tells me that two private bottlings were made, in 1926, and 1930.

jdaw1 wrote:
JWEW wrote:Quinta do Retiro Novo 1926
The year is wrong, but in accuracy second only to the correct year. (Not second-equal: clues, clues!) And well done for going single-Q, but not that one.

1926 is wrong.

1930 is also wrong based on but in accuracy second only to the correct year. To me this implies that 1926 is a) at least tied with the closest guess so far, and b) given existing clues one cannot err and be closer to correct than 1926, which means that the correct year cannot be greater than 1926. (1927 has been guessed, so if 1928 is correct then 1929 would be closer but still incorrect, thus making the clue wrong.)

1925, 1923, 1922, 1921 have all been guessed. 1924 fits the clues.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:36 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Glenn E. wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Vintageport.se tells me that two private bottlings were made, in 1926, and 1930.

jdaw1 wrote:
JWEW wrote:Quinta do Retiro Novo 1926
The year is wrong, but in accuracy second only to the correct year. (Not second-equal: clues, clues!) And well done for going single-Q, but not that one.
1926 is wrong.

1930 is also wrong based on but in accuracy second only to the correct year. To me this implies that 1926 is a) at least tied with the closest guess so far, and b) given existing clues one cannot err and be closer to correct than 1926, which means that the correct year cannot be greater than 1926. (1927 has been guessed, so if 1928 is correct then 1929 would be closer but still incorrect, thus making the clue wrong.)

1925, 1923, 1922, 1921 have all been guessed. 1924 fits the clues.

Except that 'second-bestness' is not arithmetical. And the word 'best' has been pointedly used rather than 'most correct'. It seems to be a qualitative judgement.
Books about port written by someone associated with Christie's, anyone? H. Warner Allen? Robertson? Er..

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:44 Mon 05 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Vintageport.se tells me that two private bottlings were made, in 1926, and 1930.

jdaw1 wrote:
JWEW wrote:Quinta do Retiro Novo 1926
The year is wrong, but in accuracy second only to the correct year. (Not second-equal: clues, clues!) And well done for going single-Q, but not that one.
1926 is wrong.

1930 is also wrong based on but in accuracy second only to the correct year. To me this implies that 1926 is a) at least tied with the closest guess so far, and b) given existing clues one cannot err and be closer to correct than 1926, which means that the correct year cannot be greater than 1926. (1927 has been guessed, so if 1928 is correct then 1929 would be closer but still incorrect, thus making the clue wrong.)

1925, 1923, 1922, 1921 have all been guessed. 1924 fits the clues.
Except that 'second-bestness' is not arithmetical. And the word 'best' has been pointedly used rather than 'most correct'. It seems to be a qualitative judgement.
Books about port written by someone associated with Christie's, anyone? H. Warner Allen? Robertson? Er..

Good point, though the clue doesn't say "best" it says "accuracy" which now confuses me.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:46 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Michael Broadbent…

Post by **jdaw1** » 18:00 Mon 05 Jan 2015

On this page are all the clues you need.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 18:08 Mon 05 Jan 2015

I know. I am tired, confused, downhearted, unenlightened and not in possession of a copy of Wine Vintages. I humbly pass.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 18:17 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Glenn E. wrote:Vargellas '24

Has not received an official ruling, though I assume at this point that it is incorrect.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 18:19 Mon 05 Jan 2015

flash_uk wrote:Vargellas 1930

Neither has this received an official ruling.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 18:20 Mon 05 Jan 2015

It has. See above.

Post by **jdaw1** » 18:41 Mon 05 Jan 2015

flash_uk wrote:Vargellas 1930

(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s; my picture #23962.)

Which is a yes.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 18:50 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
flash_uk wrote:Vargellas 1930

(Reproduced by kind permission of Christie’s; my picture #23962.)

Which is a yes.

Would you explain the accuracy clue, please?

Post by **flash_uk** » 18:53 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Crap, now I need to think of a question.

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:20 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Glenn E. wrote:Would you explain the accuracy clue, please?

The TV26, also sold by Christie’s, also mentioned by Broadbent, was for the older brother of the original owner of the TV30.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 19:41 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Would you explain the accuracy clue, please?
The TV26, also sold by Christie’s, also mentioned by Broadbent, was for the older brother of the original owner of the TV30.

I think a clue should perhaps allude to information that people other than you might hold.
Apologies Mike, I laid the crumbs for your question misery.

Post by **flash_uk** » 19:42 Mon 05 Jan 2015

OK. I have been steadily growing my port cellar over the past 9 months, however there are three big shippers of which I have yet to purchase any port. Can you name them?

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:46 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Vesuvio, Gould Campbell, Croft.

Post by **flash_uk** » 19:51 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Vesuvio, Gould Campbell, Croft.

No, not any of those.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 19:58 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Warre, Smith Woodhouse, Taylor.

Post by **flash_uk** » 19:59 Mon 05 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:Warre, Smith Woodhouse, Taylor.

None of these.

JWEW · Post by **JWEW** » 20:05 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Delaforce, Dow, Sandeman

Post by **flash_uk** » 20:09 Mon 05 Jan 2015

JWEW wrote:Delaforce, Dow, Sandeman

One of these is correct, and I should also say that I didn't count Delaforce as a "big shipper" for the purposes of this question.

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:18 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Noval, Warre, Fonseca.

Post by **flash_uk** » 20:23 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Noval, Warre, Fonseca.

Pay attention at the back- Warre already guessed and wrong. One of the others is correct though.

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:26 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Noval, Sandeman, Gould Campbell?

Post by **flash_uk** » 20:28 Mon 05 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Noval, Sandeman, Gould Campbell?

Dear oh dear - not your guess. And GC has already been guessed. Have you been drinking?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:07 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Noval, Sandeman, Niepoort

Post by **flash_uk** » 21:09 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Very well done young Jewesbury. Gold star for you

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:10 Mon 05 Jan 2015

Oops

!

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:17 Mon 05 Jan 2015

I also own surprisingly little Niepoort even though I've drunk it as much as anything else. It's just harder to find here. And pricey. And when do you ever see decent Niepoort at auction?

That wasn't my question by the way. I'll think of that presently.

Post by **flash_uk** » 23:26 Mon 05 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:I also own surprisingly little Niepoort even though I've drunk it as much as anything else. It's just harder to find here. And pricey. And when do you ever see decent Niepoort at auction?

That wasn't my question by the way. I'll think of that presently.

Yeah I have not seen much Ni at auction either. Until the N66 at the B&F in December I had rarely had a good Noval and so have not really focused on Noval. Sandeman is another that I've not noticed much of at auction. I'm also not sure it is my taste.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 22:55 Tue 13 Jan 2015

My question, after some deliberation, is as follows.

On Wednesday of next week, I plan to drink only champagne. Why?

On the 10th of February, I plan to drink only port, though off the top of my head I can't work out whether it should be a '48, or whether to try and find something from '49.

Can anyone work out the themes that will be on my placemats, and what unites these themes?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 23:05 Tue 13 Jan 2015

210115 (012115) and 100215 (021015)... doesn't appear to be numeric.

The day you proposed and the day you got married?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:08 Tue 13 Jan 2015

Glenn E. wrote:210115 (012115) and 100215 (021015)... doesn't appear to be numeric.

The day you proposed and the day you got married?

I like your logic (speaking strictly about the part of your post that you phrased as a question, as it's the only part I can answer); no.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:15 Tue 13 Jan 2015

One or both of your parents.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:17 Tue 13 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote:One or both of your parents.

Neither / none.

AW77 · Post by **AW77** » 23:18 Tue 13 Jan 2015

I think you asked three questions at once. This is quite unique and complex. Let me try: the occasions that you drink champagne and port are related to birthdays. Champagne for a female jubilant (I hope that's what you in English call the person who is celebrating his or her birthday) and port for a male one.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:25 Tue 13 Jan 2015

I like 'female jubilant', I think it must be a heraldic term like 'lion rampant' or 'leopard couchant'.
In some senses you are right; but these are not birthdays and the beverages do not connote gender.

I have given a very significant clue already and urge you to study it more closely. I have another but I am not ready to give it yet.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 01:27 Wed 14 Jan 2015

January 21 seems like it should be a celebration of something, but other than the launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954 I can't think of anything that would involve champagne.

February 10 seems a little easier given your background - the debut of Death of a Salesman, which coincidentally is also the date of Arthur Miller's death?