ThePortForum.com

Sorry to be so late to respond. Yes, I am in 100%. Let me know if I can still support you with anything as I have loads of Ramos Pinto 85.

Much looking forward to attend. Thanks for the organisation.

Best

Axel

jdaw1 wrote:

benread wrote:Regrettably, my attendance has now been vetoed by 'the powers that be'!

That is a shame, for you in one way and for us in two. Is there any chance of an appeal? DRT has a very good track record of appealing to my wife that I be released with no promise of good behaviour: should he, ahem, try his charms on Nuala?

benread wrote:M. Gonzalez 1985 available if required, although an early indication would be required so that I can ensure it is at the Boot & Flogger for you on 25th November.

Thank you. I would really like to include it, as it would be my first taste of it. But we are now officially heavy on Port, even if a guest accepts, so do not yet know.

The M. Gonzalez 1985 is 1 of 3 still in my cellar, so making it available (I have drunk 9 of them in the last 5 years or so!) is no great hardship, particularly in the name of scientific evaluation! Happy to offer 1 up - an exchange for something of similar value would be very acceptable.

benread wrote:Happy to offer 1 up - an exchange for something of similar value would be very acceptable.

Seven bottles of Real Vinocola 1983? {please!!!!!!!}

In the interests of being properly prepared for our offline, I opened a bottle of Fonseca 1985 this weekend. It is absolutely superb - but could whoever brings it please decant it for 24-36 hours?

AHB wrote:In the interests of being properly prepared for our offline, I opened a bottle of Fonseca 1985 this weekend. It is absolutely superb - but could whoever brings it please decant it for 24-36 hours?

Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

djewesbury wrote:Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

Delicious academic snobbery: AHB is “the masses”.

jdaw1 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

Delicious academic snobbery: AHB is “the masses”.

I'm glad you approve, sir. Mr. Bridgeman is certainly one of the wiser sort.

djewesbury wrote:

AHB wrote:In the interests of being properly prepared for our offline, I opened a bottle of Fonseca 1985 this weekend. It is absolutely superb - but could whoever brings it please decant it for 24-36 hours?

Finally this wisdom is percolating to the masses.

Always happy to be known as the percolator of the port knowledge of the masses - although no one has ever called me a percolator before.

But then I am the one with a glass of F85 in my hand.

AHB wrote:But then I am the one with a glass of F85 in my hand.

One can be called a fair number of things when one is the only one with a glass of F85 in one's hand. Admittedly, "percolator" would not have been my first guess.

Hi,

after having had another corked Calem 83 on Monday and remembering our ~33% cork rate on the Taylor 85 case tasting as well as generally higher cork rates of ports in the 80s I would like to suggest us to prepare a back up bt each for the ports we are opening. Since Alex kindly offered to be at the tasting early his presence could be used (or misused as you like it ) to detect corked ports and give us enough time to open and prepare them as a back up.
Please let me know what you think since it likely makes the tasting more expensive. I feel even only a 10-20% cork rate would be very deterimental for the tasting to which some even fly to and then tasting a corked port is not funny to say the least.

regards

WS1

I'm happy to volunteer to be the TCA detector. I'm also happy to double up on the bottles I'm bringing if I can (I need to check what bottles I have where first).

I can double up on the Gould Campbell and Offley.

I can double on the Churchill, and, reluctantly, on the magnum of Fonseca.

But I am very insensitive to TCA. Should I give my (first) bottles to somebody else to double-decant and attempt to detect TCA? If found, second can be decanted by me. But even this would incentivise mischief.

For a 1985 tasting I think this is a bad idea. We know 1985 has flawed bottles, let's find them and draw a conclusion from doing so.

If this was a "let's have some lovely port" tasting I would agree with back-ups, but it isn't. This is an evaluation of 1985. If it yields duds then so be it, we will all then know not to buy more.

DRT wrote:For a 1985 tasting I think this is a bad idea. We know 1985 has flawed bottles, let's find them and draw a conclusion from doing so.

.....

I have not said flawed bts in general but corked bts should be replaced. Finding a corked bt in 85 tasting and drawing an conclusion is in my eyes wrong knowing in advance the cork rate can be easily 20-30%.

Hence I am still in favour to replace corked bts for the tasting. Obviously with regards to Magnums there is no need to since they seem to be less affected.

regards

WS1

I still disagree.

We take our chances with corked bottles and all accept that there will be occasions when one or more will turn up. It happens. Tough.

Starting a precedent of having to bring back-up bottles is highly likely to act as a dis-incentive for new people or those with small cellars/resources to join tastings. That is not what we are about.

AHB wrote:I'm happy to volunteer to be the TCA detector. I'm also happy to double up on the bottles I'm bringing if I can (I need to check what bottles I have where first).

I can turn up around 4 and give a hand with set-up.

DRT wrote:I still disagree.

We take our chances with corked bottles and all accept that there will be occasions when one or more will turn up. It happens. Tough.

Starting a precedent of having to bring back-up bottles is highly likely to act as a dis-incentive for new people or those with small cellars/resources to join tastings. That is not what we are about.

What is the common view here? I appear to be in a minority of one but am interested to know what others think about the concept of moving to a place where back-up bottles become the norm.

I have sympathy with Derek’s one-bottle view. It is a lot less hassle. Perhaps less off-putting to those of currently modest cellars. And any plan featuring any chance that Mike would have to take anything home is a bad idea. Very bad.

But Alex’s statistical counter-argument doesn’t convince. Assume we have twelve shippers for which one bottle in twelve is bad; and twelve shippers for which one bottle in two is bad. Open one of each. On average one of the ‘good’ houses will seem bad; and six of the ‘bad’ houses will seem good. Opening more bottles would improve the reliability of the measurement.

Yes I agree with you Derek. I do not want to start a precedent of back-up bottles at our tastings. Looking specifically at this one, 85 is known to be a ropey year. It's surely a proviso of holding an 85 horizontal that 'caveat bibentis' (or something: what I mean is, let the drinker beware). If you want a horizontal of perfect 85s then we are probably not the ones who should hold it. But looking at the more broad principle I definitely agree with Derek that this would make our tastings more exclusive affairs and I'm against that.

Ahem. [raises hand]. Ahem. Might we be slightly over analysing this?

I don't think there is any drive or intent to set a precedent here. If Wolfgang were to suggest backup bottles for a 94 horizontal, I suspect there would be universal rejection of the idea! Who cares if a few bottles are flawed.

Backup bottles for a 70s horizontal? Nah. We've tasted so much 70, we can deal with the odd bad bottle and will not condemn the shipper on one bad bottle.

1985. A year know for TCA. One which we may not have sampled that much outside the top tier of G, F, T, D, W. Landing a corked bottle of, say, Smith Woodhouse, doesn't help me judge whether to buy any or not. The Graham could as easily be corked, but I won't condemn it. An uncorked backup SW would offer me much better insight.

If backups are available, no harm. If not available, then they are not.

jdaw1 wrote:Assume we have twelve shippers for which one bottle in twelve is bad; and twelve shippers for which one bottle in two is bad. Open one of each. On average one of the ‘good’ houses will seem bad; and six of the ‘bad’ houses will seem good. Opening more bottles would improve the reliability of the measurement.

Discalaimer: what follows is nothing to do with tastings, just statistics.

So, we open twelve bottles where the expectation is that one will be bad and we find one that is bad, and we open another twelve where we expect six to be bad and six are bad. How does opening another twenty four bottles improve the accuracy of that expectation?

flash_uk wrote:1985. A year know for TCA. One which we may not have sampled that much outside the top tier of G, F, T, D, W.

There are tasting notes from the 1985 vintage from 38 different shippers on this forum, 28 of which have multiple notes. This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

DRT wrote:

flash_uk wrote:This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

Why are we doing a horizontal then?

flash_uk wrote:

DRT wrote:

flash_uk wrote:This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

Why are we doing a horizontal then?

For the same reason people climb mountains.

flash_uk wrote:

AHB wrote:I'm happy to volunteer to be the TCA detector. I'm also happy to double up on the bottles I'm bringing if I can (I need to check what bottles I have where first).

I can turn up around 4 and give a hand with set-up.

Thanks you!

Hmm, after reading the thread again and thinking about Daniel & Derek's strong opinions about precedents and back up bts I feel we go off topic. We are in agreement to do an 85 horicontal but also observed two opinions about intent of the tasting. One camp see's this as a fun event to which even a corked bt is no issue. Any complications or increased cost are not wanted.
The other camp would like to draw some conclusions from this tasting and have a keen interest to at least make an effort to try to eliminate TCA tainted port. Realistically on 15bts with a 30% cork rate we are talking about 4-5 bts potentially affected. Using 4 bts as an estimate for corked port in the tasting the cost would increase ~ 16£ per person on average given the assumptions sharing cost and assuming 45£s as an average price per bt of 1985 VP .
Apologies if my assumption of sharing cost is wrong but me just contributing a Calem 85 when others contribute Taylors etc. I do not think is right. Please let me know how we proceed with this tasting.

Overall I will anyway bring/send two bts of Calem 1985 since I found Calem ports in the 80s are likely cork culprits. Due to recent development at work there is also a residual chance I have to drop out of this tasting on short notice before the tasting. Hence I feel a bit guilty having added with my comments confusion to the tasting. I still feel it would be better to swap corked bts (not magnums) over as this is the first real tasting attempt on 1985 vintage port with decent bt age of 30 years to see what is what. Sorry that I do not just see this as a fun event.

regards

WS1

Wolfgang,

Unless I have missed it I think this is the first time there has been any mention of sharing costs for this tasting. I plan to bring Fonseca and Taylor as my contribution. Others have offered more, others less, but as 1985 is not a particularly expensive vintage I had assumed these mixed levels of contributions were acceptable to all involved. Perhaps I got that wrong.

Your initial suggestion seemed to imply that we attempt to double up on every bottle, which doubles the cost and widens the gap between contributions. That was partly the reason for my objection but it was mostly down to the concept of turning our tastings into events where turning up with a corked bottle becomes unacceptable. I don't want our tastings to become those sorts of events as it would put some people off if they have small stocks of port or if funds are limited.

I am fairly certain that (with the team's legendary lack of willpower at around 9pm) bringing along two bottles of Fonseca will result is two bottles of Fonseca being opened and drunk without the merest whiff of TCA being detected. The same could be said of many others that have no real reputation of suffering from TCA or any other flaw. This is what would significantly add to the cost of the tasting and should in my view be avoided.

However, if there are a handful of specific ports in the line-up that have a bad reputation for being corked and you are suggesting that we collectively fund a small number of second bottles of those ports only then that seems more reasonable.

I think it is also worth pointing out that it is possible to have fun whilst also learning something about the ports being tasted

jdaw1 wrote:...And any plan featuring any chance that Mike would have to take anything home is a bad idea. Very bad.

Very true

flash_uk wrote:

DRT wrote:

flash_uk wrote:This is not a vintage that the collective do not know reasonably well.

Why are we doing a horizontal then?

I presume that it's because we like drinking port together.

DRT wrote:Wolfgang,

....

I am fairly certain that (with the team's legendary lack of willpower at around 9pm) bringing along two bottles of Fonseca will result is two bottles of Fonseca being opened and drunk without the merest whiff of TCA being detected. The same could be said of many others that have no real reputation of suffering from TCA or any other flaw. This is what would significantly add to the cost of the tasting and should in my view be avoided.

However, if there are a handful of specific ports in the line-up that have a bad reputation for being corked and you are suggesting that we collectively fund a small number of second bottles of those ports only then that seems more reasonable.

I think it is also worth pointing out that it is possible to have fun whilst also learning something about the ports being tasted

I think here lies the misunderstanding; I have never intended to ask for another bt of Fonseca 85 or others to be opened at 9:00 PM since I likely have to leave by this time....

The intention was just to replace bts which were corked. Obviously I did not factor in discipline issues around the team's legendary willpower!

On the other hand I thought with help of your life coach your willpower when it comes to port improved a lot! Also since your life coach and Daniel will be present at the tasting so what can go possibly wrong?

Look, I still think me just popping by with a Calem 85 (despite being good when not corked) is a bit mean. So whatever happens 2bts of Calem 1985 will be present.....

regards

WS1

Hello fellow port-lovers

I'd love to join you on 25th Nov if there is space! I have almost recovered from my last foray

Best


Rupert

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Assume we have twelve shippers for which one bottle in twelve is bad; and twelve shippers for which one bottle in two is bad. Open one of each. On average one of the ‘good’ houses will seem bad; and six of the ‘bad’ houses will seem good. Opening more bottles would improve the reliability of the measurement.

Discalaimer: what follows is nothing to do with tastings, just statistics.

So, we open twelve bottles where the expectation is that one will be bad and we find one that is bad, and we open another twelve where we expect six to be bad and six are bad. How does opening another twenty four bottles improve the accuracy of that expectation?

Because we don’t know in advance which shippers are good and bad. We are trying to assess that from the bottles. And one shipper that is actually good (unknown to us) will appear to be bad; and six shippers that are actually bad (unknown to us) will appear to be good.

DRT wrote:However, if there are a handful of specific ports in the line-up that have a bad reputation for being corked and you are suggesting that we collectively fund a small number of second bottles of those ports only then that seems more reasonable.

This seems to be the consensus, and I add my weight to it.

Cedars28 wrote:I'd love to join you on 25th Nov if there is space! I have almost recovered from my last foray

Please list the 1985s that you have.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:However, if there are a handful of specific ports in the line-up that have a bad reputation for being corked and you are suggesting that we collectively fund a small number of second bottles of those ports only then that seems more reasonable.

This seems to be the consensus, and I add my weight to it.

If that is what is to be done should we also do something about balancing costs? I have no strong view either way but others might feel differently.

WS1 wrote:33% cork rate on the Taylor 85 case tasting

I checked through the 38 tasting notes on T85 on this site and only found one reference to "slight TCA" from one bottle from the case tasting and no reference to TCA in any other TN. Unless others feel strongly I do not plan to bring a second bottle of Taylor.

WS1 wrote:... since I found Calem ports in the 80s are likely cork culprits.

Interesting; I've drunk my way through a couple of cases of Ca85 and some Ca83 over the last few years and have yet to encounter a corked bottle. I wonder whether I've been lucky, or you unlucky.

BTW, I agree with not setting precedents for requiring second bottles; though of course anyone may choose to bring a back-up if the bottle they decant is suspect or faulty, as several people have done on occasions in the past.

I would observe that given the number of bottles being drunk, the tasting is unlikely to be sufficient to draw many conclusions of statistical significance regarding TCA incidence on its own - certainly not per-shipper incidence, barely more than indicative for overall incidence (and no, Derek, I'm not even going near your statistical observation hand-grenade!).

In general, I prefer not to double up on bottles at tastings for a number of reasons - the main one being that it makes it more difficult to put together a line up of ports since we need to be able to source two bottles of each. By sticking to one bottle of each port we are able to be more flexible in the type of tastings that we can organise.

However, there are times when some of us are trying to achieve something slightly more cerebral than just glug some fine wine in good company over a splendid steak. I would also like to be able to judge and assess the 1985 vintage since I have quite a lot of it tucked away in storage and it is still quite cheap to accumulate. This is perhaps the right tasting for us to make an exception to the general rule of caveat bibentis (touch brim in direction of DJ) and have some of the bottles available in duplicate. There will be no increase in cost unless we open the duplicated bottles. If we expect a 1 in 10 failure rate then we'll end up opening 1 or 2 extra bottles, adding around £10 per person. If we get to 9pm and find that we are thirsty and start eyeing up the unopened bottles that is a much cheaper way of continuing the evening's port drinking than buying stock from TBH's cellar!

I like the idea of selective back-ups that are opened only if needed. If not needed we can probably arrange with Kasha to leave them in the cellar until an emergency arises or Mike remembers to bring a box with him.

I'm happy to double up on my Churchill as I have several bottles available. I only have one bottle of Graham 1985 at home but happy to buy another, safe in the knowledge that if it isn't needed in November then it will not go to waste.

I don't know how my contribution compares in cost to that of others, but if I am owed money I am happy to waive anything owed. I'm just pleased to have an excuse to share port with some people who will appreciate it!

In this tasting, even if a guest accepts, we are already heavy on Port. To lose one or two to bad bottles would, in a particular and limited sense, lessen wastage. If doubling most, we should ditch a few shippers. Which?

jdaw1 wrote:

Cedars28 wrote:I'd love to join you on 25th Nov if there is space! I have almost recovered from my last foray

Please list the 1985s that you have.

Rupert can adopt something from me.

flash_uk wrote:Rupert can adopt something from me.

Thank you, but he might have something interesting. Rupert?

AHB wrote:I don't know how my contribution compares in cost to that of others, but if I am owed money I am happy to waive anything owed. I'm just pleased to have an excuse to share port with some people who will appreciate it!

As am I

I wold like to include the Ramos Pinto, Andresen and Noval and would like to receive information where to send these bottles in advance. If the majority doesnt agree to include these I will drink them all by myself.

Thanks

Axel

Axel P wrote:If the majority doesnt agree to include these I will drink them all by myself.

Now that would be a proper "German pour"!

Profuse apologies, gentlemen, but I am now unavoidably unavailable for this tasting.

If my F85 and/or T85 are required please let me know and I will arrange for them to be present.

If anyone who has yet to put forward a contribution wishes to adopt one or both please PM me.

Please add Ramos Pinto, Andresen and Noval as Julian will bring them to the tasting.

Axel

Axel P wrote:Please add Ramos Pinto, Andresen and Noval as Julian will bring them to the tasting.

Axel

Done

We now have 19 bottles and 1 magnum between currently, ten attendees. What could possibly go wrong!?

I think we either need to enlist some more people to help sup, or make some choices about reducing the line-up.

Thoughts?

Agreed, one or the other needs to give; if we need to cull one option would be to cull the lesser seen shippers that even if we liked we couldn't buy more of?

We agreed on Tuesday that we ought to taste those that come to auction most often.

By email, THRA wrote:The most seen '85s are:

Taylor
Dow
Fonseca
Warre
Graham

(in roughly that order)

The others make occasional appearances, but any one of those top five outsell all the others put together.

Beyond the top five the frequencies were described as “Quite an even spread”.

If I had to pick three to drop I'd probably say Delaforce, Gonzalez M and Morgan.