Page 3 of 5
Posted: 15:17 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by Conky
If it turns into a 13-1 vote, I'm happy to throw in another £5 each and we'll share it 13 ways in stead of 14 ways. That would be quite humerous, one of the World reknown vintages and Ports, you're tasting all the classics of that year, and you choose not to taste that one.
Odd, but would add an interesting twist to events.
Please close the poll with which this thread started
Posted: 15:27 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Please close the poll with which this thread started (the date), and amend the title of the first post. We don’t want a last-moment overtaking of the settled result!
Posted: 15:35 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
I would suggest that, in the unlikely event that the date will be usurped by people not committed to coming, they can go stuff themselves.
Posted: 15:40 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
I amended so that the Poll would run for 63 days which, by my calculation, would be yesterday. Unfortunately I do not know whether or not this has worked as the only people who can see if the Poll is open are those who have not yet voted.
Not sure why you want the title of the post amended?
Derek
Posted: 15:47 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
I know that I only voted once and can't access the poll from here or admin so it should be closed.
This is the best title for an off-line ever - do not change it.
More 1966s
Posted: 16:01 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.
So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:
- 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
- 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?
I say we have enough.
The "Deeper Underground" Offline (28 Jan 2008)
Posted: 16:03 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
KillerB wrote:This is the best title for an off-line ever - do not change it.
Not even to “
The Deeper Underground Offline (28 Jan 2008)†? So that when there are hundreds of tasting arranging threads, it will be easy to find and identify?
Posted: 16:17 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
Done. Almost.
Re: More 1966s
Posted: 16:29 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.
So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:
- 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
- 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?
I say we have enough.
I saw those too. Unfortunately, I and one other here had a near miss with a Sandeman 1966 today. I have also put out some feelers to attempt to locate some of the missing bottles to see what options we have.
My view is that the two you have referenced above are costly for what they are, especially in light of the fact that we have added things like Fonseca and Graham's at a fraction of that cost.
But let's not rule anything out just yet. There is no harm in virtual window shopping
Derek
Posted: 16:33 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
Derek T. wrote:Done. Almost.
Ugh, ruined it.
Posted: 17:00 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
KillerB wrote:Derek T. wrote:Done. Almost.
Ugh, ruined it.
I am in compromise mode. But glad you think it is a good title. I thought so too.
Do you think we should keep or discard the " " ?
Derek
Posted: 17:19 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
Leave it alone, you've done enough damage already.
Posted: 17:21 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
Would it help if I followed Jdaw's lead and used an upside down unicode questionmark instead?
Posted: 17:27 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
Unicode characters do not work in titles, so no. In fact:
NO
Re: More 1966s
Posted: 17:39 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:jdaw1 wrote:I’m in (twice) if there’s a team consensus. But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.
So, at major risk of self-contradiction, should I have posted to the UK:
- 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat?
- 1966 Smith Woodhouse, $200+P&P from Haskell’s (I have already started arguing about whether they can post it internationally)?
I say we have enough.
The GC is a BBR bottling and looks in perfect condition
No pictures of the SW but I did spot this on their list:
Cockburn's 1966 Vintage Port - unsurprisingly marked as Sold Out
Derek
PS: Cockburn's famously did not produce a 1966 VP
Posted: 17:59 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by Conky
Why dont you phone them up and say if they can secure you a Cockburn66 you'll pay a few thousand for it.
You can hang up knowing some poor bugger is on a rather fruitless goose chase...
Posted: 18:22 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
The label on that doesn't show a vintage. I downloaded and it up but no sign of vintage. I was wondering if they had faed it.
Totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be splendid
Posted: 19:14 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}
Re: Totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be splendid
Posted: 19:19 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
jdaw1 wrote:Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}
No, you have used a compound unit there because you know that that is correct. You could not help it. If you had said 588 years then I would have growled like Marge Simpson or given you a very hard Paddington Bear stare. That would have shown you.
Totalling 588 bottle-years
Posted: 19:23 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
KillerB wrote:You could not help it.
I couldn’t. But I was hoping Derek T. would post before you.
Posted: 19:32 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
It should, of course, have been 588 Bridgemans.
Re: Totalling 588 bottle-years
Posted: 20:14 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:KillerB wrote:You could not help it.
I couldn’t. But I was hoping Derek T. would post before you.
Damn, missed my queue.
Re: Totalling 588 bottle-years
Posted: 20:42 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Derek T. wrote:Damn, missed my queue.
You meant, of course, “cue†. But you missed it anyway.
Are we yet sufficiently off-topic to justify splittage? No! OK, I’ll wait.
Posted: 20:46 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by Overtired and emotional
Never having tasted NAcional, it would be a shame to pass the opportuntiy. I am for.
Re: The swingometer
Posted: 21:40 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
Current updated score is:
Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 11
Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1
Votes NOT YET CAST: 1
Derek
Re: Totalling 588 bottle-years
Posted: 21:43 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote: Derek T. wrote:Damn, missed my queue.
You meant, of course, “cue†. But you missed it anyway.
I did, of course, intentionally mis-spell it in order to bate the trap
jdaw1 wrote:Are we yet sufficiently off-topic to justify splittage?
Not even close.
Derek
Re: The swingometer
Posted: 21:50 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Derek T. wrote:Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 11
Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1
Votes NOT YET CAST: 1
Even without waiting for the rural constituencies, that seems like a consensus.
Seven pages!
Posted: 21:53 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Seven pages! The
Fonseca vertical didn’t reach seven pages until nine days before. The 1966 horizontal has nineteen days to go.
Re: The swingometer
Posted: 21:54 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by KillerB
jdaw1 wrote:Derek T. wrote:Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 11
Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1
Votes NOT YET CAST: 1
Even without waiting for the rural constituencies, that seems like a consensus.
But not unanimous.
Re: The swingometer
Posted: 21:55 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:Derek T. wrote:Votes FOR including the Nacional 1966: 11
Votes AGAINST including the Nacional 1966: 1
Votes NOT YET CAST: 1
Even without waiting for the rural constituencies, that seems like a consensus.
I am hoping for a recount in the Borough that voted NO.
I have contacted the Returning Officer in Dunny on the Wold and asked him to bring more sheep into the counting shed so that a result can be produced as soon as possible.
Derek
Ahh, European voting.
Posted: 22:00 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Ahh, European voting. The government tells you what result it wants. If that’s what it gets, it’s binding forever. If the people dare vote differently, ungrateful peasants, then there will be a re-vote. And, if necessary, another. Great game!
Posted: 22:07 Wed 09 Jan 2008
by DRT
Perhaps you could write an article on this vote and the system it has used for addition to similar articles that are published on your website?
Posted: 00:24 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by DRT
As some of the bottles may not have labels I will be bringing along a full set of my own. Here is an example of what they will look like...
Derek
Excellent. Except the redundant word “offline†,
Posted: 01:35 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Excellent. Except the redundant word “offline†, which also rather rankles. Could it quietly disappear?
Re: More 1966s
Posted: 01:57 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
jdaw1 wrote:But fourteen ports is more than enough to fuzz my palate — I am unconvinced that it won’t be wasteful.
This still makes sense to me.
Nonetheless, in manifest and utter self-contradiction, I have ordered to be delivered to me in New York, as a precaution only, for insurance, just in case, the:
jdaw1 wrote:- 1966 Gould Campbell, $160+P&P from Aabalat
Re: Totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be splendid
Posted: 08:32 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by Alex Bridgeman
jdaw1 wrote:Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}
But the great thing is that these bottles we will be opening gain 1 year in age between them every 26 days. By the time of the offline they will have almost 589 Bridgemans.
Alex
Re: Totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be splendid
Posted: 10:10 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by KillerB
AHB wrote:jdaw1 wrote:Already totalling 588 bottle-years, this is going to be quite splendid. {Everybody hide—explosion coming!}
But the great thing is that these bottles we will be opening gain 1 year in age between them every 26 days. By the time of the offline they will have almost 589 Bridgemans.
Alex
No - they have a Turnbull Time of 26 days.
Here goes
Posted: 13:29 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by Ghandih
All,
So here I am in Dublin, about to meet the lawyers, and see whether I can be given time off to attend this wonderful occasion. If pressed about my alternative engagement, I have decided to say that I am meeting up with 14 or so old friends, and that they might never get to be gathered together in one place again. Does that sound fair and OK?
Ghandih
Posted: 13:47 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by KillerB
Well, I'd let you off with it.
Re: Here goes
Posted: 14:02 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
Ghandih wrote:old friends
I’m only 39!
Derek T.’s labels
Posted: 15:01 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by jdaw1
At Derek’s request,
jdawiseman.com is now hosting
Derek T.’s bonus labels to add to any label-free bottles.
The management of
jdawiseman.com is acting in the capacity of an ISP for the purposes of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or similar or succeeding legislation, and does not endorse or condone the contents of this publication, and accepts no liability arising therefrom.
Posted: 15:57 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by DRT
Splendid. Thanks.
Posted: 22:26 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by DRT
Here are five of our victims, four of them with their new labels on
The Offley has a near perfect label front and back so I will not need to use my own version.
The small neck tags were applied by Uncle Tom and contain his cellar reference codes. We can spend hours fruitlessly attempting to decode these references on the night.
The Rebello Valente also has a larger neck tag with a hand written note saying
'Rebello Valente 1966 - Gift. T. Valente'.
Derek
Cue Conky with a tile joke
Posted: 22:41 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by KillerB
Am I allowed to point out that it says "Rebello Valete"? Slightly lacking a 'n'.
Posted: 22:45 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by DRT
KillerB wrote:Am I allowed to point out that it says "Rebello Valete"? Slightly lacking a 'n'.
I was going to re-print that one anyway as it should say
"Robertson's Rebello Valente"
Nice spot.
Do you like the look of your Graham's?
Posted: 22:47 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by KillerB
Looks good
Posted: 23:09 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by Conky
Ok then, if it's expected...
Whiston Hospital Mortuary has that shade of tile.
Posted: 23:13 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by DRT
Conky wrote:Ok then, if it's expected...
Whiston Hospital Mortuary has that shade of tile.
That's exactly where I got them from
Posted: 23:23 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by Conky
Co-incidently, those tags on the bottles are also what I have to put on the toes of the suddenly departed, in the middle of the night. (Thats when the staff aren't there to sort it out). Bet you're glad you only have the tiles, and not such responsibilities.
Posted: 23:27 Thu 10 Jan 2008
by DRT