A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
Sticky.jdaw1 wrote:Announcement or Sticky?
You are making my point for me. The TN Index threads should (and will), under normal circumstances be at the top of the TN Forum Index. However, if we need to make an announcement to inform people of a significant event or change affecting the TN forum we would want that announcement to temporarily supercede the Index threads so that people see it first. Once the announcement has no significant meaning or impact it would be removed or down-graded to a normal topic. The TN Index threads would then resume their place at the top of the Forum.jdaw1 wrote:Announcements are more important. They appear above stickies, and appear at the top of every page (go to page 3 of the TNs).
Agreed. But we have a higher than average consumption of 1830sjdaw1 wrote:Both announcements, and also the format thread.
Meanwhile, we drink more eighty-fives than any other year. We also over-consume 2000s and 1994s, which are far too young.
It is particularly entertaining to see that I have been singularly or jointly responsible for the demise of 6 x Fonseca 1985s and on each occassion commented that it is too young to drinkjdaw1 wrote:we drink more eighty-fives than any other year.
And who says us American's are the only ones who drink them young...I guess this proves otherwisejdaw1 wrote:
Meanwhile, we drink more eighty-fives than any other year. We also over-consume 2000s and 1994s, which are far too young.
I've just taken a quick look at the new "Year -> Shipper" index. Very useful and interesting. Thanks.jdaw1 wrote:This? I have removed the links from the house names, because their great number would otherwise overwhelm.
Was only a little bother, but having been done, won’t be much to maintain.
I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.jdaw1 wrote:Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.
That was oddly serendipitous. For a while now I’ve cited the critique on the use of PowerPoint by NASA in the Columbia Crash when explaining why PowerPoint is almost always unhelpful and possibly detrimental to the quality of a talk, without knowing who it was by, or that the author had written extensively on this and similar subjects. I might have to acquire a copy of his book! (If it’s any good?)jdaw1 wrote:I’ve marked you down as an enemy of Edward Tufte.
Although there is a bit of UK bias on this board…I was a bit surprised when I realised that we don’t have any 30 year-old or 40+ year-old TNs.DRT wrote:I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.jdaw1 wrote:Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.
So you want VPs oldest-to-youngest, but tawnies youngest-to-oldest. OK. Is that the consensus?DRT wrote:I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.
That would make sense to me (though I might be tempted either to put Tawnies before the VPs, as there are so few of them, or have a note at the start mentioning that they are at the end).jdaw1 wrote:So you want VPs oldest-to-youngest, but tawnies youngest-to-oldest. OK. Is that the consensus?DRT wrote:I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.
As one of a very few Americans who uses Gill Sans, I though he mightjdaw1 wrote:And yes, Tufte is excellent.
. Shame there are no super-cheap versions on Amazon…I might have to splash out the cost of a bottle of Port on a book for once!Thanks for that, unfortunately a bit late: I ordered one from the .co.uk site from an affiliate. At £13, I think it was about the the same price, depending on how low the GBP has fallen.jdaw1 wrote:The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Edward R. Tufte, costing a mere $25.20, and cheap at twice the price. (Costing £26 at .co.uk: buy it in the USA.)
I know that ADV, SEAN C, Stewart Todd and I shared the Noval 30 and 40 yr old with in VNG last year and ADV, AHB, Stewart Todd and I shared the Taylor equivalents at Vargellas in 2006. I have no notes from either of these tastings but I am fairly certain AHB and ADV will have so perhaps they could fill the void?JacobH wrote: Although there is a bit of UK bias on this board…I was a bit surprised when I realised that we don’t have any 30 year-old or 40+ year-old TNs.
Sadly, I do not have any notes on the Taylor 30 and 40 yo tawnies. As has been commented on from time to time, I am slower than average in my tasting and note making. On our visit to Vargellas, there were a large number of vintage ports that I wanted to taste and to record my thoughts thereon. To make sure I had enough time to work at my pace, I decided not to taste the tawnies.DRT wrote:I know that ADV, SEAN C, Stewart Todd and I shared the Noval 30 and 40 yr old with in VNG last year and ADV, AHB, Stewart Todd and I shared the Taylor equivalents at Vargellas in 2006. I have no notes from either of these tastings but I am fairly certain AHB and ADV will have so perhaps they could fill the void?JacobH wrote: Although there is a bit of UK bias on this board…I was a bit surprised when I realised that we don’t have any 30 year-old or 40+ year-old TNs.
Derek
So far there have been two opinions, Derek and I disagreeing. Please could others express a preference? Oldest-to-youngest, or smallest-number-to-largest-number?DRT wrote:I think 10, 20, 30, 40 is a natural progression that one would find in any wine list. I think the contrast between that at date order for VPs is entirely acceptable and apropriate.jdaw1 wrote:Small bug in both indexes, to be fixed when next updated. They are sorted by the year field, in ascending order. So 1900 comes before 1927. So far, so good: oldest first. But this also means that “10Y† comes before “20Y†, so tawnies are youngest first. Ooops. Extra code will be added.
