ThePortForum.com

Since no-one has yet suggested an answer, I have decided to change the question. This is one which Derek and Tom have already had a go at, but which is a bit of fun anyway. There follows three statements about me. Two are false and one is true.

You task, should you choose to accept it, is to decide which is the true one. However, to prevent pure guesswork, you also have to say why you think it is the other two which are false.

You may ask questions and I will do my best to answer them reasonably promptly.

1) I once played badminton for team GB
2) I once prospected for gem stones and have a claim staked in my name as a result
3) I have had a box of seeds from my garden launched into space

So which is true, and why?


Should I go for a port related question or a music related question...

...port related, I think as the music related question can be used again later.

Q. I am currently reading a book which is about certain aspects of the port business. What is the book?
A. ...

I think the answer is 1. The reason why I think that 2 and 3 are incorrect is that I think 1 is the correct answer.

DRT wrote:I think the answer is 1. The reason why I think that 2 and 3 are incorrect is that I think 1 is the correct answer.

That's cheating. You have to play the game or this will be a very short quiz and you'll be asking the question again soon.

I can't guess again until someone else does.

But you can ask as many questions as you want before making your next guess

Have you ever played badminton for team GB?

Have you ever collected a box of seeds from your garden and had them launched into space?

I have no need to ask a further question.

OK. Given that I appear to have killed this thread off, I will revert back to my orginal question and fend off DRT's attempts to ask searching questions next time he and I share a glass or two of port.

So my original question is: "What is the port-rerlated book which I am currently reading?"

Everytime someone offers an answer, I will give another clue. Clue 1 is that it is a book where each chapter is written by a different person.

The Fireside Book of Wine - Selected and Edited by Alexis Bespaloff - Published in 1977 by Simon & Schuster of New York - ISBN 0-671-22466-2?

DRT wrote:The Fireside Book of Wine - Selected and Edited by Alexis Bespaloff - Published in 1977 by Simon & Schuster of New York - ISBN 0-671-22466-2?

No - but that sounds an interesting book.

Next clue - the cover is green

jdaw1 wrote:Mountaineering?

Knitting? Crossword Puzzles?

Are you guys serious?

Ok, one thing I do love about boys is that they are fun to watch. 'Cause they are just so silly and find entertainment in meaningless activities!

-SCP-DFF

SCP-DFF wrote:Ok, one thing I do love about boys is that they are fun to watch. 'Cause they are just so silly and find entertainment in meaningless activities!

-SCP-DFF

How can you possibly suggest that our activities on this forum are meaningless! Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that we might be taking port too seriously!!!

SCP-DFF wrote:Knitting? Crossword Puzzles?

Are you guys serious?

No, but my wife... er, SCP-DFW... is very serious about both.

If NASA is to launch seeds into space, they would come from the USA not the wee UK. So 3 is out. That leaves 1 and 2. You once lived in Belgium. You have also lived in the UK. I haven’t heard of you living anywhere else, and ‟a claim staked” doesn’t sound like a good concept in English law. And there is no gemstone prospecting in Belgium. Which leaves you playing badminton for team GB: this does not obviously offend my sense of plausibility. 3 is true.

I have a question. May I ask it now?

jdaw1 wrote:May I ask it now?

Yes. AHB has not answered my subtle questioning above, despite inviting it, so he has broken the rules. JDAW is up....

Seven ports are to be put into order.

1. Graham 1977;
2. Smith Woodhouse 1975;
3. Gould Campbell 1977;
4. Warre 1977;
5. Smith Woodhouse 1970;
6. Martinez 1970;
7. Fonseca 1975.

What order? Well, the following descriptions are from the Wine Society’s initial offer of these wines, the offer usually being in about February some 2⅓ years after the harvest. Match wines to descriptions!

1. ‟full and fruity wine that will make a lovely bottle at the end of the next decade”;
2. ‟Intense colour, big, weighty wine. A stayer for 15 years or more”;
3. ‟a lighter wine which will mature more quickly than the rest”;
4. ‟Intense dark colour, ‘cut grass’ bouquet; big wine that will last extremely well. 15 to 20 years”;
5. ‟a very well-made, balanced wine; particularly impressive in this vintage”;
6. ‟this famous old house has produced a fine, firm, beautifully-balanced wine”;
7. ‟Deep black red colour. Fresh clean bouquet. Extremely fruit. One of the best of the vintage. 12 to 18 years”.

So an answer will look like ‟ABCDEFG” (except not in that order, as that’s wrong).

Guesses accompanied by reasoning that I deem solid will receive help (e.g., ‟great argument about !, but wrong”). Guesses just trying to bisect the 5039 possibilites will get nothing more useful than ‟wrong”.

I don't normally dive in here, but julian let me know about this next quiz. Should be interesting to see the real results, but I'll give it a stab. I'll put the letter and what I think is the corresponding number next to it.




A. Graham 1977 "6" (as it's a famous old house and a generic TN)
B. Smith Woodhouse 1975 "5" (as they refer to "in this vintage" like it wasn't a great vintage)
C. Gould Campbell 1977 "2" (as the "intense color" mentioned, since this is still boot strap black)
D. Warre 1977 "7" (for the "clean bouquet" comment)
E. Smith Woodhouse 1970 "4" (as it was my last choice)
F. Martinez 1970 "3" (as it's a "lighter wine")
G. Fonseca 1975 "1" (since it is only projected to last 10 years)

so my list is "6,5,2,7,4,3,1"

Hope I got a couple right at least

Andy V wrote:so my list is "6,5,2,7,4,3,1"

So you’ve ordered the descriptions rather than the ports. Luckily for you I’m not that pedantic and I’ll treat your answer as ‟GCFEBAD”. (Policemen + bureaucracy + cunning defence lawyers: I say nothing.)

1 = G = Fonseca 1975: very good.
2 = C = Gould Campbell 1977: ‟Intense colour” was meant to be easy.
3 = F = Martinez 1970: that ‟lighter wine” was also meant to be easy.
5 = B = Smith Woodhouse 1975: also very good: well done.

Others wrong, but still, only five possible answers remain (being 3! ”“ 1).

I think that there is simple reasoning that unambiguously identifies the 1977s: you have not come close to that reasoning. The non-1977 would then be the SW70, leaving only two possibilities.

No clue about this. But if someone from Symington (as almost all these Ports are from them) stop by here to read this quiz, I would suggest them to make this exercise live to their Port friends, with real bottles. So while tasting the wines I could follow Julian's comments and I would find the right connections!

I'm sure some of us would buy some bottles at the end of the tasting!

oscar quevedo wrote:someone from Symington

Such as DLC or Dom Symington, you mean? Suggest away.

(Though the descriptions aren’t mine: they are from the Wine Society’s initial offer of these ports, dated just over two years since the harvest.)

I couldn't make it too easy for you by following directions

4 out of 7, not to shabby if I must say so myself

Andy V wrote:4 out of 7, not to shabby if I must say so myself

Indeed, not too shabby at all.

Very polite of you not to notice the slight error of no consequence to you in my reply. Pedants only.

I have waited for others to chime in but they haven't.

The 77s are presumably defined by depth of colour. My guess is therefore 7-5-2-4-6-3-1.

Reasoning:

5, 2 3 and 1 were correctly placed by Andy, albeit using a strange American ordering system which I have attempted to follow.

4 and 7 are dark coloured, like 2, so are therefore the two remaining 77s. This leaves 6 as the SW70.

7 is noted as being "extremely fruit", which I suspect is missing a "y", so I guessed this to be the Graham's.

Yes.

• 1 = G = Fonseca 1975 = ‟Fonseca, full and fruity wine that will make a lovely bottle at the end of the next decade”;
• 2 = C = Gould Campbell 1977 = ‟Gould Campbell, Intense colour, big, weighty wine. A stayer for 15 years or more”;
• 3 = F = Martinez 1970 = ‟Martinez, a lighter wine which will mature more quickly than the rest”;
• 4 = D = Warre 1977 = ‟Warre, Intense dark colour, ‘cut grass’ bouquet; big wine that will last extremely well. 15 to 20 years”;
• 5 = B = Smith Woodhouse 1975 = ‟Smith Woodhouse, a very well-made, balanced wine; particularly impressive in this vintage”;
• 6 = E = Smith Woodhouse 1970 = ‟Smith Woodhouse, this famous old house has produced a fine, firm, beautifully-balanced wine”;
• 7 = A = Graham 1977 = ‟Graham, Deep black red colour. Fresh clean bouquet. Extremely fruity. One of the best of the vintage. 12 to 18 years”.

[/size]Well done DRT for spotting the missing ‟y”. Nobody spotted that three descriptions began with a capital, and were therefore 1977s. Next page: DRT’s question.

How many books do I now have in my Port & Wine library?

Reminder:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=24595#p24595]Here[/url] DRT wrote:Using the date of first publication, what is the average age (rounded up to the nearest year) of the books that I have in my collection of books about Port and wine?

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=24608#p24608]Here[/url] DRT wrote:The publishing dates of my 41 port or wine related books are:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=25135#p25135]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=24611#p24611]Here[/url] DRT wrote:a re-count is required. I just found two more books that were not included in my initial calculation.

Glenn's answer is wrong, principally as a result of my incorrect clue. Sorry.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=25110#p25110]Here[/url] DRT wrote:I now think the 1530 printed on the front of the tank relates to the length rather than volume. The tank is 5' x 2 ' x 1.5' - 2' being the vertical depth.

New rule: DRT is not allowed to ask numerical questions.

Time has moved on. All that you know for sure is that 43 is the minimum answer.

I promise not to give any answers until I have counted them

Fitty, yo!

46

How many times will the word "dry" appear in this thread and the TN's it links to by midnight on 14th September.

Don't cheat.

DRT wrote:How many times will the word "dry" appear in this thread and the TN's it links to by midnight on 14th September.

Don't cheat.

1,037 times if you include all of my posts by the time I have finished.

The correct answer is 1,037.

AHB wins a pipe of Dow 1896 (en Magnum). His prize will be delivered the next time a pipe of Dow 1896 (en Magnum) appears on the market.

DRT wrote:AHB wins a pipe of Dow 1896 (en Magnum). His prize will be delivered the next time a pipe of Dow 1896 (en Magnum) appears on the market.

Excellent. I shall clear space next to my existing pipe of Dow 1896 in half bottle format so as to make it as convenient as possible to compare the effect of different bottle sizes on the aging of port. All I need now is to win a pipe of Dow 1896 in bottle format and I will have the set.

I am assembling the Niepoort chapter of The Book. Currently I am adding a bit of last-moment data, which comes from a source that will be quoted many times: many shippers, many vintages.

Which source?

DRT: you can’t play this question.

jdaw1 wrote:I am assembling the Niepoort chapter of The Book. Currently I am adding a bit of last-moment data, which comes from a source that will be quoted many times: many shippers, many vintages.

Which source?

I think we need a bit of a clue! Is the source a document, set of documents, person (be that an individual or legal) or other?

jdaw1 wrote:which comes from a source that will be quoted many times: many shippers, many vintages.

I think that’s enough of a clue to start.

The IVDP.

Very fair guess, but the actual corporate author will be quoted many more times than the IVDP.

No.

Herbert Warner Allen

smisse wrote:Herbert Warner Allen

Another splendid guess, but slightly conflicting with a clue in the previous answer:

jdaw1 wrote:the actual corporate author

So no.

Richard Mayson

Cookie wrote:Richard Mayson

No, for the same reason. He is an author, but not a corporate author.

Cynthia Jenson?

You guessed twice in a row! Somebody else has to guess (or a new question start) before you can guess again.

Okay, I'll guess Cynthia Jenson for him.

Coincidentally, this is TPF's 42,000th post.

Glenn E. wrote:Okay, I'll guess Cynthia Jenson for him.

jdaw1 wrote:but not a corporate author.

No. Pay attention!

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Okay, I'll guess Cynthia Jenson for him.

jdaw1 wrote:but not a corporate author.

No. Pay attention!

Then I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean by a corporate author. Cynthia is the official blogger for Graham's. She writes for a corporation, therefore she is a corporate author.

No?

Well, if you had said ‟Grahams’s”, or ‟Symington Family Estates”, that would indeed be a corporate author. But you named a living-flesh person in legal parlance a natural person who cannot be that.

And no, not SFE or any of its brands. That would be barking up the wrong tree.

Am I allowed to guess?