ThePortForum.com

Yes, that is a rather good clue.

Ruby Port?

Glenn E. wrote:Yes, that is a rather good clue.

Ruby Port?

The third category: for sure.

The first and second categories: not so far as I am aware from comprehensive google searches (and I apologise in advance for a rubbish quiz if they are...)

RAYC wrote:

RAYC wrote:I have a true-to-theme prize for anyone who can tell me the connection between the following words/phrases: definitive; first option; fusion; tribute

RAYC wrote:Clue 1: a related category of words/phrases includes: fourth quarter, blend Nº 4

Clue 2: a separate related category of words/phrases includes: midnight, icon, renown, nirvana

Clue 3: think legal

After your second clue, I was thinking alnong the lines of whisky or tabacco/cigars or cigar menu - but figured you would have replied "close but no cigar" if that had been the answer; I thought about possible law-related options but came up blank.
The only other thought I had was in relation to "other substances" which could be smoked/eaten which might induce "nirvana"... such as bacon, egg and black pudding baps at two in the morning, of course

A quick game is a good game - answer posted tonight.

Phil - Nirvana, Midnight, Icon Reserve and Renown are (or were) all brands of ruby port released by Dow.

RAYC wrote: Nirvana, Midnight, Icon Reserve and Renown are (or were) all brands of ruby port released by Dow.

Whereas Dow's Definitive, Dow's First Option, Dow's Fusion and Tribute Port are all EU trademarks registered* in the "alcoholic drinks" category by what i assume is the Dow holding company, but which do not seem to have made it to "release". Could these have been putative Ruby brand names?

In the second category, Fourth Quarter is a trademark registered by what i assume is the Warre holding company, and Graham's Blend Nº 4 and Blend Nº 4 were both registered (at about the same time as Natura...) by what i assume is the Graham holding company, but again which do not seem to have been released (...yet, at least).

* apart from Tribute Port, which was rejected

I am drinking two excellent ports, the same in every way except that the harvests were one year apart. What am I drinking?

For new boys, the game:

jdaw1 wrote:{If you get it right, you then have to pose an equally useless but guessable question. If you guess wrong, you can’t guess again until somebody else has had a guess, or until a new question is posed (which would happen because a previous guess is marked ‘correct’).}

jdaw1 wrote:I am drinking two excellent ports, the same in every way except that the harvests were one year apart. What am I drinking?

For new boys, the game:

jdaw1 wrote:{If you get it right, you then have to pose an equally useless but guessable question. If you guess wrong, you can’t guess again until somebody else has had a guess, or until a new question is posed (which would happen because a previous guess is marked ‘correct’).}

Taylor Vargellas? I'll go with 67/68.

Glenn E. wrote:Taylor Vargellas? I'll go with 67/68.

Completely wrong.

I’ve also added a third to the evening, also excellent, though needing to breathe a little more. But that one is not part of the question.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Taylor Vargellas? I'll go with 67/68.

Completely wrong.

I have an even better guess, but sadly a) didn't think of it before posting the above, and b) must now wait until someone else guesses.

/sigh

A 1991 and a 1992?

DRT wrote:A 1991 and a 1992?

An insufficient guess, but no matter, as wrong.

As a clue, Graham and Graham Q. d. Malvedos would not satisfy

jdaw1 wrote:the same in every way except that the harvests were one year apart.

Just so Glenn can guess again, I'm presuming that this is a SQVP, and perhaps a (brace of) Malvedos. This is wrong. Now it's someone else's turn.

I'm drinking a Quinta de la Rosa 11 half. TN will follow. It's good.

djewesbury wrote:Just so Glenn can guess again, I'm presuming that this is a SQVP, and perhaps a (brace of) Malvedos. This is wrong.

Wrong, and correct.

And anyway, GEE could have guessed again following DRT’s guess. So all-round hopeless.

I can't guess again until someone else does. Of course I was really only guessing so that Derek could guess again. Go on, put us out of our misery.

Warre LBV 1981 and 1982?

DRT wrote:Warre LBV 1981 and 1982?

And very good they are too.

My wife’s book club is meeting chez moi. It seemed a sensible thing to provide, as host. Except that her friends correctly identified what they brought as less worthy of drinking (blunt comment suppressed), so made progress through the ’81 and ’82 more hastily than expected. An ’84 was then opened.

DRT’s question, please.

May I basque in the glory for a while before thinking of a question?

DRT wrote:May I basque in the glory for a while before thinking of a question?

You know where you may bask in the glory of it.

Which vintage is the Vintage Port that I have owned for the longest time that is still in my cellar?

A 1963?

Is it a 1955?

1945?

No, 1942..

1960?

Perhaps this is a trick question. Maybe it's a 1972.

1985?

How long, on average, can a bottle of VP survive in DRT's cellar? It could be a 2003.

In storage, ages. On site, sometimes over a week.

1970?

1999?

1983?

I really think DRT should answer.

Is it a 1979 Malvedos?

1980?

1977?

1966?

Maybe a clue would help.

1967?

I agree.

1992?

jdaw1 wrote:1992?

Surely not.

1991.

1975, heaven have mercy on his soul? Maybe God created man in his own image, but believers and non-believers can surely agree that he did not create the 1975 vintage whilst gazing in a mirror. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, completely rubbish declaration to, well, you can guess.

No, it's more likely to be 1950.

(thinks.. have we covered every likely vintage yet?)

1997, about which Wikipedia reports that ‟Katrina and the Waves win the Eurovision Song Contest 1997 for the UK with "Love Shine a Light", the most successful Eurovision entry ever.”

2001: the title of one of the most boring films ever made.

2000, the last year of the second millennium.

That film was made before the moon landings, and yet it well showed many of the features of space travel. I liked the film.

I preferred Solaris, but we've already had 1972. Perhaps my view of 2001 is coloured by not having watched it again since Christmas 199?, when it was on TV while I was in New York. An ad break every 15 minutes did nothing for Kubrick's contemplative pacing.

1934?

1993?

DRT: we need a clue. Or, even better, to be told that the answer has been guessed.

1998. We're running out of vintages.

1994, the year in which the bond market crashed after Alan Greenspan raised the Fed Funds rate from 3% to 6% in seven steps.

Plenty more to go.

Is it a 95 Churchill Agua Alta?

1962, perhaps Nacional?