ThePortForum.com

LGTrotter wrote: If I had to come up with a reason I would think it was the selo but I'm not sure why.

The information regarding the selo is certainly important. But in terms of getting to a position where - out of the universe of port - you have a reasonably narrow range within which to guess, there is little in the text that i have posted which is superfluous.

RAYC wrote:Great cake!
Home-made by Mrs W?

Tasted as good as it looked, too (maybe better); Made by Mrs W Senior.

RAYC wrote:After a tough day at work, i had a slight thirst last night and - despite having just started yet another health drive - cracked open a bottle of port.

Somewhat displeased with the result of that first bottle, I opened a different bottle of the same port. One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had). I am almost 100% certain that both ports were shipped within 5 years of harvest.

What port did i drink?

Croft 70 (EB vs OB for the selos) ?

PhilW wrote:

RAYC wrote:After a tough day at work, i had a slight thirst last night and - despite having just started yet another health drive - cracked open a bottle of port.

Somewhat displeased with the result of that first bottle, I opened a different bottle of the same port. One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had). I am almost 100% certain that both ports were shipped within 5 years of harvest.

What port did i drink?

Croft 70 (EB vs OB for the selos) ?

No. The information re: selos needs to be taken in conjunction with the other information to arrive at the right ballpark. Focussing on selos alone will not help.

I like Mr W's thought around selo's so I will stick with that (ie EB vs OB), I have realised in the cold light of day that I was thinking of LBV because of 'shipped within five years' thing. I wonder about the health kick, is there a low fat port? Although perhaps I could surmise a healthy option was two half bottles rather that two whole ones. A tough day at work for me tends to mean that I open a low brow wine as I need all my failing faculties to appreciate a good one which reinforces the wood port idea.

Ergo I need to guess an LBV (or equivalent) from 1970 or before available in halves which was both shipped to the UK and oporto bottled.

Dunno.

Dow's crusted bottled 1968? (was there such a wine?) please comment on my albeit sloppy thinking.

RAYC wrote: One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had). I am almost 100% certain that both ports were shipped within 5 years of harvest.

I do not believe that 1968 / 1970 EB v OB could satisfy the criteria in both sentences.

Playing your cards close to your chest today I see.
I did wonder if I should have considered the lack of complete surety in the shipping dates. I suppose I should go and brush up on my selo knowledge but it's not my turn. But there does seem to be a vintage implied rather than several hence not crusted presumably.

RAYC wrote:

RAYC wrote:One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had). I am almost 100% certain that both ports were shipped within 5 years of harvest.

I do not believe that 1968 / 1970 EB v OB could satisfy the criteria in both sentences.

ok, it's clearly not the answer, but am not sure why it doesn't meet the criteria, e.g.
Bottle A: Croft 1970, Bottled in Oporto in 1972 (sel applied), shipped on release in 1972; bought by you from vendor as "held in bond since purchase on release"
Bottle B: Croft 1970, shipped as a pipe and bottled in England (no Selo) probably in 1972.

For a moment, I considered that this could be a trick question, and the answer is "none", on the basis that you were displeased with the first bottle but did not say why, and you did not say whether you were displeased with the second bottle, so perhaps both smelled so bad that you didn't drink either. However your answer to Croft 2004LBV indicates this is not the case.

RAYC wrote:The information regarding the selo is certainly important. But in terms of getting to a position where - out of the universe of port - you have a reasonably narrow range within which to guess, there is little in the text that i have posted which is superfluous.

Hmm... ok, perhaps I need to analyse the text of your initial post more thoroughly...

RAYC wrote:After a tough day at work, i had a slight thirst last night and - despite having just started yet another health drive - cracked open a bottle of port.

Somewhat displeased with the result of that first bottle, I opened a different bottle of the same port. One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had). I am almost 100% certain that both ports were shipped within 5 years of harvest.

What port did i drink?

"A slight thirst" - could indicate a half-bottle, rather than a full bottle?
"cracked open" - perhaps tongs were used, or you were in such a hurry you simply smashed the top off on an available corner?
"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.
"I am almost 100% certain that both ports were shipped within 5 years of harvest." Lots to consider here:
- If one bottle is Oporto bottled then this tells us that this is not a Tawny (since the Oporto-bottled was shipped within 5 year of harvest, so must have been bottled within this period), so most likely a VP or LBV.
- If we assume that one is English bottled, and (almost certainly) bottled within 5 year, then it would be VP or LBV.
- You are not 100% certain, though you think it extremely likely regarding the 5 years; Also you have said 5 rather than 3, so this may indicate LBV rather than VP.

So, <=1970, possibly LBV, with one of Croft/2004/LBV being correct.
Guess: Taylor 1965 LBV

Bravo Mr Wilson! No idea if it is right but closely reasoned nonetheless.

Isn't it great to have something meaningless to distract ourselves with.

Were the laws around shipping/selo's the same for VP as for LBV, colheita, crusted and SQVP? Not sure, but I'll guess something anyway so the laser quality of Mr Wilson's thinking can be set in motion again.

1967 Croft Roeda.

I think they only 'officially' started LBVs in the latter half of the 20th century, so I'm not aware of many other LBVs that would fit the time-frame. . My <='70 above should probably be more like <='75 though, since the pipe could have been shipped and then bottled later after the rules on bottling changed (and neither am I certain about *exactly* when the rule of "you may only ship bottles, not pipes" (i.e. all bottling in Oporto) was introduced. Am sticking with guessing <='75 LBVs until RAYC responds to point out that my logic is fundamentally flawed

Warre 1974 LBV

RAYC wrote:Further clues will be given for well-reasoned guesses.

Ahem...(see above)

1967 Taylor LBV

PhilW wrote:"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.

Phil - there is a lot of good analysis in your post (though you could think even more laterally / literally!), but the quoted section above is the one you need to concentrate on (as I believe there are a number of errors in your analysis - if not i will eat humble pie).

RAYC wrote:

PhilW wrote:"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.

Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

JWEW wrote:

RAYC wrote:

PhilW wrote:"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.

Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

Yes.

LGTrotter wrote:
Were the laws around shipping/selo's the same for VP as for LBV, colheita, crusted and SQVP? Not sure, but I'll guess something anyway so the laser quality of Mr Wilson's thinking can be set in motion again.

I believe VP laws changed in early 70s, but other ports could be shipped in bulk and bottled abroad until 1996-1997. Knowing this will help

LGTrotter wrote: 1967 Taylor LBV

No

PhilW wrote:
Warre 1974 LBV

No

LGTrotter wrote:
1967 Croft Roeda.

No

PhilW wrote: Guess: Taylor 1965 LBV

No

LGTrotter wrote:But there does seem to be a vintage implied rather than several hence not crusted presumably.

Correct

Useful background reading which could trigger an "a-ha" moment:

FTLOP article on selos link

IVDP rules & legislation pertaining to port link

At least one guess has correctly identified two of the three variables.

1984 Warre LBV?

Glenn E. wrote:1984 Warre LBV?

No. Again, rather than just a wrong guess, i don't think this would be capable of satisfying the criteria.

1997 Croft Roeda?

RAYC wrote:At least one guess has correctly identified two of the three variables.

I take it you mean one of the long list of rejected answers a couple of posts back.

This evening I have transported myself back to 1993; I went to see the Orb!

RAYC wrote:

JWEW wrote:

RAYC wrote:

PhilW wrote:"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.

Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

Yes.

I'm not sure I've seen a selo which wasn't white paper; if I have I don't remember. Googling for non-white or coloured selos just brought up this thread (doh!). I had re-read the FTLOP selo page, though not yet attacked the IVDP; might check that again later if the question is still active when I get back later (off out shorly).

Since one guess has two variables correct, we have:
- If it is an LBV is would have to be: CrR67LBV, Cr70LBV or D68LBV - Suggesting perhaps not an LBV after all?
- If not an LBV, and we know not crusted, then: W84? T67? W74? T65? Cr04? Cr67?(non-vp), Cr70?(non-vp) Cr?vp ?67vp, D68?, ?70vp

I think I'm floundering; I can't find another guess which fits the above; must have made a mistake... argh!

PhilW wrote:

RAYC wrote:

JWEW wrote:

RAYC wrote:

PhilW wrote:"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.

Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

Yes.

I'm not sure I've seen a selo which wasn't white paper; if I have I don't remember. Googling for non-white or coloured selos just brought up this thread (doh!). I had re-read the FTLOP selo page, though not yet attacked the IVDP; might check that again later if the question is still active when I get back later (off out shorly).

Pursuing this line of attack will bear fruit. Also - remember that JWEW misquoted me...

PhilW wrote:
Since one guess has two variables correct, we have:
- If it is an LBV is would have to be: CrR67LBV, Cr70LBV or D68LBV - Suggesting perhaps not an LBV after all?
- If not an LBV, and we know not crusted, then: W84? T67? W74? T65? Cr04? Cr67?(non-vp), Cr70?(non-vp) Cr?vp ?67vp, D68?, ?70vp

I think I'm floundering; I can't find another guess which fits the above; must have made a mistake... argh!

By three variables, i meant style, year, shipper.

I'm back, after two nights of very satisfactory port drinking...

RAYC wrote:Also - remember that JWEW misquoted me...

This port is from the period when the IVDP was brought into being in its current form. Therefore the crucial factor is the "IVDP" bit.

So this port is from a date between roughly 1998 and 2000..? Is it a Croft 98 LBV?

djewesbury wrote:I'm back, after two nights of very satisfactory port drinking...

RAYC wrote:Also - remember that JWEW misquoted me...

This port is from the period when the IVDP was brought into being in its current form. Therefore the crucial factor is the "IVDP" bit.

Correct....

The IVP became the IVDP in 2003, meaning my bottle with the white paper selo was shipped from the producer's cellars post-2003.

Although overseas-bottled ports do not have selos, the fact that the port was shipped within 5 years of harvest implies that the port dates from 1998 or later. This rules out the possibility of an English-bottled / ex-cellars Oporto-bottled pairing (overseas VP bottlings ceased in the early-mid 70s, lesser categories ceased in 96-97).

A 98-00 harvest bottle pairing is an interesting suggestion - one bottle could have been shipped in 2002 and have a white paper IVP selo, and the other shipped in 2003 or later with an IVDP selo. A cask sample bottle / commercial release bottle is another possibility that i thought might have been mentioned, since cask sample bottles do not have a selo (likewise private "family" bottlings).

However, there is another possibility why a post-1998 oporto-bottled port may not have a white paper IVDP selo. I'll modify the quiz question so that either a correct identification of this other possibility or a correct guess of the port wins.

In terms of further hints, combine JWEW's earlier line of questioning with some of Phil's analysis of other parts of the question...

I missed the "IVDP" selo clue completely, and then shipped within 5 years of harvest therefore makes this 98+ as you said.
My last reply was rubbish too:

PhilW wrote:Since one guess has two variables correct, we have:
- If it is an LBV is would have to be: CrR67LBV, Cr70LBV or D68LBV - Suggesting perhaps not an LBV after all?

was rubbish, since Cr??LBV, W??LBV and D??LBV were all options too.

Regarding:

RAYC wrote:A 98-00 harvest bottle pairing is an interesting suggestion - one bottle could have been shipped in 2002 and have a white paper IVP selo, and the other shipped in 2003 or later with an IVDP selo. A cask sample bottle / commercial release bottle is another possibility that i thought might have been mentioned, since cask sample bottles do not have a selo (likewise private "family" bottlings).

the option for the bottle to have no selo seems to have been eliminated by

RAYC wrote:

JWEW wrote:Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

Yes.

(assuming the reply is correct despite the lack of IVDP in the question), leaving us with your [/quote]However, there is another possibility why a post-1998 oporto-bottled port may not have a white paper IVDP selo. I'll modify the quiz question so that either a correct identification of this other possibility or a correct guess of the port wins.[/quote]. In addition, not just "why a post-1998 oporto-bottled port may not have a white paper IVDP selo" but also that it never had one (so not fallen off, stained etc).

Have to admit, I have no idea; I'll just take a guess at the port: Warre 2001 LBV unfiltered.

Did one have an IVDP selo and the other an IVP selo that had presumably been drawn from old stock?

DRT wrote:Did one have an IVDP selo and the other an IVP selo that had presumably been drawn from old stock?

That's what I was getting at.. I think Phil's is a good guess..

RAYC wrote: One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had).

Only one had ever had a selo. If I understand correctly.

I'm wrong. As you were. Just read the clarification re 'white' and 'paper'.

But this response from Rob confirms that both bottles had a selo!

RAYC wrote:

JWEW wrote:

RAYC wrote:

PhilW wrote:"One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had)" - The one with the selo was presumably bottled in Oporto, while the one without was bottled elsewhere (since you know it never had one, I assume the bottler is listed, and is perhaps UK based). This also means that the port must be <=1970, after which all port was bottled in Oporto.

Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

Yes.

And this one can only relate to the missing "IVDP" in JWEW's quote of RAYC's words!

RAYC wrote:Also - remember that JWEW misquoted me...

LGTrotter wrote:

RAYC wrote: One had a white paper IVDP selo and one didn't (and never had).

Only one had ever had a selo. If I understand correctly.

Not quite....

PhilW wrote:the option for the bottle to have no selo seems to have been eliminated by

RAYC wrote:

JWEW wrote:Just to clarify, did the bottle that didn't have a "white paper selo" have a selo that either wasn't white or not made from paper?

Yes.

To expedite guesses, here's are two big clues:

(i) I purchased both bottles from Amazon

(ii) Don't forget Phil's earlier line of enquiry...

PhilW wrote: "A slight thirst" - could indicate a half-bottle, rather than a full bottle?
"cracked open" - perhaps tongs were used, or you were in such a hurry you simply smashed the top off on an available corner?

Was one of them a miniature or other small bottle size that does not require a selo?

Hooray! Sort of....small bottles require a special selo.

It was a 5cl 2008 Taylor LBV (amazon link) with what the IVDP call a "capsula-selo", and a full bottle of the same.

IVDP diagram of a "capsula-selo" and link to relevant rules

You know too much about the IVDP rules. This cannot be healthy.

RAYC wrote:Hooray! Sort of....small bottles require a special selo.

It was a 5cl 2008 Taylor LBV (amazon link) with what the IVDP call a "capsula-selo", and a full bottle of the same.

:Applause: (no such icon); Nice question: thought provoking, related to port and informative.

I feel I have learned a lot about selo's too, so bravo.
But things have come to a pretty pass when is reduced to considering five centilitre bottles!

LGTrotter wrote:I feel I have learned a lot about selo's too, so bravo.
But things have come to a pretty pass when is reduced to considering five centilitre bottles!

I was going to ask what the attraction is: convenience purely? Are they pleasant enough? Do you decant first ?

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I feel I have learned a lot about selo's too, so bravo.
But things have come to a pretty pass when is reduced to considering five centilitre bottles!

I was going to ask what the attraction is: convenience purely? Are they pleasant enough? Do you decant first ?

Presumably they are easier to secrete about the person than a full bottle, for ease of use in public parks, work, etc.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I feel I have learned a lot about selo's too, so bravo.
But things have come to a pretty pass when is reduced to considering five centilitre bottles!

I was going to ask what the attraction is: convenience purely? Are they pleasant enough? Do you decant first ?

Presumably they are easier to secrete about the person than a full bottle, for ease of use in public parks, work, etc.

Don't worry, I've already ordered a pallet.

LGTrotter wrote:I feel I have learned a lot about selo's too, so bravo.
But things have come to a pretty pass when is reduced to considering five centilitre bottles!

I have read discussions elsewhere on that suggest that port matures quicker in smaller bottles. If this is true then it would seem logical to consider five centileter bottles.

Well constructed question. Doff hat.

Happily, none of my reasoning was wrong, even though I didn’t get the answer.

And where's that laggard Derek with a fresh question?

LGTrotter wrote:And where's that laggard Derek with a fresh question?

And moreover he is on this forum right now laughing (no doubt) his evil genius laugh.

LGTrotter wrote:And where's that laggard Derek with a fresh question?

Apologies, I have been in the car and I have been reliably informed that it is illegal to play One Quiz at a Time whilst travelling at 90mph on the M1.

50mph on the North Circular seems to be ok so here we go!

I started work as a lowly and oppressed Civil Servant on 1 November 1982. Before the year was out I ate my first curry on a weekday afternoon with a group of colleagues. What was the reason we were not at work that afternoon and what type of curry did I order?

You were on strike and it was a chicken tikka masala.

Game over!

On strike. Jalfrezi.

(Edit: I wrote my post without seeing the previous.)

(Edit edit: for this reason the previous poster’s guess is excellent.)

Reasons not precise enough and not Jalfrezi or Tikka Masala.

On strike I repeat, nuffzed.

But not chicken tikka masala or jalfreze. Mmmm... interesting. I would stick with chicken and move onto vindaloo. Unless I must also come up with a paratha of some description, surely your rice was plain in those days?

LGTrotter wrote:On strike I repeat, nuffzed.

I'm looking for the specific dispute that caused Civil Servants to go on strike in 1982 and (I think) 1983. If we had any youngsters here they would never guess the answer.

LGTrotter wrote:I would stick with chicken and move onto vindaloo.

Chicken is correct, but vindaloo very wrong. I was not introduced to vindaloo until about two years later on a boys night out when one of my most intelligent acquaintances said to the waiter "we can eat anything your chef can make no matter how hot it is". I have never forgiven him.

DRT wrote:I'm looking for the specific dispute that caused Civil Servants to go on strike in 1982 and (I think) 1983.

Just out of interest how many hundred words do you need responants to limit themselves to when considering the industrial relations picture in the early eighties? Should we begin at the IMF bailout in the seventies? No perhaps if we just pick up with the miners. Are you sure you remember why you went on strike?

I shall in the interim consider the curry. A lamb boona?

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:I'm looking for the specific dispute that caused Civil Servants to go on strike in 1982 and (I think) 1983.

Just out of interest how many hundred words do you need responants to limit themselves to when considering the industrial relations picture in the early eighties? Should we begin at the IMF bailout in the seventies? No perhaps if we just pick up with the miners. Are you sure you remember why you went on strike?

Yes. This was after the miners, but was of similar scale.

LGTrotter wrote:I shall in the interim consider the curry. A lamb boona?

No.

PS: On the first point, there were far fewer well-publicised disputes in the 1980s than there are whisky casks in the SMWS database.