ThePortForum.com

Posted: **17:14 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

Quoting as at top of page.

jdaw1 wrote:Next task: shippers. The first post has been updated with understanding of what is available. Please could people look at what I think they’ve offered, and add if missing or correct if wrong.

The ‘NN question’. Axel has Nacional. I’ve had NN85 thrice (July 2006, March 2007, September 2008) and it has never impressed. Must we have it?

Posted: **17:33 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

I had this a couple of times, too and agree that it is not the best 85.

Let me know which Ports I should be sending.

Axel

Posted: **18:01 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Quoting as at top of page.
jdaw1 wrote:Next task: shippers. The first post has been updated with understanding of what is available. Please could people look at what I think they’ve offered, and add if missing or correct if wrong.
The ‘NN question’. Axel has Nacional. I’ve had NN85 thrice (July 2006, March 2007, September 2008) and it has never impressed. Must we have it?

I say no. If it was a horizontal with a better reputation across the board (1963, 1966, 1970, etc.) I would vote yes, but 1985 is too variable and 1985 NN not worth the money.

Posted: **18:05 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Next task: shippers. The first post has been updated with understanding of what is available. Please could people look at what I think they’ve offered, and add if missing or correct if wrong.

I can offer Calem, Dow, Feuerheerd, Fonseca, Gould Campbell, Graham, Offley Boa Vista, Taylor

Posted: **18:17 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

How many bottles are we planning to open?

We are currently nine men and a lightweight - twenty six bottles (two being man-sized bottles) seems wasteful, especially as some are highly likely to be rubbish.

What is the plan?

Posted: **19:02 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

DRT wrote:What is the plan?

We needed a date, and have one. Next we gather information about who has what. Using that we might perhaps pencil in a provisional tentative list of who is bringing what. About a month ahead of the tasting, when we will hopefully be more confident about how many and who, a more definite assignment can then be made.

If you need more, assume that if we are n people, the first flight will be n bottles volume, and the second flight about n×1¼ bottles volume.

Posted: **20:57 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

I'm still in and can offer Dow, Taylor, Fonseca, Calem, Warre, Graham, Smith Woodhouse, Noval and possibily Ramos Pinto.

Posted: **22:37 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

I may need to adopt since I have not a lot og 85s. For me please no NN since not worth the money. Also they are too variable as all 80s port. Other than that I would vote for separating Portugiese shippers from English shippers. The Portugese shippers being sweeter and less alcoholic and hence in tastings seem a bit handicapped against their English counterparts.

regards

WS1

Posted: **23:03 Thu 20 Aug 2015**

WS1 wrote:I may need to adopt since I have not a lot og 85s.

Do you have any 1985s? Do you have any that nobody else, or only a few others, have offered? If so, please offer.

Meanwhile, the state of play is as follows.

We are missing Ferreira, Kopke, Quarles Harris, and depending on IDJ’s “possibly Ramos Pinto”, perhaps that.

Posted: **08:09 Fri 21 Aug 2015**

I am not able to supply any of those missing. My 85s are all those we already have.

Posted: **12:13 Fri 21 Aug 2015**

The state of play is now as follows.

We are missing Ferreira, Kopke, Quarles Harris, and depending on IDJ’s “possibly Ramos Pinto”, perhaps that. Would it acceptable to substitute Fr K QH with the likes of Andresen Barros Rozès?

Posted: **10:23 Fri 11 Sep 2015**

Nearly three weeks after the date was settled, we have nine people.

For nine people, is twenty-eight bottles volume, split over lunch and evening sessions:
• Paltry?
• Sensible?
• Ambitious?

Posted: **13:58 Fri 11 Sep 2015**

Three bottles of port each seems ambitious, even if drunk over an extended time.

However, with a collection of sample bottles, I am sure that I would be able to do my part to ensure that the bottles were all empty by the end of the day.

Posted: **16:40 Sat 12 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Nearly three weeks after the date was settled, we have nine people.

For nine people, is twenty-eight bottles volume, split over lunch and evening sessions:
• Paltry?
• Sensible?
• Ambitious?

I think we could adequately assess the progress of the 1975 vintage with nine bottles. We could be decadent and do it with 18 or we could be wasteful and do it with 28.

My choice would be 9, perhaps a few more to cover potential duds.

Given our recent experience of G52SHT and D60 would it make more sense to have multiple bottles from big name shippers from different sources rather than lots of less well known and probably unavailable shippers?

Two bottles of Croft, Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Noval and Taylor would give 1.33 bottles per person and useful information about whether or not to buy.

Posted: **17:25 Sat 12 Sep 2015**

My pick would be Taylor, Graham. Fonseca, Croft, Dow, Warre, Gould Campbell, Smith Woodhouse, Ramos Pinto, Calem, Churchill, Martinez, Sandeman, Quarles Harris, Offley. Fifteen bottles, most of which are seen at auction occasionally and so could be purchased if desired. Two sittings still preferred.

Posted: **17:57 Sat 12 Sep 2015**

flash_uk wrote:Two sittings still preferred.

The audience has not been enthusiastic about two sittings, and seems to much prefer not using a day of leave.

Posted: **19:00 Sat 12 Sep 2015**

DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Nearly three weeks after the date was settled, we have nine people.

For nine people, is twenty-eight bottles volume, split over lunch and evening sessions:
• Paltry?
• Sensible?
• Ambitious?
I think we could adequately assess the progress of the 1975 vintage with nine bottles.

Oops! I thought we were in the 1975 thread.

But my general point stands - I think 28 bottles between 9 people for a non-stellar vintage is not a good idea. Mike suggests 15, which I think is probably about right for 1985, and I think one sitting would do the job.

Posted: **20:26 Sat 12 Sep 2015**

For the 97 horizontal I believe we had 21 bottles between 12 in one session over three flights and so 16 bottles between 9 ought to be doable (one session, two flights) especially as the 85s are going to be more accessible (from a drinking perspective) than the 97s. With that number we're also likely to get at least one flawed bottle. Of course, ideally, it would be better if we would increase the numbers attending and thus then increase the shippers.

Incidentally, I have checked and unfortunately do not hold any RP 85 but Harvey's can be added to my list.

Posted: **20:42 Sat 12 Sep 2015**

That seems to be a consensus: one flight, sixteen(ish) bottles.

DRT wrote:Given our recent experience of G52SHT and D60 would it make more sense to have multiple bottles from big name shippers from different sources rather than lots of less well known and probably unavailable shippers?

flash_uk wrote:My pick would be Taylor, Graham. Fonseca, Croft, Dow, Warre, Gould Campbell, Smith Woodhouse, Ramos Pinto, Calem, Churchill, Martinez, Sandeman, Quarles Harris, Offley.

Two shapes have been proposed: few shippers but twice each; or many shippers. Reasoning and preference, please.

And should either shape include the magnums?

Edit: there are 1985s we have quite often, chiefly Fonseca, but other big shippers as well. Should these be excluded?

Posted: **14:22 Tue 15 Sep 2015**

I would prefer to keep it to one bottle per shipper thus allowing us to explore a wider range and get a better feel for the overall vintage, and keep the well known ones in there for some reference points. We have done bottle variation studies before, but this is not the objective of this tasting in my view.

Posted: **18:53 Tue 15 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:
flash_uk wrote:Two sittings still preferred.
The audience has not been enthusiastic about two sittings, and seems to much prefer not using a day of leave.

Actually now that I think about it, one is better!

Posted: **18:54 Tue 15 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Two shapes have been proposed: few shippers but twice each; or many shippers. Reasoning and preference, please.

And should either shape include the magnums?

Edit: there are 1985s we have quite often, chiefly Fonseca, but other big shippers as well. Should these be excluded?

I would just go for single bottles, and include the well known ones as Charles suggests.

Posted: **19:03 Tue 15 Sep 2015**

TNs on

of 1985 VPs, from the last two years:

• 17 × Taylor;
• 16 × Fonseca;
• 6 × Churchill;
• 6 × Graham;
• 5 × Warre;
• 4 × Dow;
• 2 × Croft;
• 2 × Feuerheerd;
• 2 × Gould Campbell;
• 2 × Martinez;
• 1 × Cálem;
• 1 × Hooper;
• 1 × Niepoort;
• 1 × Offley Boa Vista;
• 1 × Ramos Pinto.

Almost half of our 1985 tasting notes from the last two years are either Fonseca or Taylor.

Posted: **19:32 Tue 15 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Almost half of our 1985 tasting notes from the last two years are either Fonseca or Taylor.

Criminal! Your sentence is to correct this ratio:

jdaw1 wrote:• 17 × Taylor;
• 16 × Fonseca;
• 1 × Hooper;

Posted: **13:55 Wed 16 Sep 2015**

The plan is now nine or so people, about fifteen bottles, no magnums, no duplicates, a mixture of major and minor shippers, in one evening session. Rephrased, the event has been downgraded from a major horizontal to an evening with the boys (girls being welcome, but the statistics suggest unlikely).

Failing cogent disagreement, on Friday I will cancel the lunch-time booking.

Edit: and, that done, I’m going to assert my authority as the new leader. We have tasted a lot of Taylor and Fonseca 1985. A lot. Interest would be increased if these two slots — perhaps by Venezuelan-style inflation becoming three slots — were filled with other shippers.

Posted: **18:30 Thu 17 Sep 2015**

I am currently impaired in both my typing ability and my cogency by a bottle of Dow 1970 and the following views expressed are my own, and only my own.

I have booked a half day of vacation for the 1985 ogfline [Dow 1970 influence] but recognise that others may not choose to do so. My suggestion would be to line up a reasonable number (15-20) shippers from the 1985 vintage but to go for one bottle and/or one magnum from each. I accept that we rather like the Fonseca and find the Taylor easy to get hold of, but I do not see this as a reason to leave them out of the line up.

Having booked half a day's holiday I am very happy to help prepare for the event and hope that in return I might have an opportunity to start early and record my tasting notes in the slow, methodical way in which I prefer without being the subject of ridicule from my fellow TPF members.

I also suspect that we may get more people signing up for the event if we relax the requirement that people can only attend if they attend both the afternoon and evening sessions.

Posted: **18:43 Thu 17 Sep 2015**

People have been unwilling to use a day of leave. Should we have just an evening session, that starts at 5:30pm, an hour earlier than usual?

Posted: **19:01 Thu 17 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:People have been unwilling to use a day of leave. Should we have just an evening session, that starts at 5:30pm, an hour earlier than usual?

A very good idea. Perhaps a round of Welsh Rarebit at 5pm would fortify us for a 2½ to 3 hour session before dinner?

Posted: **19:27 Thu 17 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:People have been unwilling to use a day of leave. Should we have just an evening session, that starts at 5:30pm, an hour earlier than usual?

I think this is an excellent idea. If we have everything ready for 5.30pm then people can arrive promptly or late as their non-port commitments permit. We could even have things ready earlier than 5.30pm if there was any interest^*

^*there is. I'd like to start before 5.30pm!

Posted: **22:29 Thu 17 Sep 2015**

The plan for the 1985 ogfline is now as follows.

• Nine people (though more welcome);
• About 1⅔ bottles volume per person, so with 9 people about 9×1⅔ = 15 bottles;
• No magnums;
• No duplicates;
• Some major shippers, and some minor shippers;
• One evening session, which will be ready at 17:00, but come any time between 16:45 and 18:30.

Possible shippers:

Cálem (WPS);
Churchill (JDAW);
Delaforce (THRA);
Dow (IDJ);
Fonseca (DRT);
M Gonzalez (BMHR);
Gould Campbell (MPM);
Graham (AHB);
Martinez (JDAW);
Morgan (THRA);
Offley Boa Vista (MPM);
Sandeman (THRA);
Smith Woodhouse (IDJ);
Taylor (DRT);
Warre (IDJ).

By attendee:

MPM (Gould Campbell, Offley Boa Vista);
WPS (Cálem);
JDAW (Churchill, Martinez);
DRT (Taylor, Fonseca);
IDJ (Dow, Smith Woodhouse, Warre);
THRA (Delaforce, Morgan, Sandeman);
AHB (Graham);
AP (none, to save transport hassle);
BMHR (M. Gonzalez).

Assuming that the two lists concur, are there objections to this plan?

Axel: would you still be coming?

Posted: **11:20 Fri 18 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Failing cogent disagreement, on Friday I will cancel the lunch-time booking.

Done: reservation changed to start at 4pm.

Posted: **08:44 Sun 20 Sep 2015**

Yes please (I thought I was coming but seem to have forgotten to say so!) - I have the usual major shippers, but as IDJ is down for 3 bottles perhaps I can bring the D85 to even things up?

Posted: **08:45 Sun 20 Sep 2015**

CPR 1 wrote:I have the usual major shippers

Please say which.

Posted: **10:47 Sun 20 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:
CPR 1 wrote:I have the usual major shippers
Please say which.

G T D W F

Posted: **14:16 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

Possible shippers:

Cálem (WPS);
Churchill (JDAW);
Delaforce (THRA);
Dow (CPR);
Fonseca (DRT);
M Gonzalez (BMHR);
Gould Campbell (MPM);
Graham (AHB);
Martinez (JDAW);
Morgan (THRA);
Offley Boa Vista (MPM);
Sandeman (THRA);
Smith Woodhouse (IDJ);
Taylor (DRT);
Warre (IDJ).

By attendee:

MPM (Gould Campbell, Offley Boa Vista);
WPS (Cálem);
JDAW (Churchill, Martinez);
DRT (Taylor, Fonseca);
IDJ (Smith Woodhouse, Warre);
THRA (Delaforce, Morgan, Sandeman);
AHB (Graham);
AP (none, to save transport hassle);
BMHR (M. Gonzalez),
CPR (Dow).

Posted: **14:28 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

CPR has joined us. Which one or two shippers should be added? Or a Fonseca 1985 magnum?

Posted: **14:47 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:CPR has joined us. Which one or two shippers should be added? Or a Fonseca 1985 magnum?

Ramos Pinto perhaps?

Posted: **15:04 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

flash_uk wrote:Ramos Pinto perhaps?

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=95013#p95013]Here[/url] idj123 wrote:I have checked and unfortunately do not hold any RP 85

Posted: **17:27 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:
flash_uk wrote:Ramos Pinto perhaps?
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=95013#p95013]Here[/url] idj123 wrote:I have checked and unfortunately do not hold any RP 85

Ah. Ferreira?

Posted: **18:05 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

flash_uk wrote:Ferreira?

Nobody has.

Edit:

Posted: **20:49 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

Fonseca '85 magnum it is then!

Posted: **22:17 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

flash_uk wrote:Fonseca '85 magnum it is then!

Does anybody object to a magnum of Fonseca 1985?

Posted: **22:17 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:Does anybody object to a magnum of Fonseca 1985?

Thought not. Magnum of Fonseca 1985 it is.

Posted: **22:33 Tue 22 Sep 2015**

I appear to have missed the election window on this one but would have voted "No" so am delighted with the result

Posted: **10:17 Wed 23 Sep 2015**

It looks like, everything going well, I will be able to get to City Airport before 1900, in which case I should be at the Boot & Flogger for 1930. I am in.

Can the first post be updated to reflect that this is now a one-session tasting?

Posted: **19:40 Thu 01 Oct 2015**

I now seem to have some Quarles Harris 85, any thoughts on including this? There only seems to be 1 tasting note on TPF, shall we give it another go?

Posted: **20:52 Thu 01 Oct 2015**

CPR 1 wrote:I now seem to have some

Delicious phrasing. And QH85 included: thank you.

First post now contains a list of who is bringing what, and a list of what is being brought by whom. And updated placemats.

In Port terms we are slightly heavy. This is being ascribed to a rounding error, and hence not being corrected.

Please comment on the flighting.

Posted: **08:47 Sat 03 Oct 2015**

Regrettably, my attendance has now been vetoed by 'the powers that be'! M. Gonzalez 1985 available if required, although an early indication would be required so that I can ensure it is at the Boot & Flogger for you on 25th November.

Posted: **10:35 Sat 03 Oct 2015**

benread wrote:Regrettably, my attendance has now been vetoed by 'the powers that be'!

That is a shame, for you in one way and for us in two. Is there any chance of an appeal? DRT has a very good track record of appealing to my wife that I be released with no promise of good behaviour: should he, ahem, try his charms on Nuala?

benread wrote:M. Gonzalez 1985 available if required, although an early indication would be required so that I can ensure it is at the Boot & Flogger for you on 25th November.

Thank you. I would really like to include it, as it would be my first taste of it. But we are now officially heavy on Port, even if a guest accepts, so do not yet know.

Posted: **11:25 Sat 03 Oct 2015**

My charm is available if desired

I would think it a little unfair to drink such a rare bottle as the M Gonzales without Ben, especially given the unreasonable circumstances in which he is having to withdraw.

ThePortForum.com

1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F

Re: 1985 horizontal: Wed 25th Nov 2015, B&F