Re: One quiz at a time
Posted: 23:39 Thu 02 Jan 2014
Graham 1948
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/
Yes, older than 1955DRT wrote:Older than 1955?
DRT wrote:Let's try to narrow the field of possibilities:
Was it from the 1963 vintage?
DRT wrote:Was it from the Christmas tasting at The Bell?
DRT wrote:Older than 1955?
All very helpful for the team reaching the answer, but... where are your guesses, sir?!DRT wrote:Older than 1950?
Close on the shipper. Close on the vintage, a little older.PhilW wrote:Croft '50
Did you answer the two 48 guesses...?AHB wrote:Close on the shipper. Close on the vintage, a little older.PhilW wrote:Croft '50
I said that earlier. But I will say Cockburn thirty-five, just in case.PhilW wrote:Fonseca '48?
Sorry, missed those on the iPhone.djewesbury wrote:Did you answer the two 48 guesses...?AHB wrote:Close on the shipper. Close on the vintage, a little older.PhilW wrote:Croft '50
Right vintage. Close on the shipper, although not as close as Croft.DRT wrote:Delaforce 1947?
Right shipper, wrong vintage.LGTrotter wrote:I said that earlier. But I will say Cockburn thirty-five, just in case.PhilW wrote:Fonseca '48?
Then I'll guess you mean close alphabetically rather than TFP and go for Cockburn 1947?AHB wrote:Right vintage. Close on the shipper, although not as close as Croft.DRT wrote:Delaforce 1947?
So to recap, we've been told that 1945 is not far wrong, but that it's not 1948. It isn't Fonseca, Graham or Taylor, but Croft is 'close'.AHB wrote:Sorry, missed those on the iPhone.djewesbury wrote:Did you answer the two 48 guesses...?AHB wrote:Close on the shipper. Close on the vintage, a little older.PhilW wrote:Croft '50
Older than 1948. Not Fonseca or Graham.
Go back a couple of posts; Alex confirmed the vintage was '47, and then that the shipper was Cockburn just as I guessed Ck'47; I have already claimed, and asked the next question pending confirmationdjewesbury wrote:So to recap, we've been told that 1945 is not far wrong, but that it's not 1948. It isn't Fonseca, Graham or Taylor, but Croft is 'close'. Taking that literally, the closest other house to the Croft quinta at Roêda is Dow. Is it a Dow 42?
Whoops! Had a slightly-too-good lunch.PhilW wrote:Go back a couple of posts; Alex confirmed the vintage was '47, and then that the shipper was Cockburn just as I guessed Ck'47; I have already claimed, and asked the next question pending confirmationdjewesbury wrote:So to recap, we've been told that 1945 is not far wrong, but that it's not 1948. It isn't Fonseca, Graham or Taylor, but Croft is 'close'. Taking that literally, the closest other house to the Croft quinta at Roêda is Dow. Is it a Dow 42?
Derek's telescope? Selling his tube *wags little finger* to get a bigger one.PhilW wrote:I have just seen the name of a member of TPF on ebay, in an auction ending this weekend - who and why?
Or maybe me selling off the words 'Owen' 'joke' 'tool' 'big' and 'tube'?LGTrotter wrote:Me selling off my collection of hand-tooled vintage jokes.
LGTrotter wrote:Derek's telescope? Selling his tube *wags little finger* to get a bigger one.
djewesbury wrote:Julian. Selling his big empty tubes.
No, none of the people mentioned, and the "why" does not involve the girth of any TPF member's tube.LGTrotter wrote:Me selling off my collection of hand-tooled vintage jokes.
PhilW wrote:I have just seen the name of a member of TPF on ebay, in an auction ending this weekend - who and why?
In a fat tube, or lots of little ones?DRT wrote:Tom selling fireworks?
Is Jo selling me on Ebay?PhilW wrote:Clue: The TPF member is NOT the seller.
good thinking ....my first thought was this listing (link) but i don't think it fits the criteriaDRT wrote:I didn't think buyers' names showed up on Ebay.
djewesbury wrote:Is it Julian's book?
RAYC wrote:good thinking ....my first thought was this listing (link) but i don't think it fits the criteriaDRT wrote:I didn't think buyers' names showed up on Ebay.
so have you found one ending this weekend?djewesbury wrote:djewesbury wrote:Is it Julian's book?RAYC wrote:good thinking ....my first thought was this listing (link) but i don't think it fits the criteriaDRT wrote:I didn't think buyers' names showed up on Ebay.
I haven't actually done the checking-on-eBay bit...RAYC wrote:so have you found one ending this weekend?djewesbury wrote:djewesbury wrote:Is it Julian's book?RAYC wrote:good thinking ....my first thought was this listing (link) but i don't think it fits the criteriaDRT wrote:I didn't think buyers' names showed up on Ebay.
Phil's name isn't Wilson though.LGTrotter wrote:Or this; http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wilson-Phil-G ... 589c56d250
I shall learn to do neater links some other time. Even though it fails to fit the criteria the resemblance is uncanny.
Boo-hiss and down with that sort of thing.djewesbury wrote:Phil's name isn't Wilson though.LGTrotter wrote:Or this; http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wilson-Phil-G ... 589c56d250
I shall learn to do neater links some other time. Even though it fails to fit the criteria the resemblance is uncanny.
To post a neat link to Ebay type the following:LGTrotter wrote:I shall learn to do neater links some other time.
As any manager of mine will testify my capacity to misunderstand and forestall technology is legendary. I bet it won't be.DRT wrote:Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy.
It certainly is; There is a bottle of F77 on there, with tasting notes from Wine Spectator, Robert Parker, Neil Martin and AHB - and AHB's score is the lowest of the lotDRT wrote:Is it a bottle of Port with a tasting note from AHB in the description?