ThePortForum.com

Arising through a fortuitous combination of good weather and good growing conditions and the existence of historic precedence, this port event occurred only three times in the whole of the 20th century.

What was the event?

Ask a question, and I will (attempt) to answer.

I've tried to make my question not too easy but also not too difficult.

AHB wrote:Arising through a fortuitous combination of good weather and good growing conditions and the existence of historic precendence, this port event occurred only three times in the whole of the 20th century.

What was the event?

Ask a question, and I will (attempt) to answer.

I've tried to make my question not too easy but also not too difficult.

Julian missed a greengrocer's apostrophe

Strangely enough, that wasn't what I had in mind.

The silver jubilee?

g-man wrote:The silver jubilee?

Hang on - QE II had one, Juliana had one in NL and I think King Wanka Loss. What about the Danish and Swedish ones? No clue on them nor the Belgians. Wossat gorra doowiv Port?

1977 and 1935 were incredible years in port no? =)

Is it the highest number of recorded declarations in a vintage, with 3 vintages tied for 1st place?

It's not directly to do with the number of shippers declaring, nor anything to do with jubilees of Kings, Queens or any other form of nobility.

Keep thinking.

Is it an event that needs to be organized?

Are two of the years 1970 and 1992 by any chance??

Tom

AHB wrote:Arising through a fortuitous combination of good weather and good growing conditions and the existence of historic precedence, this port event occurred only three times in the whole of the 20th century.

What was the event?

Ask a question, and I will (attempt) to answer.

I've tried to make my question not too easy but also not too difficult.

wines declared during great wars??

A split declaration?

18XX and 19XX both widely declared? (Assuming that “existence of historic precedence† meant to say “precedent†.)

Demarcation by parishes?

jdaw1 wrote:18XX and 19XX both widely declared? (Assuming that “existence of historic precedence† meant to say “precedent†.)

This might need a slight alteration: years the same distance into a pedant’s nineteenth and twentieth centuries both widely declared. (Thus including the 1900/2000 pair.)

My books are in boxes, but from memory I believe including ’63 and ’75. As well as the ’00, of course.

Julian is almost spot on, but not quite. For example, I am not the pedant that he is.

I decided them on a purely arbitrary basis, but which were the three years I chose?

Alex

AHB wrote:Julian is almost spot on, but not quite. For example, I am not the pedant that he is.

I decided them on a purely arbitrary basis, but which were the three years I chose?

Alex

adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47? maybe the 34?

1847 & 1947
1863 & 1963
1870 & 1970

g-man wrote:adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47? maybe the 34?

Two out of three

If we were playing Mastermind, how many white pegs would I get?

Derek T. wrote:1847 & 1947
1863 & 1963
1870 & 1970

Again, 2 out of 3 - but bear in mind that this is purely arbitrary and was decided solely on my whim whilst in a sozzled state.

AHB wrote: bear in mind that this is purely arbitrary and was decided solely on my whim whilst in a sozzled state.

Does that mean that the entire basis of the question is invalid in that you used the words "only happened 3 times"?

As my books are in boxes, I don’t feel disgraced by that outcome.

jdaw1 wrote:As my books are in boxes, I don’t feel disgraced by that outcome.

Agreed. But perhaps Magnus Magnusson should feel disgraced for asking a question that doesn't have an answer

Derek T. wrote:

AHB wrote: bear in mind that this is purely arbitrary and was decided solely on my whim whilst in a sozzled state.

Does that mean that the entire basis of the question is invalid in that you used the words "only happened 3 times"?

No. The question is valid, but you simply have to identify the criteria that seemed important to me at the time that I made the question up and from there you have to deduce the three years that would have been considered to be the ones that fit said criteria.

And Julian retains the "looking-smug" rights until such time as someone identifies the three years in my mind.

34, 47 & 63?

Derek T. wrote:34, 47 & 63?

Nope - we've already had that combination of three although I confess that in my current more sober (?) state I might easily have chosen this combination of three.

Pull out Broadbent and see what else you can suggest.

AHB wrote: Pull out Broadbent and see what else you can suggest.

I got those three from Broadbent

OK - let's test how drunk you were...

11, 78 & 93?

Derek T. wrote:OK - let's test how drunk you were...

11, 78 & 93?

Close, but certainly no cigar

34, 63 & 70?

Derek T. wrote:34

In what sense was 1934 a general declaration?

jdaw1 wrote:

Derek T. wrote:34

In what sense was 1934 a general declaration?

In the sense that Broadbent gave it 4 stars, even though only 12 shippers declared, and AHB was p**sed when he picked the 3 repeated vintages.

Derek

Gentlemen....I'll get the blankets.

Rubbish. You couldn't fit more than two A3 Placemats on that table

OK. You can heap the abuse on me now. I did consider 1834/1934 but instead went for the three vintage pairs of 1847/1947 (1947 being declared, but not widely), 1863/1963 (both being widely declared) and 1897/1997 (1897 being a top quality vintage but not widely declared because of the quality of the 1896 wines).

The criterion applied was simply: "A top quality vintage in both centuries".

I fully accept that if the question had been written on a communal basis with input from all on the forum, then it would have been both more robust and more accurate (and would therefore probably also have included 1834/1934 and 1900/2000).

But it wasn't. I wrote the question while I was the worse for wear but you still (almost) got the answer spot on so I can't have been too far off the mark.

Thanks for playing along ... now, where do we get a larger table for that balcony in Alan's picture?

AHB wrote:The criterion applied was simply: "A top quality vintage in both centuries".

Since the criterion was quality rather than breadth of declaration, I’m pleased that ’75 wasn’t correct.