ThePortForum.com

In a PM to me a few days ago jdaw1 wrote:Please send your UK postal address to which a delivery of a small-ish thing can be made.

(Why, you might ask? At the 1980 decanter labels were attatched to the decanters with, shock horror scandal, string. I’m going to buy the team one package, 100 items, of item A-1, being a “30" Metal Bead Chain† from here. You are to keep however many you need (being the maximum number of decanters that you would ever use simultaneously), and distribute the others.)

I am happy to announce that we are now the proud collective owners of 100 x 30 Metal Bead Chains that can be used to secure labels to decanters at future off-lines.

Having analysed the attendee lists at all previous off-lines to identify serial attendees I would suggest that these be distributed as follows to ensure that no off-line is chainless:

AHB: 20 chains
KillerB: 20 chains
Uncle Tom: 20 chains
Jdaw1: 20 chains
DRT: 20 chains

Please vote using the buttons above. If voting "Nae" please suggest an alternative distribution pattern.

On behalf of the off-line collective I would like to thank Brother Jdaw for his generous contribution to the cause.

Derek

They are indeed the item A-1, being a “30" Metal Bead Chain† from this page on mybadges.com.

I voted “Nae† which is currently leading by 100% to 0%.

DRT wrote:Jdaw1: 20 chains

I have plenty and spare from a previous purchase.

And one needs no more than one per decanter. Are people likely to have a twenty-decanter tasting, by themselves, so by themselves that nobody else on the above list could bring bonus chains? Surely sixteen or seventeen each is enough, allowing two more potential hosts to be so equipped. Perhaps one of those “potential hosts† could be in the Netherlands?

DRT’s post edited to fix the spelling of “future† in the poll.

jdaw1 wrote:Perhaps one of those “potential hosts† could be in the Netherlands?

In which case StevieCage would be the best to guard them, as his presence in the country (and possible attendance to offlines) is far more stable than ours.

I have voted Nae based on initial feedback. Can we have more suggestions please so that we can have a distribution that fits with the needs of the many?

Derek

Agreement on the Dutch requirement - therefore "Nae".

I voted Aye because I like to be a contrarian.

If you bring the chains for the Orange Bretheren to The Crusting Pipe on June 25th, ARK or I can take them with us when we go over there the following week.

Personally, I don't understand what the problem is with string. It's good stuff, don't knock it.

AHB wrote:I voted Aye because I like to be a contrarian.

If you bring the chains for the Orange Bretheren to The Crusting Pipe on June 25th, ARK or I can take them with us when we go over there the following week.

Personally, I don't understand what the problem is with string. It's good stuff, don't knock it.

I will bring the chains to TCP as suggested.

On the chains v string debate: are you suggesting that our generous Brother Jdaw has been excessively retentive on this issue?

Bear in mind that I already have a set of silver plate decanter labels (complete with chains) numbered 1-18; which I am happy to loan if I am unable to attend a function.

These were deployed at the '80 offline, but Alex devised a fiendish scheme whereby the person allocating the labels would not know what the decanter contents were, without losing track of the identity of the wines therein.

This required some secondary tags with the identity of the wines concealed within folded pieces of paper, which I assume is the purpose of obtaining these tags.

At the Xmas offline we had sixteen decanters, of which two were barely touched - twelve to fourteen is probably the sensible limit for an event.

Tom

uncle tom wrote:a fiendish scheme

Blind Tastings: A How-To Guide.

uncle tom wrote:twelve to fourteen is probably the sensible limit

Round up to sixteen or seventeen. How about that many for each of THRA AHB DRT ARK, with Derek to distribute the rest to other hosts as and when they emerge?

jdaw1 wrote:

uncle tom wrote:a fiendish scheme

Blind Tastings: A How-To Guide.

uncle tom wrote:twelve to fourteen is probably the sensible limit

Round up to sixteen or seventeen. How about that many for each of THRA AHB DRT ARK, with Derek to distribute the rest to other hosts as and when they emerge?

Please define "that number": Is it 16 or 17?

...and what about the Dutch? I thought we were to ship "that number" of chains over the North Sea to SC?

DRT, formerly Derek T., wrote:Please define "that number": Is it 16 or 17?

100÷6 = 16⅔. So 17 for four hosts; sixteen for two.

DRT, formerly Derek T., wrote:...and what about the Dutch? I thought we were to ship "that number" of chains over the North Sea to SC?

And yes, “distribute the rest to other hosts as and when they emerge† is indeed consistent with SC acquiring some.

This bloke is willing to swap his favourite record for a set. Apparently it's right up his street...

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT, formerly Derek T., wrote:Please define "that number": Is it 16 or 17?

100÷6 = 16⅔. So 17 for four hosts; sixteen for two.

DRT, formerly Derek T., wrote:...and what about the Dutch? I thought we were to ship "that number" of chains over the North Sea to SC?

And yes, “distribute the rest to other hosts as and when they emerge† is indeed consistent with SC acquiring some.

Understood.