ThePortForum.com

This is from the wine list of the shop at a London venue which markets itself as a place where enthusiasts can learn about their favourite wines!

Vintage Port huh? Wow and I thought you UK people knew everything there was to know about Port lol

figure at the price you have more money than sense i guess.

At a stretch, "vintage" is probably capable of being understood in its general sense - i.e. "an 1855-vintage port"; a "pre-phylloxera-vintage port". At least they are clear that this has been aged in wood.

Given that there must have been some yearly evaporation, I'm still keen to see a well-reasoned explanation about how a two casks of 1855-vintage port survived unadulterated for 150+ years! In view of the fact that there hasn't been, i actually think the last sentence of this website description is remarkably accurate!!

RAYC wrote:Given that there must have been some yearly evaporation, I'm still keen to see a well-reasoned explanation about how a two casks of 1855-vintage port survived unadulterated for 150+ years!

Especially since everything I'd heard prior to this was that it was actually three casks.

Perhaps they found 3 and combined the remains to yield 2?

Even that doesn't jive with the rule-of-thumb 3% evaporation rate per year in cask. Even if they managed to keep it down to 1% per year there would still only be ~2/3 of a single cask remaining if they started with 3 full ones. To have 2 casks left out of 3 to start they'd have needed to manage a mere three tenths of a percent evaporation per year. Not likely.

Glenn E. wrote:

RAYC wrote:Given that there must have been some yearly evaporation, I'm still keen to see a well-reasoned explanation about how a two casks of 1855-vintage port survived unadulterated for 150+ years!

Especially since everything I'd heard prior to this was that it was actually three casks.

Perhaps they found 3 and combined the remains to yield 2?

Even that doesn't jive with the rule-of-thumb 3% evaporation rate per year in cask. Even if they managed to keep it down to 1% per year there would still only be ~2/3 of a single cask remaining if they started with 3 full ones. To have 2 casks left out of 3 to start they'd have needed to manage a mere three tenths of a percent evaporation per year. Not likely.

uinless it was buried under water in a complete air tight seal.

The perfect decanter for this Port... http://albumcarafe7.blogspot.com/

Seriously. If you're going to spend 2000 Euros on the Port, you might as well spend 2000 Euros on the decanter amirite?

Glenn E. wrote:The perfect decanter for this Port... http://albumcarafe7.blogspot.com/

Seriously. If you're going to spend 2000 Euros on the Port, you might as well spend 2000 Euros on the decanter amirite?

Those are fantastic. I’d love to have one! Though I bet the average University science-department glass-blower could probably whip one up with less obvious joints for about 10% of the price...

JacobH wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:The perfect decanter for this Port... http://albumcarafe7.blogspot.com/

Seriously. If you're going to spend 2000 Euros on the Port, you might as well spend 2000 Euros on the decanter amirite?

Those are fantastic. I’d love to have one! Though I bet the average University science-department glass-blower could probably whip one up with less obvious joints for about 10% of the price...

Ouch...perhaps Zelandkh could get his dad to give us a quote instead...!

Number 5 also claims to be 75cl, but i'd be astounded if that were correct....

Note the height - 2, 5, and 6 are all 60+ cm tall. 7's much thicker ... um, roots?... are necessary to manage 75 cl with "just" 39 cm of height.

Anyone who as ever tried to drink a yard of ale will see the flaw in this design..

..there is no way you will get a steady pour..

uncle tom wrote:Anyone who as ever tried to drink a yard of ale will see the flaw in this design..

..there is no way you will get a steady pour..

a very good point!