ThePortForum.com

Having read this, I wondered if it was time to encourage the Port shippers to introduce a new "high fill" standard bottle of VP.

Example usage:

1. JDAW to DRT: "As it's a school night, would you and AHB like to come over to Chez W for a Melchizedek of Taylor 1985 and some nibbles?

2. DRT to JDAW: "As it's Saturday, would like to come to Chez D for a BBQ and a Goliath of Fonseca 1970?

I really can't see anything wrong with the logic. It seems to be a win-win for the supplier and consumer.

Unrealistic: Derek would never reply with a suggestion to drink less port than you originally proposed, although I would assume he would be keener on a BBQ than "some nibbles" unless they comprised a variety of steak fillets to nibble on.

The wiki table could be enhanced by including port in the list of wine styles. There is no mention of the 70cL size that was commonly called a bottle prior to standardisation, and the Tappit Hen is actually 210cL not 225cL

Pedantry aside..

Should port have it's own list of bottle names? - Why not...

A bottle is a bottle as any fule no, but other sizes..?

Roy Hersh once made an argument for 500mL bottles of VP, but as Port is a very British thing, perhaps we should have pint bottles (568mL) and call them Tennysons - a quantity good for a single evening's drinking.

Double that and we have two night's drinking, so we have something for the Weekend [..sir..?](1136mL) If bottled in short necked bottles, square with rounded corners, (Jack Daniels style), this is about the largest amount that could be slotted into a standard wine rack - and just think how much easier it would be to bin store square bottles..

Double that again and we have a quantity that is slightly bigger than a Tappit Hen - which is just a smallish bird, so we need a big bird - Katie Price? - No. How about a Raven - that's big and black..

Double again and we're up to a gallon. This is getting a bit silly, so a big silly bird is needed - Dodo will do.

Going the other way, what do we call a half pint (284mL)? That's a bit miserly, and the best known miser (Scrooge) was created by Dickens

..sorted!

I acutally wish that the port makers would distinguish between the tawnies and the rubies

uncle tom wrote:The wiki table could be enhanced by including port in the list of wine styles. There is no mention of the 70cL size that was commonly called a bottle prior to standardisation, and the Tappit Hen is actually 210cL not 225cL

Pedantry aside..

Should port have it's own list of bottle names? - Why not...

A bottle is a bottle as any fule no, but other sizes..?

Roy Hersh once made an argument for 500mL bottles of VP, but as Port is a very British thing, perhaps we should have pint bottles (568mL) and call them Tennysons - a quantity good for a single evening's drinking.

Double that and we have two night's drinking, so we have something for the Weekend [..sir..?](1136mL) If bottled in short necked bottles, square with rounded corners, (Jack Daniels style), this is about the largest amount that could be slotted into a standard wine rack - and just think how much easier it would be to bin store square bottles..

Double that again and we have a quantity that is slightly bigger than a Tappit Hen - which is just a smallish bird, so we need a big bird - Katie Price? - No. How about a Raven - that's big and black..

Double again and we're up to a gallon. This is getting a bit silly, so a big silly bird is needed - Dodo will do.

Going the other way, what do we call a half pint (284mL)? That's a bit miserly, and the best known miser (Scrooge) was created by Dickens

..sorted!

Nice choice of names!

I LOVE the idea of a two pint bottle!

(imperial pints of course...)

[url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:247:0017:0020:EN:PDF]Directive 2007/45/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 5 September 2007 laying down rules on nominal quantities for prepacked products[/url], wrote:On the interval from 100 ml to 1 500 ml only the following 7 nominal quantities:
ml: 100 200 375 500 750 1 000 1 500

Separately, the pre-metric bottle size was based on the two-gallon dozen: so one bottle = 1⅓ Imperial pints = 26⅔ Imperial fluid ounces = 568.26125×1⅓ ml ≈ 757.68 ml.

One question i have: is the volume of port in port magnums actually 150cl?

Even compared to 75cl bottles with a high fill, the level to which two single bottle decanters reach when filled from a magnum suggests to me that you routinely get a not insignificant amount more than 150cl...

RAYC wrote:One question i have: is the volume of port in port magnums actually 150cl?

Even compared to 75cl bottles with a high fill, the level to which two single bottle decanters reach when filled from a magnum suggests to me that you routinely get a not insignificant amount more than 150cl...

One down side to older large formats of any wine, especially VP, is you tend to lose a fair amount after decanting off what typically is a large amount sediment.

Even compared to 75cl bottles with a high fill, the level to which two single bottle decanters reach when filled from a magnum suggests to me that you routinely get a not insignificant amount more than 150cl...

I have previously wondered this myself, but have not measured...

When decanting two magnums of Morgan '66 last year for my birthday bash, the four decanters looked mighty full...

..I still have the empties, so could check....

I have just checked, and it's true..

A 1966 Morgan magnum bottle holds not 150cL, but 165cL - a 10% bonus!

- How on earth did the bottle makers manage that??

(am not complaining though.. )

Sorry Tom, Raven is already spoken for. It was a brand of Noval "Special Reserve" launched to appeal to women ... before Otima and Pink ... in a tall, narrow clear glass bottle. I have not seen it in years though.

Raven is already spoken for. It was a brand of Noval "Special Reserve" launched to appeal to women ...

Could still be the name of a large bottle size though...

Perhaps we should call 50cL bottles Hershs and 165cL magnum bottles Uncle Toms - you know how I like good value...

There might be trouble in the American market with THRA’s eponymous size.

I was thinking the same thing, but thought that might be lost on the readership here. I should know that nothing would get by Mr. JDAW.

In his book 'The Past, Present and Probably Future State of the Wine Trade', published in 1823, James Warre wrote:Four Bottles, by Law, should contain One Gallon

As the subject of the book is the British wine trade it is safe to assume that the "Gallon" in question is an imperial measure. That means that a standard bottle contained just short of 1.14 litres.

It might be worth finding out whether or not that law has been repealed!

I suspect a typo or an editing error, as the pre-metric rule was a two-gallon dozen.

DRT wrote:

In his book 'The Past, Present and Probably Future State of the Wine Trade', published in 1823, James Warre wrote:Four Bottles, by Law, should contain One Gallon

As the subject of the book is the British wine trade it is safe to assume that the "Gallon" in question is an imperial measure. That means that a standard bottle contained just short of 1.14 litres.

Not safe to assume this if the book was published in 1823.

Prior to 1824 there were a number of different gallons in use in the UK(wine, corn, ale, Winchester), but in 1707 the legal definition of a "wine gallon" (for the purposes of wine duty) was codified in statute as follows:

1707 Act ([url=http://archive.org/stream/britishweightsme00watsuoft/britishweightsme00watsuoft_djvu.txt]source[/url]) wrote: That any round vessel, commonly called a cylinder, having an even bottom and being seven inches diameter throughout, and six inches deep from the top of the inside to the bottom, or any vessel containing 231 cubical inches and no more, shall be deemed and taken to be a lawful wine gallon

Looking at the date of publication and considering that the book relates to the wine trade, that would be my guess as to what James Warre is referring to. In terms of liquid volume, the official "wine gallon" approximated to 3785ml, and i suspect the bottle being referred to was simply the "Quart" which was in common use as a standard measure - then 946ml in theory for wine (being 1/4th of a Wine Gallon, though the volume of a "Quart" at that time obviously differed on the type of gallon in question). However, in the era of hand-blown glass, a "Quart" could vary in size dramatically (which is perhaps the context to James Warre's statement?).

It is also worth noting that, for wine bottles, the "reputed Quart" was also in common use (and equated to approx. 757ml, or 1/5th of a "wine gallon") - see the chapter on capacity from p.107 of Cylindrical English Wine & Beer Bottles 1735-1850 (Oliver Jones, 1986) for an interesting discussion of this.

The "Weights and Measures Act" of 1824 replaced the various different gallons with an imperial gallon, which until 1963 was defined as follows:

[url=http://www.sizes.com/library/British_law/5GeorgeIVcap74.pdf]Act for ascertaining and establishing Uniformity of Weights and Measures[/url], 17 June 1824 wrote: Ten Pounds Avoirdupois Weight of distilled Water weighed in Air,at the Temperature of Sixty-two Degrees of Farenheit's Thermometer,the Barometer being at Thirty Inches

This equated to approximately 4.546ml - significantly larger than the "wine gallon" in use prior to that date (and equal to 6 "reputed Quarts" of approx. 757ml) - i.e. the half case!

for RAYC.

RAYC wrote:

1707 Act ([url=http://archive.org/stream/britishweightsme00watsuoft/britishweightsme00watsuoft_djvu.txt]source[/url]) wrote: That any round vessel, commonly called a cylinder, having an even bottom and being seven inches diameter throughout, and six inches deep from the top of the inside to the bottom, or any vessel containing 231 cubical inches and no more, shall be deemed and taken to be a lawful wine gallon

That quotation is another instance of a legal Ï€ being rational: the former definition is 73½ Ï€ ≈ 230.90706 ≠ 231 cubical inches. So this act deems Ï€ to be 22/7 ≈ 3.142857142857. Cool.