ThePortForum.com

Taylor 1985 seem to slowly but surely leaving the "closed phase" it was in for quite a long period of time. Hence it found its way on our watch list.
In oder to prepare for future purchases we want to test the bt variation on a case which was stored perfectly. Aside we want to test as well sensibly various open/decanting techniques at the same time.
As a date we have the week starting 27th of January in mind but are also open for alternative dates. Since the organisation (sourcing of the Taylor 1985 case) comes down mostly to me I suggest the 27th of January as a date to start with. The venue is the Bunghole or as it is called now Davy's Bar and Grill on High Holborn.
After the scene is set now the potential cost implications. In short the attendees of the tasting share the cost of opening 6bts or more of Taylor 85. This is expected to be 40£-50£s.


regards

WS1


attendees:
JDAW (from 19:00 onwards)
RAYC
WS1
AHB
PHILW

Reserves:
Chris Doty

Current draft of the placemats.


A detail:


Those looking at the PDF might notice that WPS, JDAW, and DRT all have stars on their TN sheets (and in different arrangements). That could be you too if you request it.
(WPS, /Sideways)
(JDAW, /Alternating)
(DRT, /Upright) Update: DRT not coming.

Permission being sought. Permission obtained ✠“☺. But I won’t arrive for the evening session until about 19:00.

WS1 wrote:pop and pour

WS1 wrote:decanting straight before the tasting

Please, what’s the difference between these two?

jdaw1 wrote:

WS1 wrote:pop and pour

WS1 wrote:decanting straight before the tasting

Please, what’s the difference between these two?

To me, "pop and pour" means what it says on the tin - taking the cork out and pouring straight to glass.

"decant straight before tasting" means actually pouring it out into a decanter (thereby introducing a lot more air to the port prior to it getting into glass)

Wolfgang may have had something different in mind though.

Yes please.

RAYC wrote:To me, "pop and pour" means what it says on the tin - taking the cork out and pouring straight to glass.

"decant straight before tasting" means actually pouring it out into a decanter (thereby introducing a lot more air to the port prior to it getting into glass)

For sediment-free wines, I agree. But one must de-sediment port before consumption.

As you say, Wolfgang to pronounce.

We are likely to drink lots of T85 in the next few years. Should we use this opportunity to identify the optimum decanting time?

Perhaps 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours would give us the answer?

jdaw1 wrote:Permission being sought.

Permission granted, but I won’t arrive until about 19:00.

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:To me, "pop and pour" means what it says on the tin - taking the cork out and pouring straight to glass.

"decant straight before tasting" means actually pouring it out into a decanter (thereby introducing a lot more air to the port prior to it getting into glass)

For sediment-free wines, I agree. But one must de-sediment port before consumption.

As you say, Wolfgang to pronounce.

Both of you are right, but my initial idea was really the emergency pop and pour that can happen at home when you are thirsty and just go to the cellar and take a bt of port and open it. The sediment is less of an issue since bt did not travel a lot or was moved a lot. Or in my case I have always potential candidates standing up as I know other members of have too. To accomodate this 6bts will stand up at our venue from tomorrow evening onwards in their cool cellar.

regards

WS1

DRT wrote:We are likely to drink lots of T85 in the next few years. Should we use this opportunity to identify the optimum decanting time?

Perhaps 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours would give us the answer?

good point; RAYC and I may try a bt tomorrow when picking up 18bts from the desired stash and make an initial assessment. Happy to go with your suggestion and try different decanting times especially if we are enough people. For sure we have enough Taylor 1985 for this experiment.

regards

WS1

Placemat draft above.

There are quite a few variables here - are we at risk of trying to test too many things?

There's an experiment to be done in tasting through a case - using the same decant method for all bottles in order to get an idea of the typical spread of bottle variation after 26 odd years in the same case. To my knowledge, we have not done this (though a few of us got some idea at the "Real Men Drink Port" book launch a couple of years ago).

There's also an experiment to be done in decant methods, as WS1 has proposed.

The question I have in relation to WS1's proposal is how we will be able to assess whether a certain decant method is better than another without first having an appreciation of how much bottle variation we should expect naturally from a single case...?

Perhaps if we go down that route first we should ensure at least 2 bts opened for any one decant method (to provide a measure of insurance against a single below-average bottle swaying results).

In terms of a bottle preparation / decant method comparison, sending two bottles in the post via parcelfoce 24 in the week before the tasting would also be an interesting experiment.

RAYC wrote:Perhaps if we go down that route first we should ensure at least 2 bts opened for any one decant method (to provide a measure of insurance against a single below-average bottle swaying results).

Six bottles has become twelve.

RAYC wrote:In terms of a bottle preparation / decant method comparison, sending two bottles in the post via parcelfoce 24 in the week before the tasting would also be an interesting experiment.

Twelve bottles has become fourteen.

There are currently four people in this tasting. Hence Rob’s plan is excellent.

I have booked the Function Room in The Bung Hole (57 High Holborn, London WC1V 6DT, tel +44 20 7831 8365, streetmap.co.uk, maps.google.co.uk).

Later they will need to know how many people and glasses.

I'd like to attend but it's strictly provisional at this point. I'm in Edinburgh that morning and could change my flight to divert home via a stop in London; but it is contingent on more than one factor.

RAYC wrote:The question I have in relation to WS1's proposal is how we will be able to assess whether a certain decant method is better than another without first having an appreciation of how much bottle variation we should expect naturally from a single case...?

Perhaps if we go down that route first we should ensure at least 2 bts opened for any one decant method (to provide a measure of insurance against a single below-average bottle swaying results).

This was my first thought also; however I don't think two would be sufficient: if they differ, which one is representative? I would suggest three, so that in the event of a difference in one, the other two are taken as representative. However, this is probably impracticable to do for all tests, and the assumption of minimal variation is probably reasonable, though could be worthwhile to test separately, e.g. by 3-4 bottles (rather than the full case) all opened with the same method to assess variation.

In terms of variations, there are many things we could add, such as including a bottle shaken immediately prior to decant, or subject to significant temperature variation; probably better to focus on the decant method/timing to keep things manageable.

Depending on numbers attending and hence bottles, using WS and DRTs suggestions, I'd go for:

• Auduze method
• 0hr no decant == pop and pour
• 0hr double decanted == straight before the tasting
• 4-6hr double decanting == (late) lunchtime - x3 to also provide variance control
• 8-10hr double decanting == in the morning
• 20-24hr double decanting == the night before

Would we additionally want any variations on the timing of the Auduze (e.g. Auduze 4hr vs Auduze 8hr)?

I have a very slim chance to attend, but would have to confirm closer to the date; best to assume I will not be available for now.

PhilW wrote:

• Auduze method
• 0hr no decant == pop and pour
• 0hr double decanted == straight before the tasting
• 4-6hr double decanting == (late) lunchtime - x3 to also provide variance control
• 8-10hr double decanting == in the morning
• 20-24hr double decanting == the night before

The ‟variance control” depends on the type of variance. Does a case have a range of bottles, averaging a bell-shaped distribution? Or is it more of a binary distribution: five out of six are goodies (with their own small distribution around ‘good’); and one out of six is a duffer (that covering a very wide distribution)? If the former, then three bottles for only one method might hint at the width of the distribution. But if the distribution is more good-versus-duffer binary, then it wouldn’t much help.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:

• Auduze method
• 0hr no decant == pop and pour
• 0hr double decanted == straight before the tasting
• 4-6hr double decanting == (late) lunchtime - x3 to also provide variance control
• 8-10hr double decanting == in the morning
• 20-24hr double decanting == the night before

The ‟variance control” depends on the type of variance. Does a case have a range of bottles, averaging a bell-shaped distribution? Or is it more of a binary distribution: five out of six are goodies (with their own small distribution around ‘good’); and one out of six is a duffer (that covering a very wide distribution)? If the former, then three bottles for only one method might hint at the width of the distribution. But if the distribution is more good-versus-duffer binary, then it wouldn’t much help.

Agreed. The hope would be that with a case of well-stored 85s there would only be one duffer, if any, and that this could be further managed by pre-selection of the 8 bottles from the case of twelve with best fill levels and no apparent signs of seepage. If our assumption is then that we would expect little detectable bottle variation, then the three control bottles would only provide a basic test of that; If no notable difference, the rest of our test is (probably) valid and it increases our confidence in the comparison of the differently decanted bottles; If any significant difference noted between the control bottles then results of comparing decant methods would become tentative at best. Extending to two of each, and noting that there was (ideally) no difference between the members of each pair would be even better.

Hi,

with regards to the posts about the suggested sampling I agree to all. The limitations given due to number of interested attendees suggest though we should not open more than only 6 -8 bts of Taylor 1985 since I can see this otherwise ending in a Taylor 1985 orgy
Furthermore knowing that in order to get to statistical evidence we would need probably to open 30+ bts I feel it is better to go back to the initial idea opening bts of a stash and see how we like them. Even with different decanting methods applied we should see based on this sample if it is a good stash or not.


regards

WS1

The debate about which particular scientific experiment we are going to conduct is extremely interesting. The experiment I intend conducting is to determine whether or not I enjoy drinking T85 from a number of different bottles simultaneously. I think I already know the outcome, but am willing to make the sacrifice required to confirm it.

DRT wrote:The debate about which particular scientific experiment we are going to conduct is extremely interesting. The experiment I intend conducting is to determine whether or not I enjoy drinking T85 from a number of different bottles simultaneously. I think I already know the outcome, but am willing to make the sacrifice required to confirm it.

Well said that man. Part of good science is deciding how to delimit your field!

Love how you're approaching this.
If a move to London ever pops up on the radar I will be much happier to consider it than before, knowing there is a bunch of guys out there that approach Port the way you do!

I'm hoping to be able to attend and should be able to confirm later this week.

If I can attend, I would love to be able to taste a bottle which has been double decanted against one which has been decanted normally.
Actually, ideally I would like to try one bottle, half of which has been double decanted into a half bottle and the other half has been decanted into a half bottle decanter - then I can taste the same wine and see if there is a noticeable difference in the way the same wines tastes.

I'd be happy to provide the half bottle and the half bottle decanter if anyone supported this bit of the experiment.

AHB wrote:I'm hoping to be able to attend and should be able to confirm later this week.

If I can attend, I would love to be able to taste a bottle which has been double decanted against one which has been decanted normally.
Actually, ideally I would like to try one bottle, half of which has been double decanted into a half bottle and the other half has been decanted into a half bottle decanter - then I can taste the same wine and see if there is a noticeable difference in the way the same wines tastes.

I'd be happy to provide the half bottle and the half bottle decanter if anyone supported this bit of the experiment.

Actually, very sensible. Cuts out the three bottle conundrum.

I can confirm my attendance.

As others have commented, we can’t do everything. So we start at the beginning. In order to design experiments, we need to know more about the within-case variability. So my proposal is that all bottles are treated identically, all being decanted at 13:00. We then drink (and doubtless enjoy) multiple bottles of T85, seeking some measure of the within-case variability.

Later we can design subsequent experiments using that established fact (Starz W. et al, Journal of Port Consumption, 2014).

AHB wrote:I can confirm my attendance.

noted

regards

WS1

jdaw1 wrote:my proposal is that all bottles are treated identically, all being decanted at 13:00.

I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion, but it means we need a large decanting team.

jdaw1 wrote:As others have commented, we can’t do everything. So we start at the beginning. In order to design experiments, we need to know more about the within-case variability. So my proposal is that all bottles are treated identically, all being decanted at 13:00. We then drink (and doubtless enjoy) multiple bottles of T85, seeking some measure of the within-case variability.

Later we can design subsequent experiments using that established fact (Starz W. et al, Journal of Port Consumption, 2014).

6bts of Taylor 1985 are standing up in an Offley 2007 LBV carton in the cool cellar at the Bunhole.
Of the other remaining 12bts only 11bts are left meaning RAYC and me had a sneaky preview (quick decanting with paper filter provided by the Bunghole after arrival). I am afraid to say or forecast that I fear all bts will be very similar. Still quite backyard and tasting very young reflecting perfect provenance. The bt was not closed, chocolaty, meaty, sweet and real fun to drink. So we will have fun with the lot.
Cork came out in one piece and looked fantastic.
Hence long decanting seems a good idea since feeling the bts of our stash are more restrained than the bt we had last week. Bts came likely into the country in the late 80s (early Deinhard label). Stored in underground cellar near Northhampton.
Leave the decision to the other attendees if we do different decanting methods or just test the variation of the 6 bts.

Looking fwd to the tasting

regards

WS1

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:my proposal is that all bottles are treated identically, all being decanted at 13:00.

I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion, but it means we need a large decanting team.

No. Remove six capsules. Then remove six corks, which can be done in under a minute each. Six funnels, six decanters, all on the go at once. There would be no problems with labelling as all are T85. All bottles done within ±5 minutes of each other.

jdaw1 wrote:each other.

"each other" or "one an other", I never have been sure.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:each other.

"each other" or "one an other", I never have been sure.

I think you meant "one another". I admit to mostly using "each other" for preference when referring to any pair or small group; I would only use "one another" for the non-specific personified case. Am not sure what the formal rules are though.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:my proposal is that all bottles are treated identically, all being decanted at 13:00.

I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion, but it means we need a large decanting team.

No. Remove six capsules. Then remove six corks, which can be done in under a minute each. Six funnels, six decanters, all on the go at once. There would be no problems with labelling as all are T85. All bottles done within ±5 minutes of each other.

To a certain extent, I disagree. Are we sure the Bunghole has 6 funnels? 6 identical decanters? if the decanters are not identical, how can we be sure we are tasting bottle variation and not differences in the efficacy of the decanter shape? Perhaps we should double decant everything? Decanters / bottles will have to be labelled or distinguishable in some way so we can conclude whether there is consistent variability between their contents.

And then there is the relevant question of who will decant. I can't; I'll be in Ipswich until about 5pm. Very likely, with 6 bottles to decant, we will need to ask the Bunghole staff to do this for us.

By the way, the Bunghole have said that they will welcome us to our T85 tasting with a glass each of the house Champagne as a thank you for our loyal and regular custom - a nice touch and a good illustration of why we moved from the Crusting Pipe.

AHB wrote:By the way, the Bunghole have said that they will welcome us to our T85 tasting with a glass each of the house Champagne as a thank you for our loyal and regular custom - a nice touch and a good illustration of why we moved from the Crusting Pipe.

How very decent of them

AHB wrote:Are we sure the Bunghole has 6 funnels?

We have.

AHB wrote:6 identical decanters?

I could provide some identical empty wine bottles, acquired from the recycling bin of my local boozer, and thoroughly washed.

AHB wrote:And then there is the relevant question of who will decant.

Me?


Separately, The Wine Society is currently selling T85 at £75 per bottle. That is FYI: my preference is not to add that to the experiment.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:Are we sure the Bunghole has 6 funnels?

We have.

True

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:6 identical decanters?

I could provide some identical empty wine bottles, acquired from the recycling bin of my local boozer, and thoroughly washed.

An excellent suggestion

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:And then there is the relevant question of who will decant.

Me?

Another excellent suggestion; thank you for volunteering.

jdaw1 wrote:Separately, The Wine Society is currently selling T85 at £75 per bottle. That is FYI: my preference is not to add that to the experiment.

Agreed. I would prefer not to detract from the original experiment to look at bottle variation from a single case. We won't get many opportunities to do this.

Wolfgang: this is, in some sense, your tasting. Are you happy with all the bottles being treated identically?

Hope you guys have fun, unfortunately I can't make this, but I will be very interested to see the results....

Wolfgang! You are a genius.

I have had T85 5 or 6 times that I can recall and never thought very highly of it. To my taste it is consistent with the T80 and T83, which I view as less complete examples from actually pretty solid vintages. That being said, the last bottle of T85 I had was certainly the best, and those who have consumed it more often and more recently are heaping praise.

I am hoping to get a trip to London in sometime late jan / early feb anyway, so please list me as a reserve/tentative. Would be great to catch up and take part in so worthy an experiment.

Hope everyone is enjoying a great start to 2014 - it promises to be an awesome year!

cheers
Ebullient

PhilW wrote:I have a very slim chance to attend, but would have to confirm closer to the date; best to assume I will not be available for now.

Upgraded to sufficiently hopefully that I have sought and obtained permission; will not be able to be definitive until Thu/Fri (work-related).

jdaw1 wrote:Wolfgang: this is, in some sense, your tasting. Are you happy with all the bottles being treated identically?

Apologies for my late reply as I was in Munic attending a Burgundy tasting of 1er Crus from Vosne Romanee ( all different ones at least included once)

As said before I am fine with both versions of the tasting. Currently I favour the pure version (all treated identically) you suggested in order to test for the bottle variation of a case of Taylor 1985. This is much easier, does do the trick answering the question of the tasting and being really a cool tasting since it is such a simple and boring idea.

I will help you with the decanting since my work place is 10 minutes away from the Bunghole. You will be amazed how quick the decanting will go since I guess there is only very little sediment in there as it was on the sneaky preview bt. As said before this is proper, proper, proper stock!

We should record the decanting time and set a record very difficult to be broken by others!

regards

WS1

Chris Doty wrote:Wolfgang! You are a genius.

I have had T85 5 or 6 times that I can recall and never thought very highly of it. To my taste it is consistent with the T80 and T83, which I view as less complete examples from actually pretty solid vintages. That being said, the last bottle of T85 I had was certainly the best, and those who have consumed it more often and more recently are heaping praise.

I am hoping to get a trip to London in sometime late jan / early feb anyway, so please list me as a reserve/tentative. Would be great to catch up and take part in so worthy an experiment.

Hope everyone is enjoying a great start to 2014 - it promises to be an awesome year!

cheers
Ebullient

Hi Chris,

you are added to the reserves; we hope you can make it!

With regards to Taylor 1985 I must say I only had it twice (once from halve and once part of a tasting) before tasting it twice in the last two weeks and was unimpressed until the two occasions very recently. However all 80s Taylor (80, 83, 85, 86 and 87) seem to come round now. The Taylor 80 (also closed for a long time and often associated with the taste of coriander which is unusual and hence therefore often was left aside by port drinkers) is superb if from good stock!
The storage is the problem for all these ports from the 80s if they are good. And VA especially in some 83s and 85s! So identifying a good stash is key! Hence our tasting.
So far I think of all 80s Taylor the weakest seems 83 and the strongest 87 Vargellas. Based on our recent taste of the Taylor 85 I think this will be very much up there with the strongest.
But the drinking window will be key as well! I think of all 80s Taylor the 87s and 80 will outrun the 83 and 85 versions which start to become lovely. Hence DRT was right, we will drink this fairly regularily over the next few years.


regards

WS1

PhilW wrote:

PhilW wrote:I have a very slim chance to attend, but would have to confirm closer to the date; best to assume I will not be available for now.

Upgraded to sufficiently hopefully that I have sought and obtained permission; will not be able to be definitive until Thu/Fri (work-related).

updated

Sorry, Chaps, I now have to attend a work event on 27th Jan so will not be able to join you.

In case there is a tie-break situation please note that my WOTN would have been T85.

noted

Gentlemen,
In order to mitigate for myself the terrible effects of the bad news which I must now impart to you, I am having dinner (and after-dinner) at the Scotch Malt Whisky Society on Queen St, in Edinburgh. But, as wonderful as the food, the wine and the drams have been, the unavoidable truth is that I will not be with you on Monday. It was more than I could manage.
I'm drowning my sorrows with a glass of 4.182 (Slippery Shape Shifter - try saying that later in the evening).
Have fun.

djewesbury wrote:Gentlemen,
In order to mitigate for myself the terrible effects of the bad news which I must now impart to you, I am having dinner (and after-dinner) at the Scotch Malt Whisky Society on Queen St, in Edinburgh. But, as wonderful as the food, the wine and the drams have been, the unavoidable truth is that I will not be with you on Monday. It was more than I could manage.
I'm drowning my sorrows with a glass of 4.182 (Slippery Shape Shifter - try saying that later in the evening).
Have fun.

noted

PhilW wrote:

PhilW wrote:I have a very slim chance to attend, but would have to confirm closer to the date; best to assume I will not be available for now.

Upgraded to sufficiently hopefully that I have sought and obtained permission; will not be able to be definitive until Thu/Fri (work-related).

Confirming I will be attending.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:6 identical decanters?

I could provide some identical empty wine bottles, acquired from the recycling bin of my local boozer, and thoroughly washed.

Recycling bin of my local boozer is empty. Wolfgang, or anybody else: have you six identical empty wine bottles? Or please could you rummage in your pub’s rubbish?

jdaw1 wrote:Current draft of the placemats.

Please confirm that the placemats are satisfactory.

jdaw1 wrote:Recycling bin of my local boozer is empty. Wolfgang, or anybody else: have you six identical empty wine bottles? Or please could you rummage in your pub’s rubbish?

A call to TBH now asking them to keep 6 empties of their house white would probably be fruitful.