ThePortForum.com

There seem to be a number of contributors who have something to say about the tappit hen. Rather than clog up other conversations I thought a new one should be commenced.

I do not suppose that there will be any clear outcome but it is an opportunity to collate the collective wisdom.

To begin;

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:A tappit hen is a three bottle bottle. As is a tregnum. Nuff zed.

A tappit hen is a bottle named after the knob on top that made it look a bit like a hen. Its size has varied over the years from 3 quarts (2.83 liters) to 3 x 70 cl bottles (2.1 liters). Its current size corresponds to three 75 cl bottles.

A tregnum is a three bottle bottle.

What distinguishes the two is the shape of the bottle. A tappit hen has a distinct shape from which it derives its name, though I'm not sure that anyone uses an actual tappit hen shape anymore. A tregnum is a generic "large bottle" shape that happens to hold 2.25 liters. Some people now call squat 2.25 liter bottles tappit hens, though that is not technically correct.

Further;

AHB wrote:But that is precisely my understanding. A Tappit Hen is 2.1 litres, a tregnum is 2.25 litres.

Further still;

LGTrotter wrote:I wonder Glenn if you are confabulating the Scottish drinking vessel which had a knop on the hinged lid and of distinctive shape which held three quarts. It was the knop reminiscent of the crest of a hen which gave it the name. Then there is the bottle which is considered by George Saintsbury to be the perfect size and contained three bottles. Now Saintsbury was referring to claret primarily but the same size relates to port in the literature I have seen. It is true that the volume of a standard bottle fluctuates depending on where and when you measure it but the rule of thumb is that a tappit hen is three bottles.

It is interesting that this all seems to emanate from Scotland and that three quarts was considered a reasonable drink for someone. Perhaps it was more like a yard of ale, every pub had one but no one ever used it.

Finally there are a few lines in TG Shaw;

"Dining with M Michel and his son, I asked Mr M if he could explain the origin of the word Tappit-hen, used by Scott, and others, to denote an immense bottle, containing about a gallon; but he could not.
His son knows very little English, but he guessed what his father and I were talking about, and exclaimed, 'Oh! I know all about it'. He then told us that the small barrel which the vivandieres, attached to every regiment in France carry, slung to their back, containing wine or spirits, is called by them and the soldiers a cuppetin.
The word is not in the dictionary, but is pronounced as I have spelt it. I cannot doubt that this has been a usual term among the common French people; has been picked up by the Scotch, during their intimate intercourse with them in olden days; and that it explains the derivation of the incomprehensible Tappit-hen.
It is much more likely to be correct, than Jamieson's explanation in his Scottish dictionary:
Tappit-hen- A hen with a tuft of feathers. 1. A cant phrase denoting a tin measure containing about a quart, so called from the knob on the lid, as supposed to resemble a crested hen. 2. A measure containing a Scot's pint. 3. A large bottle of claret containing three magnums."

This all needs a bit of unpicking.

Oh and;

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.

On reflection, I think saying 'is a Tappit Hen 2.1L or 2.25L?' is only an extension of saying 'is a bottle 70cL or 75cL?'

I recently acquired on old Sandeman Imperial - sadly empty.. - and on checking found it's capacity to be 5.6L or 8 x 70cL.

So we have bottle sizes that are multiples of 70cL and those that are multiples of 75cL, and the current rule is to use 75cL as the base unit.

Although some Tappit Hens had exotic bottle shapes, I have seen G70 and some old NV Niepoort bottles that were entirely conventional.

So I would say it would be entirely reasonable to re-start the production of Tappit Hens using large but conventional port bottles with a capacity of 2.25L - 3 x 75cL

I agree that there is no reason not to re-start production of Tappit Hens with a capacity of 2.25 L, but I remain firm that the name "Tappit Hen" belongs not to the size of the bottle but to the shape.

If it's just a 50% larger magnum of typical shape, then it is a tregnum. A bland name for a bland bottle.

If it is something more unique, even if just a squat and fat bottle, then it can be called a Tappit Hen.

uncle tom wrote:On reflection, I think saying 'is a Tappit Hen 2.1L or 2.25L?' is only an extension of saying 'is a bottle 70cL or 75cL?'

Has AHB tried filling one of his empty tappit hens with water to the original fill line to determine the actual capacity?

I must admit that whenever I've done this with a port magnum, it is apparent that it contains a not insignificant amount extra than 2 x 75 cl bottles....

Glenn E. wrote: but I remain firm that the name "Tappit Hen" belongs not to the size of the bottle but to the shape.

I have never seen one of these chicken shaped novelty bottles, is there a picture of one somewhere?

As I have said I thought the hen shape was from the drinking vessel and it was the volume of that vessel which was the origin of the size of the bottle. Thus it is the size rather than the shape which is significant. But I have been wrong before and I know that Glenn's firmly held beliefs are, well, firmly held.

These are what I think of when I hear tappit hen:

Note that they're not that different from the ones that AHB is re-using:
(I was amused to find AHB's picture using Google image search for "tappit hen bottle".)

Contrast those images with this boring progression of same old, same old, which no doubt contains a tregnum but how would you know? The all look the same. Zoom in and you have a Tregnum! Zoom out and you have a Split! Woo!
So...

"Tappit Hen" = cool bottle, worthy of containing Port for Port fans. Provokes discussions about history, bottling, Port, and other interesting things.

"Tregnum" = bland, standardized bottle. Probably contains fortified bath water. Uninteresting. Unworthy of discussion. Meh.

LGTrotter wrote:Oh and;

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.

I’ve never quite understood the rational of the 70cl bottle. It doesn’t seem to fit nicely with any Imperial Unit. With no previous knowledge, I might have thought something like a clavelin would have been a more likely size: closer to a pint and (for tawny Ports) accounting for evaporation, too.

Glenn this is hopeless! The old bottle at the top of your post is generally referred to as an onion bottle. It is simply the easiest shape to make and very old; I would guess mid eighteenth century, it probably says on the seal, the second bottle is a shape claimed by Vinho Verde but originating in Franconia, the third is a piece of tourist tat for the purposes of advertising a pub called 'The Tappit Hen'.

I have yet to see anything resembling a Scottish Chicken!

JacobH wrote:I’ve never quite understood the rational of the 70cl bottle. It doesn’t seem to fit nicely with any Imperial Unit. With no previous knowledge, I might have thought something like a clavelin would have been a more likely size: closer to a pint and (for tawny Ports) accounting for evaporation, too.

A pint is a good amount of port for one. Berry's used to do them. Alas, 'the old order changeth...'

When compared to the fine tufted crest of this tappit hen my argument is complete. The drinking vessel has the shape, not the bottle.

LGTrotter wrote:Glenn this is hopeless! The old bottle at the top of your post is generally referred to as an onion bottle. It is simply the easiest shape to make and very old; I would guess mid eighteenth century, it probably says on the seal, the second bottle is a shape claimed by Vinho Verde but originating in Franconia, the third is a piece of tourist tat for the purposes of advertising a pub called 'The Tappit Hen'.

He's right, you know. André will even tell you what those squashed Franconian bottles are called. They still use them there.

LGTrotter wrote:When compared to the fine tufted crest of this tappit hen my argument is complete. The drinking vessel has the shape, not the bottle.

But that looks nothing like a hen!

Furthermore, if you search for "tappit hen tankard", half of the results lack the allegedly-required "knob or ornament" projecting from the top of their lids!

Or do I misunderstand your point? Are you arguing that "tappit hen" should not refer to any size or shape of bottle, because it only refers to a drinking vessel, and that "tregnum" is the correct term for any three bottle-sized bottle?

Now you're doing it deliberately. Mum! Tell him!

That the Internet is full of calumnies is not something I shall trouble with. That I have found a drinking cup which would pass muster in any henhouse is beyond dispute. The three bottles in a tappit hen can be supported by Alex, who conducted this very experiment on empty tappit hens.

But of course I must bow to your wisdom, on this as upon all matters...

How I wish you were joining us on Tuesday so we could sort this out in person.

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Glenn this is hopeless! The old bottle at the top of your post is generally referred to as an onion bottle. It is simply the easiest shape to make and very old; I would guess mid eighteenth century, it probably says on the seal, the second bottle is a shape claimed by Vinho Verde but originating in Franconia, the third is a piece of tourist tat for the purposes of advertising a pub called 'The Tappit Hen'.

He's right, you know. André will even tell you what those squashed Franconian bottles are called. They still use them there.

The second bottle really reminds me of a Bocksbeutel (that's how these inconveniently shaped bottles are called). And if you google "Bocksbeutel" you will get this picture:
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http ... CDYQrQMwBg

So the second picture is actually the picture that is used in the Wikipedia article on Bocksbeutel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocksbeutel

I didn't know I had some Tappit Hens in my cellar. So one man's Bocksbeutel is another man's Tappit Hen.

I think I will bring Glenn a Tappit Hen of Franconian wine for his 50th birthday next week.

AW77 wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:Glenn this is hopeless! The old bottle at the top of your post is generally referred to as an onion bottle. It is simply the easiest shape to make and very old; I would guess mid eighteenth century, it probably says on the seal, the second bottle is a shape claimed by Vinho Verde but originating in Franconia, the third is a piece of tourist tat for the purposes of advertising a pub called 'The Tappit Hen'.

He's right, you know. André will even tell you what those squashed Franconian bottles are called. They still use them there.

The second bottle really reminds me of a Bocksbeutel (that's how these inconveniently shaped bottles are called). And if you google "Bocksbeutel" you will get this picture:
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http ... CDYQrQMwBg

So the second picture is actually the picture that is used in the Wikipedia article on Bocksbeutel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocksbeutel

I didn't know I had some Tappit Hens in my cellar. So one man's Bocksbeutel is another man's Tappit Hen.

I think I will bring Glenn a Tappit Hen of Franconian wine for his 50th birthday next week.

Masterly. Over to you Owen. Finish him off.

I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?

There is the Shaw suggestion that it is a corruption of the French cuppertin, which seems as likely as a chicken shaped bottle. Sounds more like it would be corrupted to cuppertea.

DRT wrote:I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?

What on earth has this got to do with the study of insects??

Honestly, come on team, I feel like the Head Prefect here. Let's sharpen it up.

DRT wrote:I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?

No, but we have all seen headless cats.

Indeed.

Come now, you see no resemblance?

Is that a Taylor 77?

Never had one of those before.

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?

No, but we have all seen headless cats.

This was almost as disturbing a picture as if it had been a headless cat. They give me the shivers.

Note the red top - more likely one that AHB has repurposed.

I must admit that whenever I've done this with a port magnum, it is apparent that it contains a not insignificant amount extra than 2 x 75 cl bottles....

Oporto bottled Morgan '66 magnums hold 1.65L - 10% extra - but no-one has been able to tell me why...

Many of you are wrong (I'm not sure who, precisely, but I will figure that out eventually) so I will ignore all those who are wrong. There is only one answer. Short, dumpy bottles the shape of a pota and which hold 2.1 litres are Tappit Hens. Tall tedious bottles that hold 2.25 litres are tregnums.

Tappit Hens are called Tappit Hens because I was told they were called Tappit Hens. Trying to understand why is like trying to catch the wind, or like trying get get Alex Salmand to say "I was wrong". It's never going to happen - unless Daniel can set one of his students a thesis challenge to discover how bottle sizes got their names.

And, incidentally, the Tappit Hens I refilled held less than 2.25 litres. They would not hold 3 modern bottles (which meant that I was sadly forced to drink some Vesuvio 2011 earlier this year).

There is a Danish Merchant who Sells Dow 1977 in 2,1 L. Tappit hens atm. Costs 4700 Dkr. (about 500£)

I believe they are comming directly from Symingtons.

Strojer

If only it were something other than D77. What a gamble that would be.

Christies are selling some G70 in 'Tappit Hens' (lot 74) direct from the Symington family reserves although from the photo it they looks very much like a 'tregnum' to me, but the label says Tappit Hen!

I have a couple of 1963 Dow's in this size.

mosesbotbol wrote:I have a couple of 1963 Dow's in this size.

Come down off the fence, do you call them tappit hens or tregnums?

LGTrotter wrote:

mosesbotbol wrote:I have a couple of 1963 Dow's in this size.

Come down off the fence, do you call them tappit hens or tregnums?

Should we have a referendum on this question? Perhaps this would solve the issue.

AW77 wrote:Should we have a referendum on this question? Perhaps this would solve the issue.

Sometimes these things raise more questions than they answer.

LGTrotter wrote:

mosesbotbol wrote:I have a couple of 1963 Dow's in this size.

Come down off the fence, do you call them tappit hens or tregnums?

I call them magnum's with a bonus. They originally sold for about the same price as a magnum, so those extra glasses were the "bonus"!

I came across this Nautical Archaeology paper on Scottish pewter - The early evolution of the Tappit Hen. Contains much already discussed, and a little extra. This area, incidentally, has excellent diving, the nearby Hispania wreck and Falls of Lora drift are both great fun.

DaveRL wrote:I came across this Nautical Archaeology paper on Scottish pewter - The early evolution of the Tappit Hen. Contains much already discussed, and a little extra. This area, incidentally, has excellent diving, the nearby Hispania wreck and Falls of Lora drift are both great fun.

I have not finished reading this, but I shall. Great article, thanks.

We discovered last night that there is a Tappit Hen club that meets in the Boot & Flogger, and that Alex is not its president!

Weird. I read a recent tasting note on a bottle of 1992 Fonseca that was consumed in the Boot and Flogger and had been donated by Stephen Eggins. I remembered the thread from a couple of years ago where Stephen was wanting to very generously donate said bottle, and that he had been in a Port society, and I couldn't remember which. Quick search in the archives turned up that it was the Tappit Hen Society, and hence the search for it out of curiosity. I found nothing easily on the club but turned up the Archaeology article which I thought interesting and worth sharing. And hence found out something about the club.

It's all meant to be. Whatever it is, it's meant to be.

It is a funny old world.