For The Love Of Port

Derek Turnbull wrote:
Come on, get those TN's posted - look out Braodbent, here we come

Derek

We're taking the world by force gentlemen....time to saddle up

Alan C wrote:You guys can insult me as much as you want!

I'm Going To Portugal!!!

And we're probably doing the Double while I'm there .

Oops

Back of thread after taking the p*** out of Alan for his expectations of a Manchester United victory in the FA Cup :?

Now that we have let things settle and we have confirmation from Roy that there will be no migration of TN's from the main Forum I would suggest that we scrap the notion of not posting old TN's here.

Andy has shown the lead - now, post everything you can, old or new 8)

Derek

Fairy Snuff,

thats about the Football and the Port tasting Notes Thread!

But please dont rule out the 'possibility' of being to interogate the system by Numbers. Even if that is a few years down the line!

Alan

My question for the day is this:

TNs are posted in this designated area AND still being placed in the Port Forum.

It matters not to me and I ask your opinions:

a. Leave it alone?
b. Move the TN posts from the Port Forum to this one?
c. other suggestion?

Roy,

My preference would be to keep this area as clean as possible, with little or no discussion attached to each note. Where someone wants to spark a debate or ask a question about a note then I think the place for that is the main Port Forum, preferrably with a link back to the TN in this area.

Derek

I have been the culprit on the majority of TNs going into both this area and the port forum as well - specifically for that reason - anybody is welcome to comment and even go a bit off-topic on occasion as posts and replies lead down different paths.

What I have established as my own protocol (unless we change the 'rules' and then I'll bend to the will of rule will be to post the beginnings and the "along the way" notes in the main forum, inviting feedback, etc. as I drain the bottle over a course of hours or days. Then when the entire TN is complete, I post (using the agreed-upon subject line - no "TN," year first, etc) here in the TN Forum for ease of search and so that someone looking for the details on the port and none of the sidebar conversation that sometimes goes along with it, can find it all in one post.

That seems to be somewhat logical for me... does that seem reasonable to everyone else including you Roy?

Todd

Folks

I have been without internet access for nearly two weeks (and with only Ramos Pinto 20 year old for company for the last week of that) and so I am trying to catch up as fast as I can on the debates that have happened in my absence.

As I understand it, the rules that have been agreed for this part of the forum are:

1) Only post tasting notes or discussions relating to the experience of others with the wine the subject of the tasting note

2) Start each tasting note with the title of "YEAR Shipper", eg. 1963 Fonseca or NV Taylors First Estate

3) Notes are to include scores where the poster is comfortable to include a score. Once this is done those of us who prefer to refer to scores are able to do so.

4) We are each responsible for putting our own historic tasting notes onto this new forum.



However, I have some follow-up questions:

a) should we agree a naming convention to try to make searches easier? eg. do we refer to Quinta do Noval always as Quinta do Noval or abbreviate to Noval or perhaps as QdN? Do we always write out shipper or estate names in full or do we allow abbreviations such as Q. instead of Quinta? I would recommend that we always write the shipper / estate name in full.

b) could we debate a little more the issue of whether later notes are posted as replies or as new threads? My personal preference is to post as a reply but I realise that this is the exact opposite of Derek's earlier preference. The reason I prefer to do this is purely for personal convenience. I find it easier to carry out a search, find a single thread and then work my way through the thread from earlier to later posting. Its just marginally less irritating (to me) to do things this way than to be continually hitting the back button and then clicking the link to the next thread. Is it worth me setting up a poll on this to guage opinion - I am happy to go with the majority view on this one.

c) could we also agree a rule based on Todd's recent comment on the way he is posting his tasting notes both here and in the Port forum. I quite like the way that might work (at least the way it works in the strange recesses of my dark and murky mind). By posting notes as the wine is sipped on the PORT FORUM, we all get to see the way that Todd's opinion evolves. We also have the right forum for debate, discussion and to be able to go way off topic and insult each other (in the best possible taste, of course). However, once the tasting "experience" is complete then the tasting note is written up in a single post and put here. All debate and discussion can continue in the other place, the tasting note can sit here undisturbed for ever more.

Any thoughts?

OK, so I haven’t looked in this forum until today, posting on that which I retitled to “Dow 1977”, and was naughtily posting-as-I-tasted.

Is it restricted to one port per thread? If tasting 1970 X, 1970 Y, 1970 Z, 1977 X, 1977 Y, 1977 Z, then the interplay between the tasting can be interesting: “… X was better in 1970, but Y in 1977. Z was terrible in both, and in the same way. …”. One per thread would lose this value.

Julian,

A good point. One option is to put them into seperate threads here in this area and then combine them altogether in the Port Forum so that others can see the cohesiveness of the tasting AND comment.

Yes, one could create seven threads. But not every FTLoPer is capable of neatly linking those threads, so that one can see the individual ports and the relationships. In practice, it won’t work.