Talk:Hascombe

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Mid‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I notice that the reference to Hascombe vinyard has been removed. I must admit I have never heard of the vinyard. Does it exist?

It certainly did exist in the mid-1980s, because I worked there as a student. It was then well established, and selling its wine fairly widely. However it may well be that it didn't survive. Jon C

Thanks, Jon. Do you recall the name of the place (the obvious choice of Hascombe Vinyard) brings up nothing useful on Google. Have asked my neighbour (a long-time resident) and she hasn't heard of the place. Chris

Well... I have done some research (I asked my Mum!) who tells me that it was indeed called Hascombe Vineyard, but that the receivers were called in, and it went bust - probably in the mid to late 80s. So it looks as if the vineyard is no more. It was located on the hillside to the south east of the village. Jon

Population[edit]

The infobox is showing the population in the 270s. The last census in 2001 gives the figure as 241. As this is verifiable and the 274 is a figure I can't find a ref for, will revert to the original for now 86.144.79.30 07:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]