Apostrophe crimes

[jdaw1]

I think the public interest is best served but substituting the name of the Master and Livery of the Worshipful Company of Glaziers for jdaw1 on the indictment.

Thank you. And I agree that the Master and Livery are very guilty.

[jdaw1]

If your country is not on the website and you can provide an official source for it's national debt you can send it to info@nationaldebtclocks.com

[jdaw1]

[DRT]

Am I correct in thinking that new heights of pedantry have been reached with the spotting of the use of incorrect curliness?

[jdaw1]

Am I correct in thinking that new heights of pedantry have been reached with the spotting of the use of incorrect curliness?

include myself among ‘em

[DRT]

Oh well, at least I get half a point for recognising the mistake.

[DRT]

The Symington's are also producing Dow Bomfim and Cockburn Canais from 2009.

[RAYC]

It is unusual to find a crusted Port from a single vintage.

Not an apostrophe crime (and neither is it strictly incorrect, i suppose), but nevertheless I thought it was worthy of a place somewhere in the meaningless drivel section.

[JacobH]

Not an apostrophe crime (and neither is it strictly incorrect, i suppose), but nevertheless I thought it was worthy of a place somewhere in the meaningless drivel section.

More than being not strictly incorrect, I would say that statement is entirely correct albeit in the “it is unusual to find a single-varietal crusted Port”-kind-of-way

[jdaw1]

More than being not strictly incorrect, I would say that statement is entirely correct albeit in the “it is unusual to find a single-varietal crusted Port”-kind-of-way

You “would” say? Under what hypothetical circumstances would you say that? I think you do say it. And say it without a terminating full stop.

And, indeed, were right to say it.

[JacobH]

I think you do say it. And say it without a terminating full stop.

No, not at all. I may have thought, written and posted the comment but have not, yet, said it. Therefore, the conditional is correct: were I to be asked, orally, I would say...

I concede the second point, however.

[Glenn E.]

It is unusual to find a crusted Port from a single vintage.

Not an apostrophe crime (and neither is it strictly incorrect, i suppose), but nevertheless I thought it was worthy of a place somewhere in the meaningless drivel section.

I would need to review the regulations in detail to be sure, but I believe that the statement is in fact incorrect.

It is not unusual to find a crusted Port from a single vintage. By definition, is it not impossible? In layman's terms, crusted Port is a blend of Vintage Ports from multiple vintages. When bottled from a single vintage it is called Vintage Port.

[jdaw1]

A Port made to Vintage standards, but not submitted for IVDP approval, is a single-vintage crusted. For example the cork of that which we might wish to call “Cockburn 1977” is branded “Cockburn Crusted”.

[JacobH]

I had assumed the definition was similar to Julian’s (though thought that oddities were usually sold as basic rubies). However, reading the regulations suggests the layman’s term is written into law since crusted Port is obtained from “de vinhos de diversos anos”. Interestingly, it is also a requirement that the wine forms a crust on the side of the bottle: “formação de depósito (crosta) na parede da garrafa”. I wonder how the IVDP goes about testing that?

[RAYC]

More than being not strictly incorrect, I would say that statement is entirely correct albeit in the “it is unusual to find a single-varietal crusted Port”-kind-of-way

And, indeed, were right to say it.

In any event, I disagree. In context, there is the clear implication that the 2003 Graham's crusted is - unusually - from a single vintage. It is only from a very narrow reading of the statement (ignoring all context) that it could be viewed as entirely correct.

That is an interesting fact about the Cockburn 1977 cork though.

[RAYC]

Interestingly, it is also a requirement that the wine forms a crust on the side of the bottle: “formação de depósito (crosta) na parede da garrafa”. I wonder how the IVDP goes about testing that?

Is it not safe to assume that a port thats bottled unfiltered/unfined will, as a matter of course, end up depositing a crust?

[Edited to maintain relevance to thread!]

[DRT]

[Edited to maintain relevance to thread!]

I can't see where the edit gets the thread back to apostrophe crimes.

[jdaw1]

I can't see where the edit gets the thread back to apostrophe crimes.

Perhaps because some apostrophe criminals have drunk crusted port.

[Glenn E.]

A Port made to Vintage standards, but not submitted for IVDP approval, is a single-vintage crusted. For example the cork of that which we might wish to call “Cockburn 1977” is branded “Cockburn Crusted”.

I don't believe that the cork from a bottle that is not approved for sale can be considered evidence one way or the other.

It is my understanding that Jacob is correct - a Port that would otherwise be a Vintage Port, but which lacks proper authorization, can only be sold as a ruby Port.

[DRT]

Can someone please post the legal definition of Crusted Port?

[JacobH]

Can someone please post the legal definition of Crusted Port?

Vinho do Porto com características organolépticas de elevada qualidade, retinto e encorpado, no momento do engarrafamento, de aroma e paladar finos, obtido por lotação de vinhos de diversos anos de forma a se obter complementaridade de características organolépticas, cujas características peculiares levam à formação de depósito (crosta) na parede da garrafa onde se efectua parte do estágio e reconhecido pelo IVDP, IP com direito ao uso da designação nos termos dos números seguintes.

The requirements for it to have “características organolépticas de elevada qualidade” are the same as all special categories (except Ruby Reserve which just requires “muito boa qualidade”). My dictionary tells me that “retinito e encorpado” means “red and full-bodied”--also a requirement for Vintage and LBV and having “aroma e paladar finos” is quite common, too. The peculiar requirements seem to be that it is a blend from several years and that it forms a crust on the side of the bottle.

It may, of course, be that the definition in 1977 was different; I think Tom has said that early Malvedos vintages were sold as Graham’s Crusteds.

Is it not safe to assume that a port thats bottled unfiltered/unfined will, as a matter of course, end up depositing a crust?

I suppose so, but why not just specify that it should be unfiltered? And how can they tell that the crust will form on the sides of the bottle and not the base?

[JacobH]

[Edited to maintain relevance to thread!]

I can't see where the edit gets the thread back to apostrophe crimes.

I thought in Meaningless Drivel relevance was irrelevant, as it were?

[AHB]

This has become a meaningful discussion. Could a kind Admin perhaps split the Crusted discussion into the Port Conversations forum?

[jdaw1]

I think it too intertwined with meaninglessness to be split. Perhaps you could start a new thread with a post quoting the relevant bits of what has been said, discussion continuing there?

[jdaw1]

which is remarkable given it's current age...