Port brand abbreviations

[jdaw1]

List in first post of this thread.

[PhilW]

Updated list:

List looks good to me.

[jdaw1]

Two added:
SJ = A Pinto dos Santos Júnior
Ud = O-Port-Unidade (precedent)

[Glenn E.]

Updated list:

List looks good to me.

And me.

Do we need an 'E' to fill out the alphabet?

2014-08-23 14.56.51.jpg (106.75 KiB) Viewed 19372 times

I was backing up pictures and ran across several from my 50th birthday party. This was the cake. Everything above the silver-wrapped serving board is edible.

[Alex Bridgeman]

What about Real Vinicola?

(I'm happy with the proposed Fs for Feist.)

[jdaw1]

What about Real Vinicola?

= RO?

[Alex Bridgeman]

No, a different brand owned by the same company. The same only in the sense that Gould Campbell and Quarles Harris are the same. While the same wine could be used for the different labels, it was also equally possible that different juice was used.

[jdaw1]

RVi? RVc? Pee? RVo?


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Alex Bridgeman]

What is the rule for a single letter abbreviation to be used for a shipper? Why no single letter abbreviation for shippers beginning with M?

[Alex Bridgeman]

RVi? RVc? Pee? RVo?

RVi works for me

[jdaw1]

What is the rule for a single letter abbreviation to be used for a shipper? Why no single letter abbreviation for shippers beginning with M?

Shippers are not equal. Taylor is a more important shipper that Tedo. As Taylor is the only ‘T’ with this property, Taylor gets a single letter. Likewise, Sandeman and Skeffington; Graham and Guedes; Fonseca and Feuerheerd; Dow and Dalva.

There are no important M shippers. None get the single-letter privilege.

The definition of ‘important’ is ‘as deemed by JDAW’.

[jdaw1]

List in first post of this thread.

[Alex Bridgeman]

The definition of ‘important’ is ‘as deemed by JDAW’.

Burmester is historically more important to shippers beginning with B than Martinez is to shippers beginning with M. Discuss. (100 marks available.)

[jdaw1]

The definition of ‘important’ is ‘as deemed by JDAW’.

Burmester is historically more important to shippers beginning with B than Martinez is to shippers beginning with M. Discuss. (100 marks available.)

That’s fair. Martinez = M?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Martinez = M has better brevity than Burmester = Bu.

Works for me.

[jdaw1]

It’s a substantial change of years-long practice. It needs more of a consensus than AHB enthusiasm and JDAW reluctant acceptance of change in a changing world. Others?

[Glenn E.]

I am mostly ambivalent, but happy to accept our new M=Martinez overlords.

[Glenn E.]

Why not RV for Real Vinicola?

[jdaw1]

Why not RV for Real Vinicola?

RV = Rebello Valente

[PhilW]

I'm less convinced by the idea of complete overhaul. I would stay with Mz, for example. For Real Vinicola while I'm OK with RVi, I would suggest an alternative not proposed of RVn, on the basis that we seem to have mostly select next/later consonant rather than vowels to date.

[jdaw1]

Martinez: Alex wants change. Glenn and I tolerate it. Phil opposes.

RVn: opinions?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[jdaw1]

Any objection to Ps = Quinta do Passadouro (whether or not made by Niepoort)?

[flash_uk]

Martinez: Alex wants change. Glenn and I tolerate it. Phil opposes.

RVn: opinions?

I'm with Phil on the Martinez point. Just because M is free doesn't mean it must be used. When I read Mz I immediately recognise which shipper is being referenced. If I read M, I would need to think about it for a moment.

[Glenn E.]

Any objection to Ps = Quinta do Passadouro (whether or not made by Niepoort)?

My familiarity with Passadouro ends basically with the name.

If it produced Port on its own, then Ps seems fine.

But when produced by Niepoort, it should be NiPs for those vintages.

I don't think Ps should be used for both.

[Glenn E.]

I'm less convinced by the idea of complete overhaul. I would stay with Mz, for example. For Real Vinicola while I'm OK with RVi, I would suggest an alternative not proposed of RVn, on the basis that we seem to have mostly select next/later consonant rather than vowels to date.

I do understand the desire to keep what works, and am fine with Mz. I'm really only in favor of breaking with tradition when doing so provides additional clarity or better standardization. Mz -> M really does neither.

RVi and RVn are equally fine to me now that I've been reminded of RV.