Standardised House Names

[Axel P]

Q1: In my personal lists I encountered the same problem, which I solved in always leaving the quinta aside.

Q2. No modifiers as we are not doing the standardized language profile test..

Q3 and Q4. No quotation marks and no possesives. As Im a forgeinger this is not too difficult for me. I would go for Graham Malvedos.

Q5 No ligatures.

Summary I would post Graham Malvedos VP 1979.

It might not cater for all eventualities, but too much bureaucracy might not be the solution to our plan. So if someone is aware that there are two different labels for the individual markets he might be clever enough to browse for both if he seeks advice.

Hopefully that was a help, Julian

Axel

[jdaw1]

AHB’s comments have crystalised one of my concerns. If a wine is bottled as a Single Quinta, who cares who owns it? Why not just call it Quinta do Tiddlyposh, and that’s that. If, by happy life-simplfying chance, it has been bound to a particular blender for at least a century, then perhaps we could call it Graham Malvedos. But if the association is newer, why not have just the Quinta name?

I wholeheartedly agree. Quinta do Tiddlyposh as the naming convention sounds good to me. Stage 3 of the Derek project might be to track the varying ownership over time.

I agree.

So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:

• Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
• Churchill Quinta do Fojo
• Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
• Croft Quinta da Roeda
• Delaforce Quinta da Corte
• Dow Quinta do Bomfim
• Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
• Fonseca Quinta de Santo António
• Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
• Fonseca Guimaraens
• Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
• Graham Quinta das Lages
• Graham Malvedos
• Kopke Quinta São Luiz
• Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
• Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha
• Sandeman Vale de Mendiz
• Messias Quinta do Cachão
• Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta do Bom Retiro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
• Robertson Quinta da Roncao
• Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
• Smith Woodhouse Madalena
• Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
• Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
• Warre Quinta da Cavadinha

[jdaw1]

No quotation marks and no possesives. As Im a forgeinger this is not too difficult for me. I would go for Graham Malvedos.

I am writing software that will convert most sloppy Blackberry-grade typing into the correct neatly-displayed pedantic name.

[DRT]

No supermarket BOB's, please. We would never know what they really are. I think we need to carve out the merchants BOBs into a separate list/chart where we can add the name of the real shipper as and when we uncover it.

Good idea - but would you support the inclusion of merchants who blended their own?

I also like the idea of emailing each producer in turn the question of a complete listing of their declared vintages.

If we are having two lists, I would put these with the other BOB's rather than the "real" VPs as they will also require additional fields or notes to note the sources of the juice they blended, like the Adam's 63 we had at TCP in January. Also, as the blending will have taken place in the UK using wines already officially "Declared" I don't think these will actually have the same regulatory status as the wines blended in VNG or the Douro.

Derek

[DRT]

So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.)

I think we should use just one naming convention for all Quintas:

Quinta de/do/da/dos/das Tiddlypop (Shipper who produced the wine) - clever indexing can place them in the most appropriate place in the overall list.

This will avoid us treating some incorrectly just because they are not as well known to us as Vargellas or Malvedos.

Oh, and Guimaraens is a family/brand name, not a Quinta

Derek

[jdaw1]

Oh, and Guimaraens is a family/brand name, not a Quinta

Fonseca Guimaraens: name can be used in a manner grammatically equivalent to a Quinta.

[DRT]

Oh, and Guimaraens is a family/brand name, not a Quinta

Fonseca Guimaraens: name can be used in a manner grammatically equivalent to a Quinta.

Not really. You can't put Quinta in front of it and you can't treat it like a plot of land that may have supplied grapes to one or more port shippers in the past and present.

[jdaw1]

Fonseca Guimaraens versus Graham Malvedos: if you really care please split the thread.

[DRT]

I don't. I was just pointing out the difference in case you didn't know.

[jdaw1]

No quotation marks and no possesives. As Im a forgeinger this is not too difficult for me. I would go for Graham Malvedos.

I am writing software that will convert most sloppy Blackberry-grade typing into the correct neatly-displayed pedantic name.

That software is written. Awaiting test data from KillerB (all TN thread names). Also need to expand set of names to include Derek T.’s recent finds (where recent is since Saturday-ish). Good night for now.

[jdaw1]

So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:

• …
• Cockburn Quinta dos Canais

Cockburn's Quinta dos Canais is a traditional, terraced Upper Douro river quinta that has been producing superior wines for many years. The property has consistently provided the grapes that are the backbone of Cockburn's declared vintages. Considered the "jewel in the crown," the property was purchased in 1989,

So that’s a no for that one. Renamed plain “Quinta dos Canais†.

[Alex Bridgeman]

So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:

• Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
• Churchill Quinta do Fojo
• Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
• Croft Quinta da Roeda
• Delaforce Quinta da Corte
• Dow Quinta do Bomfim
• Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
• Fonseca Quinta de Santo António
• Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
• Fonseca Guimaraens
• Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
• Graham Quinta das Lages
• Graham Malvedos
• Kopke Quinta São Luiz
• Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
• Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha
• Sandeman Vale de Mendiz
• Messias Quinta do Cachão
• Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta do Bom Retiro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
• Robertson Quinta da Roncao
• Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
• Smith Woodhouse Madalena
• Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
• Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
• Warre Quinta da Cavadinha

I don't agree. I believe that for stage 1 of Project Derek we should simply list the Quinta name as Quinta do Tiddly-om-pom-pom. We can worry later about who owned it and when. If you have three ports from Roriz, does it matter for our purposes of identiying a declaration whether it was owned by the Van Zellers, Ferreira or independent? Just list it as Quinta do Roriz and the year.

I thought I had read recently that Malvedos had changed from being Graham's Malvedos to Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos - or was that only on the back label of the port? I would suggest that we use a simple name for this of Malvedos but display as the Quinta name.

Fonseca Guimaraens should be entered and displayed as Fonseca Guimaraens.

I'm also happy to go with the view of all BoBs and MoLs (merchant own labels) being on a separate list which we can work on later.

Alex

[uncle tom]

Gosh!

A few days away from a 'puter and I've missed out on a huge thread!

I have a database of known vintage ports that currently runs to almost exactly 1500.

Finding a consistant way of listing them is very difficult, for several reasons: Noval is now an SQ, but prior to '97 was a blend from different quintas. Malvedos is normally considered an SQ, but is actually a blend of wines from Q. Malvedos and some adjacent quintas. In '97 Croft sold their principle wine as Q. Roeda, as all the grapes were sourced from the one Quinta, but in '03 sold it as Croft, even though all the grapes were once again sourced from Q. Roeda..

I therefore consider that the use of the word 'Quinta' is best avoided in listings!

Many of the Quinta names are linked to a major shipper, which is often quoted first, sometimes to the exclusion of the Quinta. I therefore list the Graham blend as 'Graham', and the subordinate Malvedos wines as 'Graham Malvedos' (without commas, as they can be too easily forgotton, mucking up sort routines)

Some Quintas have dissolved their associations with a shipper, and gone it alone, thus the Passadouro wines from 1992 to 2001 are listed as 'Niepoort Passadouro' the 2003 is listed as 'Niepoort Secundum' (this was the year of the bust-up, and Dirk sold the wine as the Secundum) and from 2004 and 2005 I have it listed simply as 'Passadouro'

This looks horribly complicated, but it's the best format I can come up with! At some point I will add some footnotes to my database to clarify and cross reference the oddities.

Tom

[DRT]

Tom,

Would you be happy to share your data so that we can merge our two datasets together and then link them to the TN threads?

I am happy to do the data stuff. Jdaw is presentation and linkage man as well as being our resident data accuracy pedant. Every good database needs one.

I think you, Axel and AHB should form the Shipper Naming and Indexing Committee.

Derek

[jdaw1]

We need an in-principle decision. Is there a single name applicable across years, or are there multiple names over time? Rephrased, is there such a thing as a history of declarations of Passadouro? (If Passadouro is a moveable feast, then no.)

[DRT]

We need an in-principle decision. Is there a single name applicable across years, or are there multiple names over time? Rephrased, is there such a thing as a history of declarations of Passadouro? (If Passadouro is a moveable feast, then no.)

I don't think it is ever going to come down to straighforward logic. There seems to be general concensus building that the use of the word Quinta is a bad thing from and indexing perspective, as are de/do/da/das/dos. Can we agree that such words can only exist in the displayed name but the wines sorted and indexed without them. e.g.

Taylor's Quinta do Vargellas would appear as Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor) and be placed alongside Taylor (and its other Quintas) in the index by having an index name of Taylor Vargellas.

This style should cover all eventualities and would ensure that Quintas that have changed hands or loyalty would be shown in the appropriate place in the index with a qualifying shippers name in ().

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

Taylor's Quinta do Vargellas would appear as Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor) and be placed alongside Taylor (and its other Quintas) in the index by having an index name of Taylor Vargellas.

This style should cover all eventualities and would ensure that Quintas that have changed hands or loyalty would be shown in the appropriate place in the index with a qualifying shippers name in

But this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I didn't want the Quinta name to be associated with the owner as owners change over the years and it is not always obvious who the owner of a Quinta was at the time the wine was shipped.

Unless what you are suggesting means that I could do a sort on the name of the Quinta and get a list of all the Quinta's declarations regardless of the owner. Or are you suggesting that we have a list that includes all the permutations of Quinta Name, Owner, Vintage Year?

Take Passadouro as an example. I would want to be able to get a list of all the vintages that Passadouro have ever declared. I don't care whether they were owned by Ferreira, owned by Niepoort, independant but having their port made by Niepoort or independant and making their own port. I just want to know when did a port ship which had the name Passadouro on the label. I can always do my research later to find out who the owner was at the time. What I don't want to do is to do a search for "Niepoort Passadouro" in order to find out the years in which Passadouro made an independant declaration. Just let me search on Passadouro, please, please, pretty please.

Does my worry make sense?


And don't end a sentence with a preposition, it upsets Julian.

[jdaw1]

If the title contains the word “Passadouro†, it can be found by searching for that. And there are separate SortOrder and DisplayName strings: it can be called “Passadouro† or “Quinta do Passadouro†, but sorted with the Ps. I don’t want to call it “Secundum†.

I stand by my suggestion that if a Quinta that has been tightly bound to one blender for three digits of years, we can include the name of the blender. Otherwise we don’t.

And don't end a sentence with a preposition, it upsets Julian.

The parentheses functioned as a noun. So I wasn’t too upset.

[DRT]

Taylor's Quinta do Vargellas would appear as Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor) and be placed alongside Taylor (and its other Quintas) in the index by having an index name of Taylor Vargellas.

This style should cover all eventualities and would ensure that Quintas that have changed hands or loyalty would be shown in the appropriate place in the index with a qualifying shippers name in

But this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I didn't want the Quinta name to be associated with the owner as owners change over the years and it is not always obvious who the owner of a Quinta was at the time the wine was shipped.

Unless what you are suggesting means that I could do a sort on the name of the Quinta and get a list of all the Quinta's declarations regardless of the owner. Or are you suggesting that we have a list that includes all the permutations of Quinta Name, Owner, Vintage Year?

Take Passadouro as an example. I would want to be able to get a list of all the vintages that Passadouro have ever declared. I don't care whether they were owned by Ferreira, owned by Niepoort, independant but having their port made by Niepoort or independant and making their own port. I just want to know when did a port ship which had the name Passadouro on the label. I can always do my research later to find out who the owner was at the time. What I don't want to do is to do a search for "Niepoort Passadouro" in order to find out the years in which Passadouro made an independant declaration. Just let me search on Passadouro, please, please, pretty please.

Does my worry make sense?


And don't end a sentence with a preposition, it upsets Julian.

What I am suggesting is that for each phase of ownership or close association of a Quinta to one or more Shipper we have an entry in the index. The following would be in the index as display names:

Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor)
Quinta do Vargellas (Tiddlyponk - can't remember who it was!)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
Quinta dos Malvedos (Graham)

Passadouro v Secundum is a different discussion. Secundum is a brand name used by Niepoort and I think we need to use it, even if we put it in ().

Derek

[KillerB]

Full listing of TPF TNs on its way to jdaw, have fun with it.

[jdaw1]

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

[KillerB]

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?

[DRT]

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?

As (self nominated) Project Manager I am now going to declare that Scope Creep has reached unacceptable proportions and we are in danger of losing sight of the project objectives. The Project therefore requires to be re-baselined and all technical and user resources brought into line. I would suggest we do this as follows:

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith
2. Derek T. and Uncle Tom to continue to work on data collection and preparation, adhereing to evolving data input standards so far as practicable
3. AHB to lead a user workstream to produce a high level Output Based Specification outlining the functionality and outputs required from the database, including preferred naming and data sorting conventions.
4. Jdaw to produced a Technical Specification setting out his proposed solution for meeting the requirements of the users.
5. KillerB to provide technical consultancy on data structures as required.
6. AHB to review sign-off Technical Specification on behalf of the user community
7. Jdaw to produce the solution to specification
8. AHB and others to test and sign-off solution prior to implementation

Does this sound reasonable?

[KillerB]

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?

As (self nominated) Project Manager I am now going to declare that Scope Creep has reached unacceptable proportions and we are in danger of losing sight of the project objectives. The Project therefore requires to be re-baselined and all technical and user resources brought into line. I would suggest we do this as follows:

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith
2. Derek T. and Uncle Tom to continue to work on data collection and preparation, adhereing to evolving data input standards so far as practicable
3. AHB to lead a user workstream to produce a high level Output Based Specification outlining the functionality and outputs required from the database, including preferred naming and data sorting conventions.
4. Jdaw to produced a Technical Specification setting out his proposed solution for meeting the requirements of the users.
5. KillerB to provide technical consultancy on data structures as required.
6. AHB to review sign-off Technical Specification on behalf of the user community
7. Jdaw to produce the solution to specification
8. AHB and others to test and sign-off solution prior to implementation

Does this sound reasonable?

No. It is not normal for the user community to sign-off the technical specs. There is no sign of unit testing or system testing, in fact a complete lack of test plans.

I would like to see a properly formed project plan with dependencies shown.

[DRT]

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?

As (self nominated) Project Manager I am now going to declare that Scope Creep has reached unacceptable proportions and we are in danger of losing sight of the project objectives. The Project therefore requires to be re-baselined and all technical and user resources brought into line. I would suggest we do this as follows:

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith
2. Derek T. and Uncle Tom to continue to work on data collection and preparation, adhereing to evolving data input standards so far as practicable
3. AHB to lead a user workstream to produce a high level Output Based Specification outlining the functionality and outputs required from the database, including preferred naming and data sorting conventions.
4. Jdaw to produced a Technical Specification setting out his proposed solution for meeting the requirements of the users.
5. KillerB to provide technical consultancy on data structures as required.
6. AHB to review sign-off Technical Specification on behalf of the user community
7. Jdaw to produce the solution to specification
8. AHB and others to test and sign-off solution prior to implementation

Does this sound reasonable?

No. It is not normal for the user community to sign-off the technical specs. There is no sign of unit testing or system testing, in fact a complete lack of test plans.

I would like to see a properly formed project plan with dependencies shown.

Testing-schmesting! You consultants are always picking holes in other people's plans just to generate more chargeable days.

[jdaw1]

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith

Bickering to cease? You cannot be serious.

How are you expecting to present this?

I can present it: don’t you worry about that. I can present all the data you give me.

[Edit: at least, I have a model for how to present, for each ‘house’, its declared and unofficial vintages, its history of ownership, and an approximation to some numerical measure that might be Uncle Tom’s estimate of current price. All of which would look clear and uncluttered. Though this assumes a A0ish paper size, and colour printing.]

[uncle tom]

Would you be happy to share your data so that we can merge our two datasets together and then link them to the TN threads?

No problem - if you can match it your own lists and let me have the ones I've missed, that would be appreciated!

I understand Alex's concerns entirely, and suggest we deal with them by inserting reference entries into the list:

For example, the listing for Passadouro might run:

Passadouro 1992 - 2001 - See Niepoort Passadouro
Passadouro 2003 - See Niepoort Secundum
Passadouro 2004
Passadouro 2005

I use some fairly complex systems for computing and updating prices. I am also pretty brutal in my valuation of young vintage ports from houses of little note - for example Borges 2003 currently stands at £7.33/bottle, fair value (I think) - but well below the trade price Borges would expect!

I could assign letters to each wine, ranging from A (Under £8) to W (£130-£150) with X reserved for values over £150. All prices being current auction prices for sound bottles, inclusive of buyer's premium. The value of each price band could then be adjusted each year to reflect market moves.

Over time, some edits to the band allocations would need to be made, but this should not prove too onerous.

Incidentally, the value of bottles worth more than £150 is quite hard to set, as they do not come to auction very often, fluctuate widely, and often have significant condition issues.

Tom

[jdaw1]

Great all round.

For example, the listing for Passadouro might run:

Passadouro 1992 - 2001 - See Niepoort Passadouro
Passadouro 2003 - See Niepoort Secundum
Passadouro 2004
Passadouro 2005

Which isn’t so different from my suggestion.

So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

I could assign letters to each wine, ranging from A (Under £8) to W (£130-£150) with X reserved for values over £150. All prices being current auction prices for sound bottles, inclusive of buyer's premium. The value of each price band could then be adjusted each year to reflect market moves.

Please send numbers — they won’t be shown. Instead the size or colour or something of something will be proportional to a monotonic function of the numbers.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I still seem to have a mental block. Can someone explain (in simple terms since I seem to be strggling with this) what the extra value is from having Quinta output names associated with the owners at the time of declaration?

For example, why is it important to know:
Quinta de Napoles (Ferrira) declared in 1759
Quinta de Napoles (Manoel) declared in 1886
Quinta de Napoles (Barbosa) declared in 1941
Quinta de Napoles (McKenzie) declared in 1953
Quinta de Napoles (Magalhaes) declared in 1987
Quinta de Napoles (Niepoort) declared in 1989

Would we not get the same information simply from a combination of:
(a) Napoles declared in 1759, 1886, 1941, 1953, 1987, 1989
and
(b) Alex Liddell's book on the history of the Quintas of the Douro or perhaps from Stage 2 of Project Derek?

If the additional data where we link owner's name to Quinta name is not of immediate use, could we not choose to make life as easy as possible for ourselves and simply use the Quinta name. For me, this is the most valuable piece of information - when did the owner of a Quinta declare and ship wine under the name of the Quinta.

Alex

PS - I'm not bickering, just trying to make life easy for the people who have to do the hard work.

[DRT]

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith

Bickering to cease? You cannot be serious.

You're right. I wasn't being serious. AHB has demonstrated above that is impossible for the bickering to stop. Bickering is, in fact, what is driving us forward as a team.

Back on the Quinta thing, Tom and Jdaw seem to have almost agreed on something. AHB and I do not yet understand what that something is. I think that is fine, because I trust Tom's pragmatism to be keeping Jdaw's pedantry under control and vice-versa. So, I will vote to agree with both Tom and Jdaw, even though I don't know precisely what I am agreeing to. AHB, are you with us?

Tom, can you please email your data to me so that I can look at it and try to assess how best to combine what we have between us.

Thanks

Derek

[jdaw1]

For example, why is it important to know:
Quinta de Napoles (Ferrira) declared in 1759
Quinta de Napoles (Manoel) declared in 1886
Quinta de Napoles (Barbosa) declared in 1941
Quinta de Napoles (McKenzie) declared in 1953
Quinta de Napoles (Magalhaes) declared in 1987
Quinta de Napoles (Niepoort) declared in 1989

This name is a movable feast: it’s Tuesday, so this must be Paris. Hence this should be called “Quinta de Napoles†. Of course, if we have the extra data, we might wish to show it, but the name is “Quinta de Napoles†. The end.

Back on the Quinta thing, Tom and Jdaw seem to have almost agreed on something. AHB and I do not yet understand what that something is. I think that is fine,

But what about Malvedos? Graham have used all Malvedos’s grapes since dragons roamed middle earth (I approximate): Malvedos isn’t just a stand-alone SQVP, it is a variant of Graham, and has been since …. Hence I think it is helpful, and simultaneously accurate, so label it something like Graham Malvedos.

I trust Tom's pragmatism to be keeping Jdaw's pedantry under control and vice-versa. So, I will vote to agree with both Tom and Jdaw, even though I don't know precisely what I am agreeing to.

Whenever Tom and I agree, you should agree with us.

Tom: Derek to buy the next round? N31 please!

[DRT]

Jdaw,

Just to avoid anyone cutting their head off with a spoon in some kind of mentally deranged state whilst trying to work out where we are with standardised names, can you please set out some comments and examples illustrating (a) what you think has already been agreed and (b) what still requires some collective thought and decision making.

Thanks

Derek

[DRT]

Offley and Offley Boa Vista - are they different?

All of Offley's vintage ports originate from the company's Quinta Boa Vista... The exception was 1987, when Offley made both a Boa Vista and a vintage port blended from various estates in the Cima Corgo... According to to Jorges Guimaraens, Offley's export manager, his company decided to make two different vintage wines due to the increasing worldwide demand for their vintages, particularly in the United States.

I think that one is now settled.

Derek

[jdaw1]

Yes, I will build a list of questions.

Offley versus OBV. We could show this as two columns, one having been declared in only one year. IMHO, a waste of space. Or we could agree on a multi-declaration symbol, and use it rarely. More mess in the data.

[jdaw1]

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

[Andy Velebil]

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

i do know that Sibio produced a 1900 COlheita, but I don't know about a VP. No idea on the other ones.

[DRT]

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

i do know that Sibio produced a 1900 COlheita, but I don't know about a VP. No idea on the other ones.

I have found a couple of examples of this kind of inconsistency in Broadbents book. I think I need to check through the early vintages again to look for signs of the wines being something other than VP.

Barros has the same issue. The shipper confirmed to Jdaw that they started producing VP in 1960 but Broadbent had a note of a 1937 which, on more detailed reading of the note, turns out to be a Colheita.

Jdaw, can you please add these to the list of questions/issues?

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

For example, why is it important to know:
Quinta de Napoles (Ferrira) declared in 1759
Quinta de Napoles (Manoel) declared in 1886
Quinta de Napoles (Barbosa) declared in 1941
Quinta de Napoles (McKenzie) declared in 1953
Quinta de Napoles (Magalhaes) declared in 1987
Quinta de Napoles (Niepoort) declared in 1989

This name is a movable feast: it’s Tuesday, so this must be Paris. Hence this should be called “Quinta de Napoles†. Of course, if we have the extra data, we might wish to show it, but the name is “Quinta de Napoles†. The end.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Back on the Quinta thing, Tom and Jdaw seem to have almost agreed on something. AHB and I do not yet understand what that something is. I think that is fine,

But what about Malvedos? Graham have used all Malvedos’s grapes since dragons roamed middle earth (I approximate): Malvedos isn’t just a stand-alone SQVP, it is a variant of Graham, and has been since …. Hence I think it is helpful, and simultaneously accurate, so label it something like Graham Malvedos.

I'm happy to concede on this, although I would note that for consistency that I believe that we should retain the "Graham Malvedos" nomenclature even after the point when these wines become "Graham, Quinta dos Malvedos"

I trust Tom's pragmatism to be keeping Jdaw's pedantry under control and vice-versa. So, I will vote to agree with both Tom and Jdaw, even though I don't know precisely what I am agreeing to.

Whenever Tom and I agree, you should agree with us.

I agree that Tom and JDAW agree that Derek agrees he should agree with Tom and JDAW agreeing with each other. Is that now agreed?

Tom: Derek to buy the next round? N31 please!

Wossat you say? Can't make it out so I'll ignore it - unless it involves N31, of course!

Yes, I will build a list of questions.

Excellent. I will build a list of answers.

Offley versus OBV. We could show this as two columns, one having been declared in only one year. IMHO, a waste of space. Or we could agree on a multi-declaration symbol, and use it rarely. More mess in the data.

I would suggest we keep the data clean and have Offley sit in its own little column all on its own with just the one declaration. This retains the integrity of the data and allows us to add to it more easily in the future if there are later declarations by Offley from purchased grapes. I know this wastes space, but this table that is being developed is potentially a really interesting piece of history for port students. When we come to print out our poster, I assume that we can choose to print only a subset of the data?

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

I have no idea. I will try to do some digging around in the hope that I can find out.

[DRT]

For the record: I agree that AHB agrees that when Tom and Jdaw agree that I agree that Jdaw and Tom agree then AHB and I should agree to agree with Tom and Jdaw.

I vote to keep Offley separate for the same reasons as AHB has stated above. The note that I took from Suckling's book can be paraphrased in the notes field to explain the anomoly.

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

I have found a couple of examples of this kind of inconsistency in Broadbents book. I think I need to check through the early vintages again to look for signs of the wines being something other than VP.

Barros has the same issue. The shipper confirmed to Jdaw that they started producing VP in 1960 but Broadbent had a note of a 1937 which, on more detailed reading of the note, turns out to be a Colheita.

Broadbent does include notes on what he terms "Vintage Tawny Ports" and it is not always apparent when his notes refer to one of these.

I believe that historically, there has also been a blurring of the distinction between what we would now term Vintage Port, Late Bottled Vintage Port and Colheita Port. I don't know when the IVDP (previously the IVP) first imposed the rules that create the distinctions that we now recognise. Perhaps they simply codified rules that were being followed at the time.

For example, consider the 1815 ports that were drunk at Roy's birthday party last year. Today, who will ever know whether these were bottled after 2-3 years in wood, or after 4-6 years, or after 7+ years. Equally, when a producer "declared" 150 years ago, was he declaring that he had a harvest of sufficient quantity and quality to fill and ship a few pipes of port, or to fill and ship a few dozen cases of bottles?

This is probably going to be an area of discussion and debate in the future for vintages that pre-date the formation of the IVP. More fun for all!

[jdaw1]

Some outstanding questions

List updated.

Outstanding questions
…
• “São Pedro das Aguias† or “Quinta do Convento de São Pedro das Aguias†? Which I’m guessing are different to Senhora do Convento.
…
• “Quinta do Noval Silval†? “Silval†? “Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval†? “Noval Quinta do Silval†? Yuck. The best version of what’s on the one bottle I have is “Quinta do Noval Silval†. Objections?
…
• Van Zeller:

Is Van Zeller the same as JMF & Van Zeller? Have there been previous and different Van Zeller ports, that should be distinguished from this new partnership?

Please could somebody write a simple list, explaining all uses of the term “Silval†?

Berrys do and did not blend any wines of their own, merely selected the wine of a single shipper and put their own label on the bottle. I would recommend that they are removed from the list.

Just phoned BBR (0870 900 4300) and spoke to Jake. Who might or might not be able to email me a list of the original suppliers. Absent such a list, I’m tempted to keep BBR.

Add Harvey's in their own right, as I note that in some years they produced a blend under their own name based on the wines of two or more shippers in the same way as Avery did.

To be called “Harvey of Bristol†? Are they the www.harveys-usa.com?

How do we differentiate between Portal and Portal+?

Carvalhas is only a marketing name of Royal Oporto. Carvalhas is used as the marketing name in Iberia and Royal Oporto in Northern Europe. I suggest we treat in a similar way as for Dalva (Presidential).

It’s also a vineyard. Are you sure that the bottlings under the name Carvalhas are actually identical to Royal Oporto?

As the name “Graham Malvedos† has been agreed, we come back to this question:

So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:

• Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
• Churchill Quinta do Fojo
• [Edit: not Cockburn Quinta dos Canais]
• Croft Quinta da Roeda
• Delaforce Quinta da Corte
• Dow Quinta do Bomfim
• Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
• Fonseca Quinta de Santo António
• Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
• Fonseca Guimaraens
• Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
• Graham Quinta das Lages
• Graham Malvedos
• Kopke Quinta São Luiz
• Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
• Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha
• Sandeman Vale de Mendiz
• Messias Quinta do Cachão
• Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta do Bom Retiro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
• Robertson Quinta da Roncao
• Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
• Smith Woodhouse Madalena
• Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
• Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
• Warre Quinta da Cavadinha

Do we have a decision on shippers who blended combinations of officially-declared ports?

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

Derek tried to shrink the project to make this go away. Is that shrinkage the team consensus?

[jdaw1]

Berrys' Own Selection Vintage Ports

Supplied by:

1960 Rebello Valente
1963 Taylor Fladgate
1966 Warre
1970 Warre
1975 Gould Campbell
1977 Quarles Harris
1980 Warre
1983 Warre
1985 shipped by Smith Woodhouse
1991 bottled by Smith Woodhouse
1994 produced & bottled by Smith Woodhouse
1997 produced & bottled by Warre
2000 produced by Smith Woodhouse
2003 produced by Quinta de la Rosa

THC/ 2008

It isn’t clear whether there is a real difference between “supplied by†, “shipped by†, “bottled by†, and “produced by†, or just writerly variation. Except that ≤1970 BBR might have done their own bottling.

Moral: if you want to know something, there’s nowt like asking.

Thank you very much indeed. That's very helpful. Great. One extra question: was 1960 the first year of Berry's Own Selection?

If you're interested, our project to gather a list of all port declarations is being co-ordinated from viewtopic.php?p=11998#11998

I've never seen an older Berrys VP than 1960 so I've always assumed that was the first but I will ask our past Chairman and see if he recalls anything. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

Tom

Anyway, I now agree to crediting Berrys’ Selections to their original manufacturer.

[DRT]

I have been told categorically by a member of staff at BBR that the 1994 was exactly the same wine as that sold under the Smith Woodhouse brand. I therefore consider it highly likely that all BBR BOBs are simply re-labelled and not different blends to those of the particular shipper chosen in any year.

Perhaps a follow-up question will confirm this?

Derek

[jdaw1]

On that bulletin board a follow-up question has been asked. Are Berrys' Selections a relabelling of the original blender's wine, or are they -- in some way -- different wines?

Again, thank you for your help with this historical digging.

[DRT]

I don't have access to wine-searcher right now.

Can someone please do a worldwide search on "Berry" + "1963" just in case there are some bottles out there and the owner doesn't know what is actually in them

Derek

[uncle tom]

Please could somebody write a simple list, explaining all uses of the term “Silval†?

Silval is to Noval what Secundum is to Niepoort - a second wine, normally made with grapes from both the quinta and also from grapes bought in.

Quinta do Silval has (I believe) no association with Noval and is principally a Hotel. As far as I know they have never made a vintage port. I seem to recall they make some table wines.. ..but I'm not sure?

Tom

[uncle tom]

To be called “Harvey of Bristol†? Are they the http://www.harveys-usa.com?

Just Harvey should suffice.

There's a fair number of bottlers who only put their own name on the bottle - some put the shipper's name on the cork, but some didn't...

To make things really complicated, one of these bottlers was called Cockburn - but were unrelated to the shipper (I think they're still in business)

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Quinta do Silval has (I believe) no association with Noval and is principally a Hotel. As far as I know they have never made a vintage port. I seem to recall they make some table wines.. ..but I'm not sure?

Tom

It does have a past with Noval, as they are next to each other. IIRC, Noval now owns some property, which originally belonged to Quinta do Silval. But that was purchased many many years ago, long before Chrstiano Van Zeller and AXO. It was on the northwest edge of the Noval vineyards (if I had my directions correct)

Quinta do Silval does make a VP and LBV, but it is sold under the Magalhese (spelling??) label. As Noval owns the rights to use the name "Silval", which it bought from Quinta do Silval many years ago. Confusing huh!

[jdaw1]

Quinta do Silval has (I believe) no association with Noval and is principally a Hotel. As far as I know they have never made a vintage port. I seem to recall they make some table wines.. ..but I'm not sure?

Tom

It does have a past with Noval, as they are next to each other. IIRC, Noval now owns some property, which originally belonged to Quinta do Silval. But that was purchased many many years ago, long before Chrstiano Van Zeller and AXO. It was on the northwest edge of the Noval vineyards (if I had my directions correct)

Quinta do Silval does make a VP and LBV, but it is sold under the Magalhese (spelling??) label. As Noval owns the rights to use the name "Silval", which it bought from Quinta do Silval many years ago. Confusing huh!

Magalhães Vintage Porto 2000 exists. So we have:

• Quinta do Noval;
• Quinta do Noval Nacional;
• Quinta do Noval Silval;
• Magalhães.

Please would everybody agree. Noval’s (annoying flash) website says that Silval 1998 “was made with grapes from Quinta do Silval (60%) and Quinta do Noval (40%)†.

[Andy Velebil]

But that is a different Quinta do Silval than the one that makes Magalheas Ports. Noval has a property that is also called Quinta do Silval...told you it was confusing