Time for a TN sort?

[DRT]

Lots of TNs have been added since the last update on 2nd January, including the addition of the 1884 Sandeman tasted at the Christmas Off-line.

Perhaps now is a good time for Admin and JDAW to do their stuff?

[jdaw1]

Admin! Then me.

[KillerB]

Strangely I have just had the ten-thousandth view of this thread but will knock up the updates forthwith. After I've been to bed, of course.

[jdaw1]

Done: twenty-six TNs added to date and alphabetical indexes.

Mozilla bug 537444 still not fixed.

[RonnieRoots]

One thing that's been bugging me: can you please remove the 'Niepoort' from Passadouro? The two have seperated in 2003 and there's no connection between them since. Thanks!

[jdaw1]

One thing that's been bugging me: can you please remove the 'Niepoort' from Passadouro? The two have seperated in 2003 and there's no connection between them since. Thanks!

Done. Updated: date and alphabetical indexes. Passadouro now has abbreviation ‟Pd”.

[jdaw1]

A discussion, mostly about the Santa Eufémia port, has been moved to Eufémia, and variations.

[KillerB]

A discussion, mostly about the Santa Eufémia port, has been moved to Eufémia, and variations.

That was weird - you did that as I was posting.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Martinez shows up as "Martinez (Harvey's)".

While this was true some years ago, Martinez is now part of the Symington stable and Harvey's are not the sole or even main distributors any more. Could we change this name to just read "Martinez"?

[jdaw1]

What is the name used for US distribution?

[Alex Bridgeman]

You've stumped me. I had assumed that it was Martinez in the UK and the US, and that Harvey's were associated with the wine and the brand only through being the main (only?) UK distributor in the middle of the last century. Do you know whether Harvey's was used as the US brand for a time?

[jdaw1]

Do you know whether Harvey's was used as the US brand for a time?

I believe so, but cannot currently remember what has caused me to believe so.

Martinez was founded in 1790 by the Spaniard Sebastian Gonzalez Martinez, who sold Port, sherry and cigars from an office in Mincing Lane in the City of London. In 1822 he was joined by an Englishman, John Peter Gassiot, a Member of The Royal Society and a great friend of Faraday the famous scientist. By the time Sebastian Martinez retired in 1849, the company had become the largest shipper of Port to the UK, with its own lodges in Oporto acquired in 1834. Martinez Gassiot was well known for its swift sailing ships, the ‟Betsy” and the ‟Maria Manuela”, which carried its wines from Oporto to the West Country of England. In fact it is recorded that the ‟Maria Manuela” was one of the last sailing boats of its kind to carry Port before this method of transport was supplanted by the age of steam.

Martinez Gassiot’s fortunes sadly declined in the first half of the twentieth Century, and in 1960 the firm was sold to Harvey’s of Bristol, which in turn became owned by Allied Domecq. In 2006 the firm was acquired by the Symington Family who have set out to revitalise the Martinez brand and reinforce its reputation for fine Vintage Ports. Symington Family Estates are the leading producers of premium quality Ports. The combined sales of the family’s Port companies make up over a third of all premium Port sold throughout the world. Martinez wines are sourced mainly from the Pinhão and Rio Torto valleys and are vinified under contract at Symington Family Estates’ winery at Quinta do Sol. Six members of the Symington family now oversee winemaking and blending for Martinez Ports.

Martinez produced some outstanding Vintage Ports in the 20th Century. James Suckling wrote in the Wine Spectator of the 1994 Martinez Vintage Port. ‟The sleeper of the vintage. A stunning, huge, amazingly young Port that makes your mouth pucker in delight. Full-bodied and medium-sweet, with masses of fruit and tannins. Best after 2012.” 97 out of 100 points.

[Glenn E.]

What is the name used for US distribution?

As far as I know they use Martinez in the US. It's a bit hard to find around here, though, so it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't officially distributed in the US.

[Roy Hersh]

Est. 1790, and it had always been called Martinez-Gassiot but now that the Symington's have taken control of the company and their exclusive (Sym-owned) importer Premium Port Wines in CA has the bottles with nice new labels. The name still appears as Martinez, but on each front label you will still find MG & Co. and an under script where it mentions Martinez Gassiot. Finding Martinez will become easier in the USA in 2010. Glenn won't remember this far back, but in the 1990s, Chat. Ste. Michelle's parent company, Stimson Lane was the exclusive US importer for Martinez. When they no longer carried it, there was quite a sale of Martinez Ports all over WA State and at the CSM winery too. I probably helped them sell 50-100 cases to friends who were bargain hunting at those insanely discounted prices.

[Glenn E.]

Finding Martinez will become easier in the USA in 2010.

Awesome!

I guess that means either "Martinez" or "Martinez-Gassiot" would be correct. The former being the (most prominent) label name, the latter being the company (which is now owned by SFE).

[Alex Bridgeman]

Eira Velha is another quinta I'd prefer to see listed without an association to an owner. It used to belong to Hunt Roope until some time after WW2.

[DRT]

The date sorted index doesn't seem to distinguish between VP and LBV. For example: viewtopic.php?p=31359

If this is intentional or just too hard then no worries. If it is just not working then I have helped.

[jdaw1]

It should distinguish between them. I’ll look when doing the next update.

ARK: today would be good, as it’ll mean the Vesuvio tasting is included before I leave for the UK. If not, then later would also work.

[jdaw1]

I updated the indexes on 22nd February, but TPF’s FTP server wouldn’t admit me, I didn’t upload them before visiting the UK. My password is still not working, so instead I have put them at www.jdawiseman.com/port/alphabetical.html and www.jdawiseman.com/port/date.html. Please would admin move them to the correct place.

[jdaw1]

Updated date and alphabetical indexes such they include the threads from the Malvedos tasting.

[DRT]

Updated date and alphabetical indexes such they include the threads from the Malvedos tasting.

Thank you.

I notice that 1975 still hasn't been given its rightful place in history by being highlighted as a generally declared vintage in the date-ordered version f the TN Index. It is always a shame when an author allows his own petty predjudices stand in the way of the truth

[Deleted_User_1]

Updated date and alphabetical indexes such they include the threads from the Malvedos tasting.

Thank you.

I notice that 1975 still hasn't been given its rightful place in history by being highlighted as a generally declared vintage in the date-ordered version f the TN Index. It is always a shame when an author allows his own petty predjudices stand in the way of the truth

I had noticed this but was too polite to mention it...note to self!...must see what all of fuss is about. 1975 mmm.

[jdaw1]

its rightful place in history

The list of general declarations excludes years that:

• Were declared only because a revolution meant that some shippers wanted to get all possible cash before their assets were (presumably) confiscated;
• Were declared following pressure from the revolutionary government for a celebratory declaration;
• Are now admitted to have been below standard.

(Different shippers, different stories; different shippers, same conclusion.)

[JacobH]

its rightful place in history

The list of general declarations excludes years that:

• Were declared only because a revolution meant that some shippers wanted to get all possible cash before their assets were (presumably) confiscated;
• Were declared following pressure from the revolutionary government for a celebratory declaration;
• Are now admitted to have been below standard.

(Different shippers, different stories; different shippers, same conclusion.)

It sounds like 1924 should therefore be excluded...

[Glenn E.]

It sounds like 1924 should therefore be excluded...

What's wrong with 1924?