Time for a TN sort?

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 11:25 Thu 25 Mar 2010

Glenn E. wrote:
JacobH wrote:It sounds like 1924 should therefore be excluded...
What's wrong with 1924?

It would have been declared at about the time of the 1926 coup d'état and therefore factors 1 and 2 of jdaw1's three reasons would apply...

Post by **jdaw1** » 12:31 Thu 25 Mar 2010

JacobH wrote:It would have been declared at about the time of the 1926 coup d'état and therefore factors 1 and 2 of jdaw1's three reasons would apply...

Do you reason to believe that the shippers thought that the coup might imperil their businesses?

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 12:51 Thu 25 Mar 2010

jdaw1 wrote:
JacobH wrote:It would have been declared at about the time of the 1926 coup d'état and therefore factors 1 and 2 of jdaw1's three reasons would apply...
Do you reason to believe that the shippers thought that the coup might imperil their businesses?

Yes, were I to be a shipper, I would have feared that.

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:34 Thu 25 Mar 2010

JacobH wrote:Yes, were I to be a shipper, I would have feared that.

More evidence required. In the ’75 coup at least one shipper drank its stocks of old port, thinking they were going to be confiscated. Have you evidence of like behaviour in the mid-1920s?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 21:50 Sun 28 Mar 2010

Something that has puzzled me for a while, is the occasional apparent inconsistency in the layout of the tasting note index. By way of illustration, consider:

1863 Ferreira - there are two tasting notes and these both show as separate sub-titles under the 1863 title

1890 unknown - there are two tasting notes, but these show as separate sub-sub-titles under the 1890 title and the Unknown sub-title.

Is there a subtle difference between the two types of tasting notes that I am missing or is this a process gap?

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:10 Sun 28 Mar 2010

AHB wrote:1863 Ferreira - there are two tasting notes and these both show as separate sub-titles under the 1863 title

1890 unknown - there are two tasting notes, but these show as separate sub-sub-titles under the 1890 title and the Unknown sub-title.

Whoops.

In the alphabetical index it is clear that there is a Ferreira 1863 VP, and a Ferreira 1863 garrafeira. But in the date index that distinction is less clear: the two Fr1863s appear as separate lines, without garrafeira being mentioned. My error: more coding required.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 10:46 Tue 30 Mar 2010

Thanks for the explanation. Now I realise that only those wines allocated an abbreviation are vintage ports. The penny has dropped.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:14 Fri 02 Apr 2010

To the alphabetical TN index some â—Šs have been added. These link to themselves: hence right-click copy-link on the â—Š Morgan copies a link to www.theportforum.com/Tasting_Notes/alph ... #[b]morgan[/b]. Which might be useful if one wanted to link directly thereto.

Hypothetically, such links might appear on a map.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 12:04 Sat 03 Apr 2010

Should the Quinta da Eira Velha 2000 (of Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference fame) really be described as Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha when it mentions no shipper on the bottle? The reason for asking is that, as far as I can see, the Quinta has never been owned by Martinez, but has simply supplied wines to them (and Cockburn’s when they owned Martinez) since 1979. The bottles themselves describe it as being made by the Symingtons.

The situation is likely to get more complex as the Quinta was bought by the Taylor Fladgate Partnership in 2007 from its long-standing owners (the Newman family) but I’m not sure what’s happening to the wines now.

Post by **jdaw1** » 12:32 Sat 03 Apr 2010

JacobH wrote:Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha

I think we had planned to change it to just ‟Quinta da Eira Velha”, but somebody (looks around innocently) forgot.

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:55 Sun 04 Apr 2010

May I remove the poster names from the TN indexes. E.g.:

The Alphabetical Index wrote:1957: GM57 DRT on 21 Mar 2010

Though DRT started the thread in capacity as tasting organiser his TN doesn’t appear in it. This problem is widespread: e.g., threads started by me, containing a very brief JDAW TN, and a long and worthwhile AHB TN. My initials appear in the index to what value?

May I remove the poster names?

Post by **DRT** » 21:50 Sun 04 Apr 2010

jdaw1 wrote:May I remove the poster names?

Yes from me.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 10:20 Tue 06 Apr 2010

I believe http://www.quintadaromaneira.pt/ and http://www.quintadocruzeiro.com/ are not links for the Romaneira and Cruzeiro that interest us...

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:00 Tue 06 Apr 2010

Thank you, though DRT told me about one of those. Feel free to suggest replacements.

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 11:56 Tue 06 Apr 2010

JacobH wrote:I believe http://www.quintadaromaneira.pt/ and http://www.quintadocruzeiro.com/ are not links for the Romaneira and Cruzeiro that interest us...

Romaneira links to the correct quinta, just the hotel part of it (there doesn't seem to be a site for the wine/port part?), but Cruzeiro seems to be a completely different quinta. Might I suggest a simple link to the site of Fonseca for this one?

Post by **DRT** » 12:08 Tue 06 Apr 2010

RonnieRoots wrote:Romaneira links to the correct quinta, just the hotel part of it (there doesn't seem to be a site for the wine/port part?)

I may be wrong but I think that the Hotel and the Wineary are completely separate businesses, albeit that both share some of the same owners/shareholders.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 12:32 Tue 06 Apr 2010

RonnieRoots wrote:
JacobH wrote:I believe http://www.quintadaromaneira.pt/ and http://www.quintadocruzeiro.com/ are not links for the Romaneira and Cruzeiro that interest us...
Romaneira links to the correct quinta, just the hotel part of it (there doesn't seem to be a site for the wine/port part?), but Cruzeiro seems to be a completely different quinta. Might I suggest a simple link to the site of Fonseca for this one?

Opps...I saw the boat and the lack of mention of wine and assumed it was on the Algave!

Post by **jdaw1** » 14:14 Thu 15 Apr 2010

JacobH wrote:Should the Quinta da Eira Velha 2000 (of Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference fame) really be described as Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha when it mentions no shipper on the bottle?

No. Fixed.

jdaw1 wrote:May I remove the poster names from the TN indexes. E.g.:
The Alphabetical Index wrote:1957: GM57 DRT on 21 Mar 2010
Though DRT started the thread in capacity as tasting organiser his TN doesn’t appear in it.

Poster names JDAW and DRT removed, as we often mass-create threads. (Except when Topic_OverridePoster is non-blank.) Other poster names remain.

Indexes (alphabetical, date) updated.

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:37 Thu 15 Apr 2010

Map problems: donamaria; gontelho; novanossasenhoracarmo; madalena.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 09:50 Fri 16 Apr 2010

Madalena was a typo; sorry. For the others I have: donamaria=valededonamaria (do people expect "Vale de X" quintas to be under V or under X?); gontelho=javali (I had been working on the principle that the quinta had been renamed, but I might be wrong); and novanossasenhoracarmo=nova. Your thoughts?

There's also a random bottle of Noval floating around in the "D" section.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 11:16 Wed 21 Apr 2010

jdaw1 wrote:May I remove the poster names from the TN indexes. E.g.:
The Alphabetical Index wrote:1957: GM57 DRT on 21 Mar 2010
Though DRT started the thread in capacity as tasting organiser his TN doesn’t appear in it. This problem is widespread: e.g., threads started by me, containing a very brief JDAW TN, and a long and worthwhile AHB TN. My initials appear in the index to what value?

May I remove the poster names?

I think this would be a good idea. I think the original intent for having the names was so that someone browsing the index could see who pasted the note rather than who started the thread. This orginal intent is difficult to achieve, so I would vote to remove the poster name.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 11:18 Wed 21 Apr 2010

JacobH wrote:Madalena was a typo; sorry. For the others I have: donamaria=valededonamaria (do people expect "Vale de X" quintas to be under V or under X?)...

Personally, I would want to find it under both as I think it is one of those abbreviations which depends on the person who is doing the abbreviating.

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:59 Wed 21 Apr 2010

AHB wrote:Personally, I would want to find it under both as I think it is one of those abbreviations which depends on the person who is doing the abbreviating.

No. Neither are for humans to type. They are just tags so that the TN index and JGH’s map can link to each other.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 14:40 Wed 21 Apr 2010

jdaw1 wrote:
AHB wrote:Personally, I would want to find it under both as I think it is one of those abbreviations which depends on the person who is doing the abbreviating.
No. Neither are for humans to type. They are just tags so that the TN index and JGH’s map can link to each other.

There is a separate question as to whether an alphabetical list of quintas should go:

Quinta do CÃ´tto
Quinta da Corte
Quinta do Crasto
Quinta do Cruzeiro
Quinta do Vale de Dona Maria
Quinta da Eira Velha
Quinta de Ervamoira

or

Quinta do Tedo
Quinta de Terra Feita
Quinta da Trovisca
Quinta do Tua
Quinta do Vale de Dona Maria
Quinta Vale do MeÃ£o
Quinta do Vallado
Quinta de Vargellas

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:31 Wed 21 Apr 2010

My list of names has one for presentation, and one for alpha-sort. For alpha-sort the only Q is Quevedo.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:07 Wed 21 Apr 2010

JacobH wrote:There's also a random bottle of Noval floating around in the "D" section.

Fixed.

JacobH wrote:Madalena was a typo; sorry. For the others I have: donamaria=valededonamaria (do people expect "Vale de X" quintas to be under V or under X?); gontelho=javali (I had been working on the principle that the quinta had been renamed, but I might be wrong); and novanossasenhoracarmo=nova. Your thoughts?

Who to change?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 06:15 Tue 27 Jul 2010

Have there been enough additions to the tasting notes for it to be worth an update?

Post by **jdaw1** » 07:44 Tue 27 Jul 2010

Yes.

Admin: please cope tomorrow, or as soon as possible thereafter.

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 10:25 Tue 27 Jul 2010

jdaw1 wrote:Yes.

Admin: please cope tomorrow, or as soon as possible thereafter.

I can cope perfectly well today.

Post by **jdaw1** » 10:57 Tue 27 Jul 2010

admin wrote:I can cope perfectly well today.

Excellent, though I can’t cope until late tomorrow.

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 11:08 Tue 27 Jul 2010

jdaw1 wrote:
admin wrote:I can cope perfectly well today.
Excellent, though I can’t cope until late tomorrow.

OK, will just have to cope tomorrow instead. Send me a reminder - I will have slept by then.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:14 Thu 29 Jul 2010

Indexes updated: alphabetical, date.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:25 Thu 29 Jul 2010

My map tags, also being the html id within-page tags, are as follows.

LinkToMap; tag; Display Name

✠—; adams; Adams
✠“; casaamarela; Quinta da Casa Amarela
✠—; andresen; Andresen
✠—; avery; Avery
✠—; baldias; Quinta de Baldias
✠—; baraovilar; BarÃ£o de Vilar
✠—; barros; Barros
✠—; berrybros; Berry Brothers & Rudd Selection
✠—; borgesirmao; Borges & IrmÃ£o
✠—; andresen; Quinta do BragÃ o
✠—; broadbent; Broadbent
✠—; brunheda; Quinta da Brunheda
✠—; burmester; Burmester
✠—; butlernephew; Butler Nephew
✠—; calem; Cálem
✠“; foz; Cálem Quinta da Foz
✠—; castelinho; Quinta do Castelinho
✠“; cotto; Champalimaud Quinta do CÃ´tto
✠—; churchill; Churchill
✠“; aguaalta; Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
✠—; cockburn; Cockburn
✠“; canais; Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
✠—; constantino; Constantino
✠—; cortez; Cortez
✠“; crasto; Quinta do Crasto
✠—; croft; Croft
✠—; roeda; Croft Quinta da Roeda
✠—; cruz; Cruz
✠—; dalva; Dalva (aka Presidential, aka C da Silva)
✠—; davy; Davy
✠—; delaforce; Delaforce
✠“; corte; Delaforce Quinta da Corte
✠“; donamaria; Quinta do Vale Dona Maria
✠—; donamatilde; Dona Matilde
✠—; dow; Dow
✠“; bomfim; Dow Quinta do Bomfim
✠—; duffgordon; Duff Gordon
✠—; duorum; Duorum
✠—; elvirogarcia; Elviro Garcia
✠“; csteufemia; Casa de Santa Eufémia
✠—; feist; Feist
✠—; ferreira; Ferreira
✠“; seixo; Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
✠“; porto; Ferreira Quinta do Porto
✠“; fojo; Quinta do Fojo
✠—; fonseca; Fonseca
✠“; cruzeiro; Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
✠“; panascal; Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
✠—; gilbert; Gilbert
✠—; gonzalezbyass; González Byass
✠—; gonzalezm; M. Gonzalez
✠—; gordon; Gordon’s
✠—; gouldcampbell; Gould Campbell
✠—; graham; Graham
✠“; lages; Graham Quinta das Lages
✠“; malvedos; Graham Malvedos
✠—; guedes; Guedes
✠—; hooper; Hooper
✠—; hutcheson; Hutcheson
✠“; infantado; Quinta do Infantado
✠“; gontelho; Quinta do Javali
✠—; kopke; Kopke
✠“; saoluiz; Kopke Quinta SÃ£o Luiz
✠—; krohn; Krohn
✠“; retironovo; Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
✠—; liceiras; Quinta das Liceiras
✠—; magalhaes; MagalhÃ£es
✠—; manuela; Quinta do MaÃ±uela
✠—; martinez; Martinez (Harvey)
✠—; chousa; Martinez Quinta da Chousa
✠“; eiravelha; Quinta da Eira Velha
✠“; meao; Quinta de Vale MeÃ£o
✠—; mendiz; Vale de Mendiz
✠—; messias; Messias
✠“; cachao; Messias Quinta do CachÃ£o
✠—; mina; Quinta Vale da Mina
✠—; moreira; Moreira
✠—; morgadiocalcada; Morgadio da Calçada
✠—; morgan; Morgan
✠—; mourao; Quinta do MourÃ£o
✠—; niepoort; Niepoort
✠—; pisca; Niepoort Pisca
✠“; novanossasenhoracarmo; Quinta Nova de Nossa Senhora do Carmo
✠“; noval; Quinta do Noval
✠“; novalnacional; Quinta do Noval Nacional
✠—; offley; Offley
✠“; boavista; Offley Boa Vista
✠—; osborne; Osborne
✠“; pacheca; Quinta da Pacheca
✠“; passadouro; Quinta do Passadouro
✠—; petre; Petre’s
✠“; pintas; Pintas
✠—; pocas; Poças
✠—; portal; Quinta do Portal
✠—; quarlesharris; Quarles Harris
✠—; quevedo; Quevedo
✠—; rainhasanta; Rainha Santa
✠—; ramos-pinto; Ramos-Pinto
✠“; ervamoira; Ramos-Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
✠—; urtiga; Ramos-Pinto Quinta da Urtiga
✠—; rebellovalente; Robertson Rebello Valente
✠—; roncao; Robertson Quinta do RoncÃ£o
✠—; rocha; Rocha
✠“; romaneira; Quinta da Romaneira
✠—; romariz; Romariz
✠“; roriz; Quinta de Roriz
✠“; rosa; Quinta de la Rosa
✠—; inferno; Quinta de la Rosa Vale do Inferno
✠—; royaloporto; Royal Oporto
✠“; carvalhas; Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
✠—; rozes; Rozès
✠—; sandeman; Sandeman
✠“; conventopedro; Quinta do Convento de SÃ£o Pedro das Ãguias
✠“; senhoradaribeira; Quinta Senhora da Ribeira
✠—; sibio; Quinta do Sibio
✠—; skeffington; Skeffington
✠—; smithwoodhouse; Smith Woodhouse
✠“; madalena; Smith Woodhouse Madalena
✠—; souza; Souza
✠—; taylor; Taylor
✠“; junco; Taylor Quinta do Junco
✠“; terrafeita; Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
✠“; vargellas; Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
✠“; tedo; Quinta do Tedo
✠“; tua; Quinta do Tua
✠—; tukeholdsworth; Tuke Holdsworth
✠“; vallado; Quinta do Vallado
✠“; ventozelo; Quinta de Ventozelo
✠“; vesuvio; Quinta do Vesuvio
✠“; vistaallegre; Quinta da Vista Allegre
✠—; warre; Warre
✠“; cavadinha; Warre Quinta da Cavadinha
✠—; zimbro; Quinta do Zimbro

Your tag for Quinta do Convento de SÃ£o Pedro das Ãguias contains spaces; please could it become conventopedro?

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 09:22 Fri 30 Jul 2010

jdaw1 wrote:Your tag for Quinta do Convento de SÃ£o Pedro das Ãguias contains spaces; please could it become conventopedro?

Ah, that's because it had a dot in it. Changed now.

Am I right in thinking that the following are the Quintas that are missing from the map?

jdaw1 wrote: LinkToMap; tag; Display Name
✠—; baldias; Quinta de Baldias
✠—; andresen; Quinta do BragÃ o
✠—; brunheda; Quinta da Brunheda
✠—; castelinho; Quinta do Castelinho
✠—; roeda; Croft Quinta da Roeda
✠—; donamatilde; Dona Matilde
✠—; liceiras; Quinta das Liceiras
✠—; manuela; Quinta do MaÃ±uela
✠—; chousa; Martinez Quinta da Chousa
✠—; mendiz; Vale de Mendiz
✠—; mina; Quinta Vale da Mina
✠—; morgadiocalcada; Morgadio da Calçada
✠—; mourao; Quinta do MourÃ£o
✠—; portal; Quinta do Portal
✠—; urtiga; Ramos-Pinto Quinta da Urtiga
✠—; roncao; Robertson Quinta do RoncÃ£o
✠—; inferno; Quinta de la Rosa Vale do Inferno
✠—; sibio; Quinta do Sibio
✠—; zimbro; Quinta do Zimbro

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:36 Fri 30 Jul 2010

Hence the ✠—s, indicating absence of ‟(map)” links for these. But if and when added to the map, please use my tags (and tell me that they’ve been added).

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:39 Fri 30 Jul 2010

Aside: I have guessed which Nova is this. If you know, please answer question in that thread.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 09:48 Fri 30 Jul 2010

jdaw1 wrote:Hence the ✠—s, indicating absence of ‟(map)” links for these.

Indeed; I was trying to extract the Quintas from the list (most of those without a reference are shippers) and attempting to confirm if I had missed any.

jdaw1 wrote:But if and when added to the map, please use my tags.

Certainly, though shouldn't Morgadio da Calçada be calcada rather morgadiocalcada since the name of the estate is Casa da Calçada? And should Quinta do BragÃ o be bragao rather than andresen?

Post by **jdaw1** » 10:30 Fri 30 Jul 2010

JacobH wrote:shouldn't Morgadio da Calçada be calcada rather morgadiocalcada since the name of the estate is Casa da Calçada? And should Quinta do BragÃ o be bragao rather than andresen?

I am less fussy about the tags than about us agreeing. My tables updated as suggested.

Post by **jdaw1** » 07:29 Fri 22 Oct 2010

As of 21 October 2010, indexes updated: alphabetical, date.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 00:15 Sun 12 Dec 2010

A bottle of Dow 1985 is, unexpectedly, listed as a Duorum 1985.

Post by **jdaw1** » 10:02 Sun 12 Dec 2010

Ooops. If chief admin could please send me fresh data, I’ll update and repair.

Post by **DRT** » 00:19 Sat 18 Dec 2010

The link to the shipper's website in the TN index for this TN is broken.

Post by **DRT** » 00:37 Sat 18 Dec 2010

In the Date index Quinta do Bomfim is prefixed "Dow" but Quinta Senhora da Ribeira is not.

Post by **DRT** » 00:58 Sat 18 Dec 2010

Something has gone badly wrong in the index.

This is indexed as Warre 2008 in the date index and there are lots of the 2008 TN's that I posted that are not in that index. TV and TTF being two examples.

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:21 Sat 18 Dec 2010

jdaw1 wrote:Ooops. If chief admin could please send me fresh data, I’ll update and repair.

Post by **DRT** » 07:57 Mon 27 Dec 2010

This one incorrectly indexed. Should be with the other Tesco 94s, not as QH94.

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:14 Mon 27 Dec 2010

jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Ooops. If chief admin could please send me fresh data, I’ll update and repair.

Please?

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 23:55 Sun 09 Jan 2011

I’m not sure if this will be caught by the planed bug-fix but in the alphabetical list, this Fonseca 1977 is indexed as a Roeda ’77.

Post by **jdaw1** » 08:10 Mon 07 Feb 2011

Indexes updated: alphabetical, date. I have tried to check or rebuild everything. In doing so (most of) the errors above have been fixed. Quite possibly new errors have been introduced.

Thanks to ARK for sending the data.

JacobH · Post by **JacobH** » 10:14 Mon 07 Feb 2011

jdaw1 wrote:Indexes updated: alphabetical, date. I have tried to check or rebuild everything. In doing so (most of) the errors above have been fixed.

Thank you! (But indexes not indices?).

jdaw1 wrote:Quite possibly new errors have been introduced.

I am not sure if this is a new error, but the alphabetic index now classifies a lot of bottles as Unknown which appear to otherwise be well-described. It appears that the only ones where the shipper is, in fact, unknown from the thread title are those reviews by RMW on the 21 Jun 2007; the NV bottle and those <1924. Perhaps, also, as a new feature, an unclassified category should be added for the first two of those categories?

Additionally, in the date-index, the majority of the unknowns appear to be aged tawnies. It would be nice, if possible, if they could be classified together in their proper sections but I am not sure if the technology allows this.