ThePortForum.com

JacobH wrote: ↑11:17 Tue 14 Dec 2021I also worry that whilst identifying which shippers declared, say, a 1991 might be quite straight-forward, due to the explosion of new producers over the last 15 to 20 years, finding out who declared some of the more recent vintages will be extremely difficult if not impossible in the future. For example, the thread tells me that Quinta Santa Izabel declared a 2019. I confess to not knowing this shipper. I think it might be a reference to Quinta Maria Izabel (which I also don’t know). Their website only listed the 2015 declaration. VintagePort.se lists the 2012 and 2015. I can’t see any trace of a 2019 by either them of Quinta Santa Izabel. Whilst some smaller companies look like they will keep going indefinitely, I think it is very likely that there will be dozens of small producers who will only make a few vintages before vanishing leaving effectively no records.

I can see this being important in the future. For example: I am sure people will be interested in who Quinta das Liceiras were since their 1993 is a unique Port which sells for an incredible premium. I also think that people will be interesting in some of the quintas which pass between shippers. For example, Quinta da Côrte is now being made independently having previously been made by Delaforce. Or those brands which have been revived after a long period of dormancy. Van Zeller might be one example. But, of course, producing a complete list of what has been produced post-1986 would be an enormous challenge. I just mention this because I think that whilst most of the sources Julian consulted to discover what was made in the 19C will be around in 100 years; digital rot may obliterate many 21C records.

This is fair.

Currently the Other Shippers chapter lists interesting oddments, some of which are old records that wouldn’t otherwise be found. Do I want — and can I face the effort of — an Every small quinta and their minuscule releases chapter? Sigh: if only the IVDP were helpful.

PhilW wrote: ↑10:27 Tue 14 Dec 2021Release a pdf/kindle version, please.

PDF is multi-gigabyte.

Kindle? Not willing to lock myself to a proprietary format. But would consider electronic publication. Not promising more than ‘consider’.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote: ↑10:27 Tue 14 Dec 2021Release a pdf/kindle version, please.

PDF is multi-gigabyte.

Even with B&W and/or reduced-resolution (or even omitted) images?

If I release a PDF, it will leak and become available de facto free. Reluctant.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:33 Wed 15 Dec 2021 If I release a PDF, it will leak and become available de facto free. Reluctant.

I agree. Don't release a pdf version.

As a compromise, you could put a web-accessible (but not downloadable) copy behind a paywall for Phil to access when he's out and about.

I think you should not have an electronic version. It will get nicked
Thanks

Good topic for discussion over (hopefully) excellent port tomorrow, perhaps?

jdaw1 wrote: ↑19:37 Tue 14 Dec 2021Currently the Other Shippers chapter lists interesting oddments, some of which are old records that wouldn’t otherwise be found. Do I want — and can I face the effort of — an Every small quinta and their minuscule releases chapter? Sigh: if only the IVDP were helpful.

I don’t really know what the answer is. I’m not sure a list of every VP made since 2000 is going to be much help to anyone since it feels like if you choose any random place within the demarcated zone and search for “quinta” on google maps you can find some independent shipper that has produced a couple most of which never seem to see the light of day.

If you were minded to enlarge the more recent decades’ coverage, I guess you would need to think of some criteria for which shippers you would cover and which not. Just as a few thoughts:

a) I think there might be some merit in trying to include some of the more significant new shippers. Companies like Churchill & Quevedo are probably going to be around for a time. Or, if not, will have left a sufficient historic legacy that someone might want to look them up in your book in the future. I’m not sure how you would measure “significant”, though. Maybe a minimum number of declarations. Say 5 or 10? If it were 10, I think you’d lose companies like Pintas. Are they sufficiently significant that you might want to preserve them for posterity at this stage? I don’t know!

b) I’d really appreciate if modern Ports which are continuations of old ones could be included. Examples might be Roriz or Côrte or even companies like Van Zellar. I think most of them already are.

c) There’s probably some merit in thinking hard to ensure all the notable oddities like the Liceiras are included. Perhaps also some of the charitable Ports like the one Axel was involved in (I’ve forgotten the name: apologies).

O-Port-Unidade?

MigSU wrote: ↑22:07 Wed 15 Dec 2021O-Port-Unidade?

A whole chapter?

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:10 Wed 15 Dec 2021

MigSU wrote: ↑22:07 Wed 15 Dec 2021O-Port-Unidade?

A whole chapter?

No

I was answering Jacob's question, but was on my phone, got lazy, and didn't quote him.

JacobH wrote: ↑21:40 Wed 15 Dec 2021I don’t really know what the answer is. I’m not sure a list of every VP made since 2000 is going to be much help to anyone since it feels like if you choose any random place within the demarcated zone and search for “quinta” on google maps you can find some independent shipper that has produced a couple most of which never seem to see the light of day.

It feels like a pointless copy-paste of TPF threads. Indeed, I don’t see how it could amount to much more.

JacobH wrote: ↑21:40 Wed 15 Dec 2021I think there might be some merit in trying to include some of the more significant new shippers. Companies like Churchill & Quevedo are probably going to be around for a time. Or, if not, will have left a sufficient historic legacy that someone might want to look them up in your book in the future. I’m not sure how you would measure “significant”, though. Maybe a minimum number of declarations. Say 5 or 10? If it were 10, I think you’d lose companies like Pintas. Are they sufficiently significant that you might want to preserve them for posterity at this stage? I don’t know!

Nor do I. Indeed, part of what needs to be judged is the (im)mortality of digital information. Will archive.org live forever?

JacobH wrote: ↑21:40 Wed 15 Dec 2021I’d really appreciate if modern Ports which are continuations of old ones could be included. Examples might be Roriz or Côrte or even companies like Van Zellar. I think most of them already are.

These are amongst the more important of the non-chapter shippers.

JacobH wrote: ↑21:40 Wed 15 Dec 2021There’s probably some merit in thinking hard to ensure all the notable oddities like the Liceiras are included. Perhaps also some of the charitable Ports

These might be the only two.

For completeness, and for use as a sole reference, could simple lists of the known production for some/many of the smaller houses be added as an appendix? Would be useful to have these all in one place.

Also, but assume this is a much more significant task, how about some inclusion of LBVs? For some houses these are pretty serious wines. Again, possibly list based appendix rather than the full detail (which would probably require a volume to itself)?

nac wrote: ↑00:52 Fri 17 Dec 2021For completeness, and for use as a sole reference, could simple lists of the known production for some/many of the smaller houses be added as an appendix? Would be useful to have these all in one place.

Also, but assume this is a much more significant task, how about some inclusion of LBVs? For some houses these are pretty serious wines. Again, possibly list based appendix rather than the full detail (which would probably require a volume to itself)?

These are both desirable objectives. To help me assess the scale of the task, and the extra weight of the book, a new thread has been created: Port producers and brands. It lists 123 names needing contacting. Some are defunct, but that still leaves 100ish. Assume I contact them. Each submitted Vintage or LBV then needs to be checked against, at a minimum, Google. And 100ish names must come to 30ish pages.

Neil: how much of this do you want to do?

I think one of the things that make Port Vintages such a special and credible resource is the "with evidence" qualifier in the title. Having list of things with no evidence or statement about the source of each data item is simply repeating what wine authors have done for two centuries or more.

Does this important book deserve such dilution of its value?

I agree, wholly, with Derek. Showing one's workings/ sources is what makes this work definitive.

DRT wrote: ↑18:24 Sun 19 Dec 2021I think one of the things that make Port Vintages such a special and credible resource is the "with evidence" qualifier in the title. Having list of things with no evidence or statement about the source of each data item is simply repeating what wine authors have done for two centuries or more.

This is a powerful argument. Even though the end of each chapter has a ‘Later vintages’ area, which asserts without evidence.

A couple of notes, perhaps just to stimulate thought rather then necessarily change.

First, as noted elsewhere I would suggest that we (generally) should be clearer when referring to "brands" vs houses or shippers; I think we have often used the latter when meaning the former. I can't remember whether the book is affected since the chapters are generally split by port house, with brands, sub-brands and single-quinta vintage releases mentioned therein, so perhaps not but something to bear in mind when reviewing.

Secondly, in revising the VPID internals I have had to deal with similar issues to the port brand abbreviation list which is also mentioned in the book; while I have mostly followed the defined list, I have three variations when naming the images files with the brand as part of the name:
1. If the brand is Quinta do/de/... <something>, then I add a small q at the front, e.g. qLR, qRo. Admittedly I have some inconsistency, as I generally use the unmodified abbreviation for some brands e.g. Noval as that is how I think of the brand (vs Quinta do Noval in full); though for many "Quinta ..." brands I can't imagine saying them without the Qd (e.g. Quinta de la Rosa), hence I use the q pre-pend. I have found the addition of the q make it easier when handling abbreviation lists, or sorting/searching files, as the "Quinta ..." brands then appear alphabetically more naturally for me. (no, I don't add the q in the middle e.g. in ChqAA, which remains ChAA, I only use it at the start).
2. For Unknowns, I use the abbreviation Unk
3. I do not use accented characters, to avoid compatibility issues.
As we have noted previously, for brands with too few vintages we have not assigned abbreviations, and similarly for these I will generally use the full name (or qName).
Am not expecting the above to necessarily influence the book, or our abbreviations list, but thought it worth mentioning in case.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑19:56 Sun 19 Dec 2021

DRT wrote: ↑18:24 Sun 19 Dec 2021I think one of the things that make Port Vintages such a special and credible resource is the "with evidence" qualifier in the title. Having list of things with no evidence or statement about the source of each data item is simply repeating what wine authors have done for two centuries or more.

This is a powerful argument. Even though the end of each chapter has a ‘Later vintages’ area, which asserts without evidence.

To answer another question, am happy to provide some assistance, but I'm not sure the scope of the task is known yet.

On the point above, when would "later vintages" become sufficiently old that the requirement for evidence would become a consideration? I assume the rationale here was that these vintages were within the buying history of readers so the evidence wasn't necessary + Julian had to stop somewhere?

nac wrote: ↑23:45 Sun 19 Dec 2021On the point above, when would "later vintages" become sufficiently old that the requirement for evidence would become a consideration? I assume the rationale here was that these vintages were within the buying history of readers so the evidence wasn't necessary + Julian had to stop somewhere?

jdaw1 wrote: ↑19:33 Tue 14 Dec 2021

winesecretary wrote: ↑11:02 Tue 14 Dec 2021I think extending the cutoff to the 2000 vintage declaration (i.e. to the effective end of the pre-internet age) might be worthwhile.

JacobH wrote: ↑11:17 Tue 14 Dec 2021(e.g.) confirming that a Graham’s 1994 existed which makes perfect sense.

I think that the decision was taken whilst adding a source for a ’94. Many modern stores listed it, and I was selecting between them. Pointless. Even digital rot won’t obliterate archive.org. So instead each chapter has a Later vintages area, in which I quote what is interesting (usually Wine Society at-release offerings) and nothing more. They are listed without evidence. This still seems correct. Later vintages will be extended, but not fundamentally changed.

nac wrote: ↑00:52 Fri 17 Dec 2021Also, but assume this is a much more significant task, how about some inclusion of LBVs? For some houses these are pretty serious wines. Again, possibly list based appendix rather than the full detail (which would probably require a volume to itself)?

Would this not be an almost impossibly difficult project? We have a little more than 50 years’ worth of “modern” LBVs from the big producers and trying to unpick what is a filtered / unfiltered / “traditional” LBV is quite a challenge even with new releases. And presumably there was quite a lot of late-bottling in the days of shipping by pipe, too, which happened informally?

Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

I slightly regret using Times New Roman for the bulk of the text, and am considering using, for the second edition, Minion Pro. Objections? Suggestions of better (serious suggestions pls).

Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎

jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 21 Dec 2021 Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

I slightly regret using Times New Roman for the bulk of the text, and am considering using, for the second edition, Minion Pro. Objections? Suggestions of better (serious suggestions pls).

Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎

Agreed that a serif font ought to be used for the bulk of the text. No objections to Minion, though I would also recommend Garamond for your consideration.

I think that the proposed ‘new evidence marker’ is particularly preferable to the evidence marker used in the first edition.

M.Charlton wrote: ↑00:39 Tue 21 Dec 2021Agreed that a serif font ought to be used for the bulk of the text. No objections to Minion, though I would also recommend Garamond for your consideration.

I find Garamond a touch too ornate. Baskerville was used for the quotations: do comment.

M.Charlton wrote: ↑00:39 Tue 21 Dec 2021I think that the proposed ‘new evidence marker’ is particularly preferable to the evidence marker used in the first edition.

If there’s even better, please suggest.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 21 Dec 2021 Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

I slightly regret using Times New Roman for the bulk of the text, and am considering using, for the second edition, Minion Pro. Objections? Suggestions of better (serious suggestions pls).

Dislike for Minion here; I generally find text printed/displayed in fonts where parts of the letter are very thin are much less readable (less of an issue in italic and bold variants, since the finest part of the line tends not to be so fine). Serif fonts often have more line width variation within each letter form than sans-serif, and Minion looks to be a particularly thin minimum-width variant; more stylish but less readable; I prefer readable.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 21 Dec 2021 Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.
Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎

Would need to see in context if judgement wanted.