Tasting Note Book

[JacobH]

Some of the smart stationers in London produce attractive notebooks for keeping tasting notes about wines.

I have been wondering whether it would be helpful to have a Port-specific book for doing the same. Perhaps something a bit more practical than that produced by Symthson’s: a book in which notes can be easily recorded before being transferred to a permanent medium (e.g. some electronic method, posting on or , or even in a smart cellar-book which is kept at home). Cheap enough that when it is full or gets covered in Port, it can be replaced.

Thanks to the wonders of modern digital printing, such an enterprise is not impossibly nor prohibitively expensive (perhaps £10 or so a book). Indeed, and perhaps more interestingly, nor would it be infeasible to include in such a book the owner’s existing notes, if they are stored in some form of electronic database.

However, the question is: what form should such a notebook take? I have produced a mock-up (with a sample of what incorporated existing notes might look like, in the ‟White” section from pages 92 to 95). I included two pages of 5 notes for each major vintage; 10 notes per decade for minor vintages and similar numbers for other sorts of Port. I also added a few example pages of front matter: a list of major years and major quintas. The type-setting would be replaced by something more attractive for printing.

Do the sections look sensible? Should I allow for more than 10 from each vintage? Is there any useful additional front-matter that could go in for reference (particularly information which can settle debates at Port tastings!).

Any general thoughts would be welcome.

[jdaw1]

I think I disagree with the whole internal structure. We don’t taste a statistically even sample of port, with 1970s slightly out-numbering 1963s and 1966s, they in turn slightly out-numbering 1960s and 1955s. Our tasting is very lumpy. In a given quarter you might taste many 1955s, and no other ports from 1927 to 1970. It isn’t tricky to imagine a month containing forty 1985s (a two-day tasting), several samples of something like a Morgan 1991, and nothing else. This really doesn’t fit into a book that has two four-port pages for 1955.

Also, I can write most ports in ≤5 characters. Many more are needed for the ‟Event”. This disagrees with your spacing.

[JacobH]

I think I disagree with the whole internal structure. We don’t taste a statistically even sample of port, with 1970s slightly out-numbering 1963s and 1966s, they in turn slightly out-numbering 1960s and 1955s. Our tasting is very lumpy. In a given quarter you might taste many 1955s, and no other ports from 1927 to 1970. It isn’t tricky to imagine a month containing forty 1985s (a two-day tasting), several samples of something like a Morgan 1991, and nothing else. This really doesn’t fit into a book that has two four-port pages for 1955.

This is something I did consider. However, I do wonder if there is any way in which a book, printed in advance, can cater for such eventualities unless it is devoid of any internal structure?

Also, I can write most ports in ≤5 characters. Many more are needed for the ‟Event”. This disagrees with your spacing.

Ah, yes, that I think is caused by a typo in the TeX.

[Alex Bridgeman]

As a slight variation on the theme, I had this thought.

I keep my notes on a spreadsheet, which allows for ready referencing. At some point - if I can justify the cost of a license - I may transfer them to Access or similar. However, I am intrigued by the idea of having my notes incorporated into a book of tasting notes - but one which does not contain any space for future handwritten notes, more of a Bridgeman equivalent of Michael Broadbent's Great Vintage Wine Book.

Could this be done relatively easily?

[jdaw1]

I do wonder if there is any way in which a book, printed in advance, can cater for such eventualities unless it is devoid of any internal structure?

I suspect that blank, or near-blank, is the way forward.

[JacobH]

As a slight variation on the theme, I had this thought.

I keep my notes on a spreadsheet, which allows for ready referencing. At some point - if I can justify the cost of a license - I may transfer them to Access or similar. However, I am intrigued by the idea of having my notes incorporated into a book of tasting notes - but one which does not contain any space for future handwritten notes, more of a Bridgeman equivalent of Michael Broadbent's Great Vintage Wine Book.

Could this be done relatively easily?

I think it should be. Exactly how easy will depend somewhat on how your spreadsheet is structured (e.g. are there separate columns for "Shipper", "Vintage", "Date", "Notes" &c.); whether it is internally consistent (e.g. is it always "Taylor" or sometimes "Taylor" and sometimes "Taylor's"?); and exactly how much editorial involvement you would like in the finished product (e.g. a nicely formatted text-only book, with a chapter for each shipper is quite straight forward; if you wish to have each shipper's logo and some introductory text, it will a little more time-consuming). Perhaps if you dropped me an email with what you had in mind we could have a chat about it at some stage?

[JacobH]

I do wonder if there is any way in which a book, printed in advance, can cater for such eventualities unless it is devoid of any internal structure?

I suspect that blank, or near-blank, is the way forward.

Yes, that was my conclusion: but then finding a tasting note for x is difficult unless one can remember at what stage into the book x was noted.

One solution would be to produce a ring-bound organiser, akin to a Filo-Fax, with a tab for each major vintage (and other forms of Port) and then blank pages for the notes. That would give great flexibility since extra pages could be added to each section as needed. However, I am not sure if it is possible to produce such a thing on a small scale. I will investigate.

[jdaw1]

Or a near-blank TN book, with page numbers. And a few spare pages for the ‘index’. The index should have more rows than there are TN slots, so that it can be approximately pre-divided. I.e., I write my pointers to 1955s about half way down the first index page, then leave a gap, then the pointers to 1970s. Things won’t fill precisely, but arrows and other marginalia can assist.

[JacobH]

Having given it some thought, I decided to stick with a rigid (or near-rigid) structure, giving each Vintage a reasonable amount of space + some spare pages at the back, on the basis that once a few vintages get filled up I can have a new book printed.

I’ve uploaded a new mock-up with my tasting notes included, so you can see how things appear now. If anyone has their tasting notes in any sort of electronic form (e.g. an Excel spreadsheet) and would be interested in having something like this then please let me know; it would be much more interesting to be doing this work from more than one set of data! It would also be easy to put something together without blank tasting note slots, if required, or including a current cellar stock (or other such data).

Thoughts are welcome; there are a few errors (such as everything being too small, the picture at the front being poor resolution, and a few categories not appearing) and I should also note that the list of abbreviations is just a draft list.

[DRT]

If anyone has their tasting notes in any sort of electronic form (e.g. an Excel spreadsheet) and would be interested in having something like this then please let me know; it would be much more interesting to be doing this work from more than one set of data!

Others might be interested in joining my plea to Chief Admin.

[jdaw1]

On page of Shipper Abbreviations, consider changing ‟(Quita de)” and ‟(Quitna de la)”. Also, Schofield is a long-defunct UK merchant. Consider deleting, or including lots of merchants.

On the cover the ‟Po” of ‟Port” needs kerning (and in ‟Ruby Port”, ‟Crusted Port”, &c.). Also the ‟Ye” in the various instances of ‟Years”, and ‟Ta” in ‟Tawny”.

On the front cover the decanter stopper is odd, and you have two decanters with only one glass.

For the pre-entered TNs, is it worth removing the series of dots? Have a single paragraph, broken only by the italics.

• Port: 1884 Sandeman VP. Drunk: TPF Christmas Tasting, 17xii2009. Observations: Obviously extremely old. A pale golden colour. Still very drinkable. Huge amounts of rosemary on the nose. A great bottle to have tried.

Consider automatically small-capping ‟LBV” and ‟VP”. And could ‟Y/O” become a suitably kerned ‟Y.O.”, or even just ‟YO”?

In the index, can page numbers be clickable, jumping to the relevant page? Not relevant on paper; nice in PDF.

Should the pages be A5, so the paper folded A4?

You are a fan of Gentium. But, for my taste, large footless ‘b’s, such as that in the title, have the appearance of being on the edge of toppling.

Odd text decoration in ‟2000 Sandeman’s Vau Vintage”.

Page 141: ‟Gonzales Byass”: just because I have made this error does not mean that you may. ‟Gonzalez Byass”: better, but still not right.

‟Rozes”? No.

Page 128 and the index: ‟Calém”? ‟Calém”! ‟Calém”✠˜

In the index the Cálem ports have a problem with sort-order. Presumably the machine thinks that ‘á’ > ‘z’.The index also sorts all ‘Quinta’s together: was this deliberate?

In ‟Generally Declared Years Since 1850” why not link split declarations with an ‟and”: ‟1960, 1963, 1966 and 1967,”?

‟A Selection of Significant Dates” should include events of our royalty: new monarchs, marriages, children, jubilees, etc.

[Alex Bridgeman]

On the front cover the decanter stopper is odd, and you have two decanters with only one glass.

Is this odd? I am currently sitting at home with two filled decanters and one glass and do not consider myself to be in an odd situation.

[JacobH]

Thanks. A new version of the document is available.

On page of Shipper Abbreviations, consider changing ‟(Quita de)” and ‟(Quitna de la)”. Also, Schofield is a long-defunct UK merchant. Consider deleting, or including lots of merchants.
Page 141: ‟Gonzales Byass”: just because I have made this error does not mean that you may. ‟Gonzalez Byass”: better, but still not right.
‟Rozes”? No.
Page 128 and the index: ‟Calém”? ‟Calém”! ‟Calém”✠˜
Odd text decoration in ‟2000 Sandeman’s Vau Vintage”.

Thanks: these were all typos (many of which were in my tasting note database).

On the cover the ‟Po” of ‟Port” needs kerning (and in ‟Ruby Port”, ‟Crusted Port”, &c.). Also the ‟Ye” in the various instances of ‟Years”, and ‟Ta” in ‟Tawny”.
You are a fan of Gentium. But, for my taste, large footless ‘b’s, such as that in the title, have the appearance of being on the edge of toppling.
Consider automatically small-capping ‟LBV” and ‟VP”. And could ‟Y/O” become a suitably kerned ‟Y.O.”, or even just ‟YO”?

These are font-related issues. Although I do like Gentium, it is mostly a placeholder. I am more than welcome to receive suggestions as to what would be a good typeface for such a book.

On the front cover the decanter stopper is odd, and you have two decanters with only one glass.

In addition to AHB’s explanation, this was a drawing in registration depicting two scenes: the opening and pouring of a decanter of Port. If this was unobvious, I prescribe some consideration of objects such as Ur-Nanshe’s plaque and the Stele of the Vultures which are both, I believe, on the ground floor, Richelieu section, in the Louvre.

For the pre-entered TNs, is it worth removing the series of dots?

Yes, and I think possibly also some of the other descriptions (e.g. if it is in a 10-Year-Old Tawny section, it does not need to be described as ‟NV Graham 10-Year-Old Tawny”; ‟Graham” should suffice).

Have a single paragraph, broken only by the italics.

• Port: 1884 Sandeman VP. Drunk: TPF Christmas Tasting, 17xii2009. Observations: Obviously extremely old. A pale golden colour. Still very drinkable. Huge amounts of rosemary on the nose. A great bottle to have tried.

I am slightly less keen on this, mostly because I prefer some more whitespace.

In the index, can page numbers be clickable, jumping to the relevant page? Not relevant on paper; nice in PDF.

Yes, though the script I am using has two options: either make a hyperlink to the top of the page page or make a hyperlink to the exact entry, with the later resulting in duplication of duplicate entries (i.e. Warre 1983 has an entry of ‟44, 44” with each reference being a link to a different mention of it on the same page).

Should the pages be A5, so the paper folded A4?

I thought it was.

In the index the Cálem ports have a problem with sort-order. Presumably the machine thinks that ‘á’ > ‘z’.The index also sorts all ‘Quinta’s together: was this deliberate?

Reading the manual suggests I will have to manually adjust the entry for Cálem before printing since the script does not like accents. The Quintas are sorted together because that is how they are stored in my tasting notes. It is not something that bothers me, though it could be adjusted for others.

In ‟Generally Declared Years Since 1850” why not link split declarations with an ‟and”: ‟1960, 1963, 1966 and 1967,”?

Hmm...Perhaps some sort of slash might convey the information more clearly without giving the impression that it is a misplaced end-of-list conjunctive?

‟A Selection of Significant Dates” should include events of our royalty: new monarchs, marriages, children, jubilees, etc.

I welcome suggestions of what can be included and what can be expunged, noting the amount of space available.

[jdaw1]

On the front cover the decanter stopper is odd, and you have two decanters with only one glass.

In addition to AHB’s explanation, this was a drawing in registration depicting two scenes: the opening and pouring of a decanter of Port. If this was unobvious, I prescribe some consideration of objects such as Ur-Nanshe’s plaque and the Stele of the Vultures which are both, I believe, on the ground floor, Richelieu section, in the Louvre.

Medium, dear fellow, medium. There are plenty of pictures in the National Gallery showing multiple stages in the life of Christ, and of Saints. This is necessary on canvas or stone. But on paper the convention for plot-advancement is turning the page difficult with stone, easy with paper. That is why it jars: your mode of story-telling is inappropriate for the medium in which it is to be told.

[jdaw1]

In ‟Generally Declared Years Since 1850” why not link split declarations with an ‟and”: ‟1960, 1963, 1966 and 1967,”?

Hmm...Perhaps some sort of slash might convey the information more clearly without giving the impression that it is a misplaced end-of-list conjunctive?

That works for me.

[jdaw1]

‟A Selection of Significant Dates” should include events of our royalty: new monarchs, marriages, children, jubilees, etc.

I welcome suggestions of what can be included and what can be expunged, noting the amount of space available.

Six coronations:

• William IV, accession 26 June 1830, coronation 8 September 1831;
• Victoria, accession 20 June 1837, coronation 28 June 1838;
• Edward VII, accession 22 January 1901, coronation 9 August 1902;
• George V, accession 6 May 1910, coronation 22 June 1911;
• George VI, accession 11 December 1936, coronation12 May 1937;
• Elizabeth II, accession 6 February 1952, coronation 2 June 1953.

Also Jubilees in 1887, 1897, 1977.

[JacobH]

Medium, dear fellow, medium. There are plenty of pictures in the National Gallery showing multiple stages in the life of Christ, and of Saints. This is necessary on canvas or stone. But on paper the convention for plot-advancement is turning the page difficult with stone, easy with paper. That is why it jars: your mode of story-telling is inappropriate for the medium in which it is to be told.

One of the most fabulous books ever commissioned, Jagat Singh's Ramayana uses exactly this method of story-telling through 7 volumes and over 400 illustrations. Surely you would not have had it redrawn with one scene per page?

[jdaw1]

Thanks. A new version of the document is available.

‟Quitna do Retiro Novo”.

For my taste, dates 15xii2010 look better with spaces: ‟15 xii 2010”.

[jdaw1]

One of the most fabulous books ever commissioned, Jagat Singh's Ramayana uses exactly this method of story-telling through 7 volumes and over 400 illustrations. Surely you would not have had it redrawn with one scene per page?

Sure, it takes time to adapt story-telling devices to new media. Observe how early films would have a stage curtain drawn aside. Just the same.

[JacobH]

I gave a proof of this a trial run at the Christmas tasting. I found it quite useful. I particularly liked the fact I could see what I had said about many of the wines before simply by looking up the page on which I was writing my new note. I also found the book--which I had comb bound--quite convenient for writing notes in the small space of the Bell. It may be worth having the finish product spiral bound (like a notebook) rather than perfect bound (like a book) so it is still possible to fold completely in half.

Changes arising out of its use:

• More space required for writing tasting notes: four lines seem about right.
• The margins for the space for the hand-written notes are too wide when set at the same width as those for the pre-written ones. Adjusted accordingly.
• Clearer running titles have been added.
• Pages added for noting, in a blind tasting, the revealed names of the Port (i.e. ‟label A is the Cruz 89” &c.).

A new proof is now available. I haven’t yet had a change to correct a few places where the line breaks are awkward, nor look at some of the more substantive issues raised by Julian.

Potential unsolvable problem: what to do when you write your tasting note before you know what the wine is?

[jdaw1]

Potential unsolvable problem: what to do when you write your tasting note before you know what the wine is?

1. A blind-tasting section.
2. Labelled sections to begin with an extra line, ‟Also see pages!”.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Also Jubilees in 1887, 1897, 1977.

I beg to suggest also in 2002, although celebrations were muted at the time.

[jdaw1]

1. I beg to suggest also in 2002, although celebrations were muted at the time.

   New York noticed: Empire State dons Jubilee colours.
2. Separately, please confirm that ‟British Shippers Association” is correctly punctuated. (Methinks a hyphen or apostrophe is missing, though it could be that the original is missing both.)
3. ‟Khron”? Krohn.
4. ‟Vinha Vela Quinta de Vargellas”? Surely ‟Velha”.
5. ‟NV Optima 10 Y.O. Tawny”? (My bolding.)
6. As ‟Generally Declared Years Since 1850” includes 1892, surely it should also mention 1942?
7. ‟1883: Graphting of vines allowed”: grafting, perhaps.
8. Is it worth crediting comets to a narrower timeframe than a whole year? E.g., ‟Daylight Comet, January 1910; Halley’s Comet, April 1910”.
9. Why is the Tipplers’ Revolt double-quoted?
10. Is The Navigation Act 1663 (with its huge effect on Madeira) worthy of mention?
11. Should there be something like a title page, identifying the author of the quoted notes, and identifying JGH as the designer of the book and author of the program that typesets it? Perhaps giving a date of PDF generation, and a code version?
12. How do you do the naming of pages, and grouping into expandable sections? The placemats could do with same.

[jdaw1]

1. No hyphenation in ”1678: ‟Legendry invention of fortification by Ab-
   bot of Lamego”. (Also spelling: Legendary?)
2. Warre 1975, does ‟Note great” really mean that we are to note that it is great? Or is there an extraneous vowel?
3. ‟Kopke’s Quinta São Luiz”: it seems that Kopke always write Luiz’s title as ‟S.”.
4. Are you fussy about curly quotation marks, as opposed to a straight prime?

[JacobH]

Yikes; so many typos and other embarrassing mistakes in my tasting notes!

I haven’t had a chance to look at the list of dates tonight and implemented some of the changes, but have correct most of the others; thanks.

‟Kopke’s Quinta São Luiz”: it seems that Kopke always write Luiz’s title as ‟S.”.

Hmm...I’m fairly certain every bottle of this which I have seen has said São not S., though since those are from the 1970s, they may have changed their styling since then.

How do you do the naming of pages, and grouping into expandable sections? The placemats could do with same.

You need to use PDF bookmarks (see page 25 of the pdfmark manual (pdf)). It looks like, unfortunately, that the postscript implementation requires the top bookmark in the hierarchy to specify how many bookmarks are below it which may be slightly awkward to implement.

As ‟Generally Declared Years Since 1850” includes 1892, surely it should also mention 1942?

I didn’t realise that 1942 was a general declaration? Or am I wrong in thinking that 1892 was generally declared but regarded as weak?

Other changes: index now lists Quintas by their main name (which has revealed a typo for Ervamoira and that there also needs to be some further work on São Luiz); I’ve added a copyright page and change the typefaces (which seem a bit too chunky and have broken in a few places). Assuming you don’t mind seeing these rough edges, a work-in-progress is again available.

[jdaw1]

Perhaps this is one of the known ‘rough edges’? (Though later this problem disappeared. Mysterious.)

[jdaw1]

As ‟Generally Declared Years Since 1850” includes 1892, surely it should also mention 1942?

I didn’t realise that 1942 was a general declaration? Or am I wrong in thinking that 1892 was generally declared but regarded as weak?

About equally general; no reason to think one stronger than the other. (Preference: delete 1892.)

[jdaw1]

Consider adding the ability to suppress functionally empty TNs. E.g., for both of ‟Port: 1963 Quinta do Noval Drunk: TPF Christmas Tasting, 17xii2009”; and for Mz67 on 13xi2009; Smith Woodhouse’s The Queen’s College House Port; and others.

[jdaw1]

I am uncomfortable with the possessive in ‟Quinta do Noval’s Nacional”, and also in ‟Quinta do Vesuvio’s Capela”.

[jdaw1]

Non-curly quotes: S63 ‟there's still a little amount of tannins”, W77 ‟This bottle didn't”, D80 ‟wasn't the monster”, V92 ‟'91”, V94 ‟'91” and ‟'92”, V97 ‟'96”, VC07 ‟'07”, Df82 ‟didn't get in the way”, MzEV82 ‟astringent finish which wasn't so appealing”, S82 ‟other bottles of the same I've tried”, GM82 ‟Graham's”, V90 ‟'89”, and perhaps others.

Also some non-curly doubles, such as in V98 and GM08.

I doubt that the next can be removed automatically, but nonetheless I insist on registering my disapproval of prepositional endings (W85, undated).

[JacobH]

Non-curly quotes [...]

Having double-checked, I think most of these were proper quotes but the typeface had particularly straightened quote marks, making it appear as if they were " and '.

I doubt that the next can be removed automatically, but nonetheless I insist on registering my disapproval of prepositional endings (W85, undated).

Fair enough. Though, in this case, caused by the terseness of the format and, I hope, not a reflection of my usual writing style.

I am uncomfortable with the possessive in ‟Quinta do Noval’s Nacional”, and also in ‟Quinta do Vesuvio’s Capela”.

On reflection, I am not sure why I bothered with the possessive here (and elsewhere). It is removed.

About equally general; no reason to think one stronger than the other. (Preference: delete 1892.)

Do you know, off-hand, who declared ’42?

A new draft is online. Further changes from the last version include adding a list of most drunk and highest-rated Ports; suppressing the year from listings for the major vintages; adding a new section on grape varietals (or should that be varieties? I have never been clear); and some re-sectioning for the LBVs.

Known issues include a load of black rectangles where the computer can’t work out where to break the lines; and the untouched significant date page.

[jdaw1]

Do you know, off-hand, who declared ’42?

For 1942 we have multiple sources for Croft, Graham, Niepoort, Quinta do Noval, Offley Boa Vista, Rebello Valente, Sandeman, and Taylor. There are other possibilities. For 1842 we have multiple possibilities, none with more than one source.