ThePortForum.com

jdaw1 wrote:It uses your default font. Whatever is your usual preference.

DRT wrote:A suggested improvement: There are many years in the 1800s in the grid that are classic declared vintages that we have not yet tasted. Perhaps these deserve to have the same bold font and dark background as those we have been fortunate enough to taste in order to give them the prominence they deserve?

• www.ThePortForum.com/Tasting_Notes/date.html;
• www.ThePortForum.com/Tasting_Notes/alphabetical.html.

DRT wrote:Is it worth adding 1800-1809 in order to include the 1806 "Very Good" vintage?

DRT wrote:It may or may not be intentional, but the title does not use the default browser font. It's the same on normal TPF pages.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:Is it worth adding 1800-1809 in order to include the 1806 "Very Good" vintage?

I thought about that. Then thought that this is a set of internal links, not a daydream.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:It may or may not be intentional, but the title does not use the default browser font. It's the same on normal TPF pages.

I think it’s doing the same as TPF now.

DRT wrote:The question, albeit hidden, was: is that intentional or should it (the TPF title) be using the default font?

www.ThePortForum.com/Tasting_Notes/tasting_notes.css wrote:font-family: Palatino, "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Times, serif;

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:The question, albeit hidden, was: is that intentional or should it (the TPF title) be using the default font?

It isn’t.

www.ThePortForum.com/Tasting_Notes/tasting_notes.css wrote:font-family: Palatino, "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Times, serif;

RonnieRoots wrote:One question: would it be possible to place links to these pages on the top of the Tasting Notes page? It would eliminate the necessity of going back to the Board Index when wanting to look up a specific tasting note.

<!-- NOTE: remove the style="display: none" when you want to have the forum description on the forum body -->
   <!-- IF FORUM_DESC --><span style="display: none">{FORUM_DESC}<br /></span><!-- ENDIF -->

admin wrote:I've used the Forum Rules functionality to achieve this. Colour is a bit annoying but that will require a change of stytle, it does stand out though.

Comments?

KillerB wrote:On another subject. What sort of English Maths graduate uses 'Indexes' instead of 'Indices'? Anybody with the excuse that an American used the word 'Index' for database indices needs to sit in a corner and think about what they've done wrong. It would be like when using parent-child relationships to use the plural 'Childs' just because the first person to use it in that context was a muppet.

JacobH wrote:(Small bug: Poças shows as Po&ccedilla)

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

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

Martinez wrote: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.

jdaw1 wrote:What is the name used for US distribution?

Roy Hersh wrote:Finding Martinez will become easier in the USA in 2010.

jdaw1 wrote:Updated date and alphabetical indexes such they include the threads from the Malvedos tasting.

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote: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

DRT wrote:its rightful place in history

• 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.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote: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 wrote:It sounds like 1924 should therefore be excluded...