ThePortForum.com

DRT wrote:I would suggest avoiding the use of squiggles. (Calem, Pocas, Vale Meao). These abbreviations are intended to make life simple. Don't condemn your readers to a life sentence of searching for squiggles that don't obviously exist on their keyboard.

Sort-of. There should not be both Cá and Ca; there should not be both Pç and Pc; there should not be both Mã and Ma. That means that being limited to ASCII does not introduce ambiguity. But there’s no harm in the canonical version being correct.

DRT wrote:I agree with everything JDAW has said in response to other suggestions.

As everybody should.

Outstanding question:

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Vale Meão: VM or Mã? Perhaps I prefer the latter.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR ...

I missed the above in my first scan through the list, but agree with Glenn that the Producer abbreviation once defined should be kept the same whether with/without additions. This is a case of clarity over brevity for me. Note that even JDAW sometimes appear to favour clarity over brevity (TVVV where TVV would be sufficient to be unique and shorter; but hence my argument for ChAA - even if ChA may have appeared previously).

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Vale Meão: VM or Mã? Perhaps I prefer the latter.

VM for me based on previous (we already have GB which is not Graham Quinta do Bingo, so yes there is a minor lack of clarity between houses vs quintas unless we were to define a rule that all producer abbreviations must include 1+ capitals followed by 1 lower - but that would be so much change from what is in use and understood by all that I don't think we should make such a change. So yes, occasional ambiguity acceptable on grounds of practicality).

PhilW wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR ...

I missed the above in my first scan through the list, but agree with Glenn that the Producer abbreviation once defined should be kept the same whether with/without additions. This is a case of clarity over brevity for me. Note that even JDAW sometimes appear to favour clarity over brevity (TVVV where TVV would be sufficient to be unique and shorter; but hence my argument for ChAA - even if ChA may have appeared previously).

Good spot on the inconsistency, which I’d rather resolve by shortening TVVV to TVV. Am I alone?

List in first post of this thread.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR ...

I missed the above in my first scan through the list, but agree with Glenn that the Producer abbreviation once defined should be kept the same whether with/without additions. This is a case of clarity over brevity for me. Note that even JDAW sometimes appear to favour clarity over brevity (TVVV where TVV would be sufficient to be unique and shorter; but hence my argument for ChAA - even if ChA may have appeared previously).

Good spot on the inconsistency, which I’d rather resolve by shortening TVVV to TVV. Am I alone?

I hope so. If you're not, there are a number of other places where you have favoured clarity over brevity; I'm hesitant to point them all out for fear of making the list less readable; Please just give in

PhilW wrote:I hope so. If you're not, there are a number of other places where you have favoured clarity over brevity; I'm hesitant to point them all out for fear of making the list less readable; Please just give in

Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC. We haven’t used CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, so am willing to concede on them.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Cockburn Quinta dos Canais should be CkC, not CC
Croft Quinta da Roeda should be CrR, not CR
Messias Quinta do Cachão should be MsC, not MC.

General rule: keep the Producer abbreviation intact when adding a qualifier.

General rule: brevity good. The rules conflict. There is precedent for CR = Croft Roeda (14 May 2010, 2 Mar 2012, 15 Oct 2012 (which has Cr70 and CR70 side-by-side), and 16 June 2014); and for MC = Cachão (2 Mar 2012 and 12 Oct 2013 (pages 284, 374, 378, 383, and others) ).

Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

I did not list other oddities, judging them insufficient to break with precedent. (Kh instead of Kr, Kn, or even WK for one. The 'h' is silent, so its appearance in an abbreviation is... odd at best.) These, however, I feel should be corrected for both clarity and consistency.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:DG bothers me, as it appears to be a Dow Quinta. I do not see a viable alternative. There are numerous others that bother me for similar reasons, with equally lacking alternatives. GB and GC, for example. (GL and GM are Graham estates, but GB and GC aren't?) As further information, BN doesn't bother me as much because Burmester doesn't have any SQVP bottlings, so the issue for me is mostly confined to cases that might cause confusion.

The only logical solution is Dw = Dow, and that because Glenn gets confused by Duff Gordon. Not going there.

Agreed. As noted, I do not see a viable alternative. I mentioned it only in case it might spark an alternative from someone else.

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Vale Meão: VM or Mã? Perhaps I prefer the latter.

I agree with Derek that letters not displayed on the keyboard should not be used. That said, I prefer VM to Ma (or Mã) regardless. Do you refer to the Port as "Meão" alone? I do not. Thus VM over Mã.

Similarly, if you wish to shorten TVVV it should be shortened to VVV, not TVV, as that's how we refer to the Port. (I do not recommend shortening the official abbreviation, as doing so would break formatting consistency.)

jdaw1 wrote:Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC. We haven’t used CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, so am willing to concede on them.

Understood. In that case, I recommend a simple and easy solution: post a clarification/notice of change in the summary thread indicating the change. As the book is/will be a permanent record, the rules should be as standard and clear as possible upon publication. If truly desired, the old threads could be edited to conform.

Unless I'm simply not seeing it, Porto Rocha is missing. Which I noticed because, technically, Sz is Porto Souza, not just Souza.

If Sz, then Rc (?). Reasoning: Avoid Ro vs RO confusion. Ra already claimed by Romaneira. Rc over Rch for brevity.

If PS, then PR.

DR and KL now stand in contrast for me with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR. (And, to a lesser extent, ChA/ChAA.) I understand the argument that "Senora" and "Sao" are less relevant words, but the inconsistency now grates. We clearly use longer abbreviations, so why not DSR and KSL?

Quinta de Nova de Nossa Senhora do Carmo is also missing. NNSC?

Glenn E. wrote:Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

If that is the team theory — precedent binned — I’ll submit. Though something is wrong with the idea of Port people casting away traditional as if it were a mere commercial convenience to be replaced with a cost-saving measure.

Glenn E. wrote:(Kh instead of Kr, Kn, or even WK for one. The 'h' is silent, so its appearance in an abbreviation is... odd at best.)

The ‘h’ is silent, which is a good objection. WK?

Glenn E. wrote:VM over Mã.

Already agreed. Done.

Glenn E. wrote:Similarly, if you wish to shorten TVVV it should be shortened to VVV, not TVV, as that's how we refer to the Port. (I do not recommend shortening the official abbreviation, as doing so would break formatting consistency.)

I’ve submitted.

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC. We haven’t used CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, so am willing to concede on them.

Understood. In that case, I recommend a simple and easy solution: post a clarification/notice of change in the summary thread indicating the change. As the book is/will be a permanent record, the rules should be as standard and clear as possible upon publication. If truly desired, the old threads could be edited to conform.

I really like the Cr/CR pair. Really like. Allow the elegance. This isn’t a programming language—perfect consistency isn’t going to happen.

I’ll tolerate the extra character in CC/CkC, nor ChA/ChAA, but not happily. It makes the placemats so much less elegant.

Glenn E. wrote:Unless I'm simply not seeing it, Porto Rocha is missing. Which I noticed because, technically, Sz is Porto Souza, not just Souza.

If Sz, then Rc (?). Reasoning: Avoid Ro vs RO confusion. Ra already claimed by Romaneira. Rc over Rch for brevity.

Omitted because almost never drunk in the UK. Added Rc = Porto Rocha; and updated Sz = Porto Souza.

Glenn E. wrote:DR and KL now stand in contrast for me with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR. (And, to a lesser extent, ChA/ChAA.) I understand the argument that "Senora" and "Sao" are less relevant words, but the inconsistency now grates. We clearly use longer abbreviations, so why not DSR and KSL?

This isn’t a programming language—perfect consistency isn’t going to happen. Some is sacrificed for brevity and elegance. Both O and OBV are listed, and the B and V are words with oomph. TSQ unavoidable and rare; TVVV should be shortened but I’m submitting to you; BBR very much the name of the firm. Would be happy with TF instead of TTF.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

If that is the team theory — precedent binned — I’ll submit. Though something is wrong with the idea of Port people casting away traditional as if it were a mere commercial convenience to be replaced with a cost-saving measure.

Tradition has merit, but so does deciding to change something for the right reason. Cost-saving is not the right analogy - we're the ones wanting more letters

I'm perfectly happy with Kh even if Kr might have seemed more natural, and would stay with tradition as well for M&S (vs MS) etc. I'm equally happy with TTF, TSR and others. Personally I prefer Kh (or Kr) to WK, since many bottles are primarily labelled Krohn (especially the VP stencils).

jdaw1 wrote:I really like the Cr/CR pair. Really like. Allow the elegance.

I can accept the odd exception, especially where well known and previously used. I personally prefer DSR and KSL to DR and DL, but would be willing to concede those too. I do think CkC better than CC though and ChAA has also been used previously; and would stay with TTF. As far as others above go, there are several cases where other options would have been possible, but I see insufficient reason for change to them.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Precedent can be wrong, as it is in this case. The format should be consistent.

If that is the team theory — precedent binned — I’ll submit. Though something is wrong with the idea of Port people casting away traditional as if it were a mere commercial convenience to be replaced with a cost-saving measure.

There is nothing wrong with this. Today we have decided that there is a new way of doing things. Tomorrow we will declare that way to be traditional, perhaps even "an ancient tradition". Isn't that how things are supposed to work in the Port industry?

On the shortening of single quinta abreviations: don't do it. The producers always refer to the quintas you are discussing here by their full names (often minus the "Quinta d*"). No one ever says Taylor's Feita.

I’ll fold on three more:
ChAA = Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
CkC = Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
DSR = Dow Quinta da Senhora da Ribeira

With the dropping of small words, should Van Zeller be VZ or just Z?

jdaw1 wrote:I’ll fold on three more:
ChAA = Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
CkC = Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
DSR = Dow Quinta da Senhora da Ribeira

With the dropping of small words, should Van Zeller be VZ or just Z?

It would be cruel to steal the V from him. I vote for VZ.

Agree, would definitely stay with VZ.

Much discussion. Hopefully I won't miss anything.

I still feel that we should be as consistent as possible, but will bend to the will of the team. This is our one real chance to update and standardize... once it is in print we're pretty much stuck with it. Not all that long ago Ck would have been C, but we made that change.

I prefer Kr (or, less so, Kn) to WK or Kh. I have many bottles of Krohn in which Wiese is only listed in the fine print. No one other than a Port geek would know that the firm's full name is Wiese & Krohn from those bottles.

Cr/CR doesn't look like a pair to me. It looks like Ports from two different producers - the first Croft, and the second being some unknown shipper with two words or possibly some new "C" shipper with an "R" quinta. But I will go with the group if Cr/CR is ultimately the decision.

I believe that I tend toward clarity over brevity, so am happy with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR as they are. To them I would add DSR and KSL. (DSR done, I now note.) To me, Senhora is at least as oomphy as Boa. And Sao means Saint, which seems pretty oomphy to me.

No, really, NNSC? I have a bottle of their 2009 LBV if you'd like a picture. (At least I think it's the 2009 LBV... but I have a bottle of something from them.)

VZ for me, too.

As previously noted, there are numerous other small things I would change that I have not bothered to bring up because they are not significant enough to warrant discussion. Kr over Kh was the most significant of those.

Glenn E. wrote:I still feel that we should be as consistent as possible, but will bend to the will of the team. This is our one real chance to update and standardize... once it is in print we're pretty much stuck with it.

That is fair, and why this thread was re-awakened.

Glenn E. wrote:I prefer Kr (or, less so, Kn) to WK or Kh. I have many bottles of Krohn in which Wiese is only listed in the fine print. No one other than a Port geek would know that the firm's full name is Wiese & Krohn from those bottles.

Krohn is rarely seen in this sceptred isle. Precedent not so important. People please vote from: Kh, Kr, Kn, WK? Second preferences allowed. (And don’t dismiss WK on grounds of geekiness — port tastings are for geeks. C.f., BI = Borges & Irmão.)

Glenn E. wrote:Cr/CR doesn't look like a pair to me. It looks like Ports from two different producers - the first Croft, and the second being some unknown shipper with two words or possibly some new "C" shipper with an "R" quinta. But I will go with the group if Cr/CR is ultimately the decision.

Side-by-side, it’s a splendid pair.

Glenn E. wrote:I believe that I tend toward clarity over brevity, so am happy with TTF, TSQ, TVVV, OBV, and BBR as they are. To them I would add DSR …. (DSR done, I now note.) To me, Senhora is at least as oomphy as Boa. … VZ for me, too.

All these already agreed and done. No further discussion necessary.

Glenn E. wrote:and KSL. … And Sao means Saint, which seems pretty oomphy to me.

We disagree. If there’s a strongly-held consensus against me, I’ll fold, but it needs to be strong as KL plenty clear, and supported by brevity and precedent.

Glenn E. wrote:No, really, NNSC? I have a bottle of their 2009 LBV if you'd like a picture. (At least I think it's the 2009 LBV... but I have a bottle of something from them.)

This omission to be fixed, but ideally more concisely. Would Nv be acceptable? (Is there risk of confusion with Quinta da Fonte Nova (FN?) or with any of the Quinta do Noval possibilities — Noval Silval, Quinta do Noval Quinta do Marco, Quinta do Noval Silval (NS?), Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval?) But NNSC11 is just too long for where it needs to go.

Glenn E. wrote:As previously noted, there are numerous other small things I would change that I have not bothered to bring up because they are not significant enough to warrant discussion. Kr over Kh was the most significant of those.

Now is the chance. Or hold thy peace.


Also changing one name. GB = Gonzalez Byass rather than González Byass, as the Port was never labelled with the accent even though the modern Sherry company does use it.

VZ for me also. In terms of the others still to be determined, I go back to my first post regarding Krohn and agree with Glenn that Kr sounds more 'natural' than any of the other alternatives (I would also disagree regarding Krohn's lack of presence in the UK-it's been a regular fixture in two wine shops in Swansea alone!). I would still be inclined towards CrR rather than CR to avoid the unwary believing the latter is Cr. However, I will defer to Julian's obvious passion on this one. No fixed views on KL v KSL (less seen than the Kr).

I vote for CrR rather than CR. We don't have a shipper abbreviated as C, and if one were to come along, then CR could be confusing, whereas Cr will not. Also, isn't there some syntax precedence with:
Cá = Cálem
CáF = Cálem Quinta da Foz
Ch = Churchill
ChA = Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
Df = Delaforce
DfC = Delaforce Quinta da Corte
Fr = Ferreira
FrS = Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
FrP = Ferreira Quinta do Porto

I know CR has been used in the past, but Julian got it wrong back then

jdaw1 wrote:People please vote from: Kh, Kr, Kn, WK? Second preferences allowed. (And don’t dismiss WK on grounds of geekiness — port tastings are for geeks. C.f., BI = Borges & Irmão.)

First preference Kr, second Kh (on grounds of previous use).

jdaw1 wrote:Would Nv be acceptable?

Fine with me.

n.b. Quinta da Roêda (note circumflex)

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:I prefer Kr (or, less so, Kn) to WK or Kh. I have many bottles of Krohn in which Wiese is only listed in the fine print. No one other than a Port geek would know that the firm's full name is Wiese & Krohn from those bottles.

Krohn is rarely seen in this sceptred isle. Precedent not so important. People please vote from: Kh, Kr, Kn, WK? Second preferences allowed. (And don’t dismiss WK on grounds of geekiness — port tastings are for geeks. C.f., BI = Borges & Irmão.)

Kr first, Kn second. Kh and WK are equally last for me.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:No, really, NNSC? I have a bottle of their 2009 LBV if you'd like a picture. (At least I think it's the 2009 LBV... but I have a bottle of something from them.)

This omission to be fixed, but ideally more concisely. Would Nv be acceptable? (Is there risk of confusion with Quinta da Fonte Nova (FN?) or with any of the Quinta do Noval possibilities — Noval Silval, Quinta do Noval Quinta do Marco, Quinta do Noval Silval (NS?), Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval?) But NNSC11 is just too long for where it needs to go.

Nv seems like it should work. My memory was telling me that there's already a different Quinta called Quinta Nova (or something similar), but I cannot find any such Quinta via Google. Further supporting Nv is the fact that the Quinta's own website is http://www.quintanova.com.

This should (hopefully) not cause confusion with Quinta do Noval, as that's been given 'N' as its abbreviation. Thus making NS appropriate for all variations of Silval (per the GM ruling), and NM appropriate for Noval Quinta do Marco. Polo.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:As previously noted, there are numerous other small things I would change that I have not bothered to bring up because they are not significant enough to warrant discussion. Kr over Kh was the most significant of those.

Now is the chance. Or hold thy peace.

Duly noted. Holding, as the remaining quibbles aren't worth the discussion.

List above updated. I’ve conceded on most disagreements. Some features:

jdaw1 wrote:ChAA = Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
…
Ck = Cockburn
CkC = Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
…
Cr = Croft
CR = Croft Quinta da Roêda
…
GB = Gonzalez Byass
…
VM = Quinta de Vale Meão
Ms = Messias
MC = Messias Quinta do Cachão
…
Nv = Quinta Nova de Nossa Senhora do Carmo
…
NS = Quinta do Noval Silval
…
TSQ = Taylor Special Quinta
TTF = Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
TV = Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
TVVV = Taylor Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha
…
VZ = Van Zeller

Later I will delete from this thread all non-up-to-date lists, to prevent confusion in those arriving from Google.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:I hope so. If you're not, there are a number of other places where you have favoured clarity over brevity; I'm hesitant to point them all out for fear of making the list less readable; Please just give in

Backward compatibility also desirable, so reluctant to fold on CR and MC....

I'm not sure what gets damaged by sacrificing backward compatibility in the Croft and Messias cases. With hindsight, CrR would have been a more clear and consistent choice of abbreviation. A once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself now, to correct a previous misstep.

jdaw1 wrote:…
CrR = Croft Quinta da Roêda
…
KL = Kopke Quinta São Luiz
…
MsC = Messias Quinta do Cachão

You are all ganging up on me. It’s a conspiracy.

My lawyer says that I should take the plea-bargain. He’s in the conspiracy too.

Should we vote on whether Luiz deserves to lose his sainthood?

PhilW wrote:Should we vote on whether Luiz deserves to lose his sainthood?

No. I have given a whole class of concessions. KL.

CR versus CrR:


First so much more elegant.

I think the above is a good demonstration of the advantage of brevity from a visual perspective; I am partly persuaded that it would be worth attempting to keep the complete abbreviation to three letters where possible, though I would still prefer to keep the original house abbreviation intact. This does mean I feel slightly more favourable towards ChA and TVV than previously, as alternative to the four letter versions.

PhilW wrote:I think the above is a good demonstration of the advantage of brevity from a visual perspective; I am partly persuaded that it would be worth attempting to keep the complete abbreviation to three letters where possible

Three better than four; two better than three.

I believe both can be improved visually by a small gap between central and circular text (mitigating, not negating the point).

PhilW wrote:I believe both can be improved visually by a small gap between central and circular text (mitigating, not negating the point).

Actually, reducing the amount of space available.

My hope is to persuade people that brevity is an important desideratum.

While I agree that brevity is important, I strongly feel that clarity is more important.

Also, placemats should not be the driving factor behind this decision.

Willing to concede KL, though I do feel that KSL is much more correct. No one refers to the quinta as "Luis".

Glenn E. wrote:Also, placemats should not be the driving factor behind this decision.

It is the main purpose of the abbreviations. Willing to consider the problem more generally, but ignoring the main purpose seems wrong.

jdaw1 wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Also, placemats should not be the driving factor behind this decision.

It is the main purpose of the abbreviations. Willing to consider the problem more generally, but ignoring the main purpose seems wrong.

I thought it was to make it easier to refer to things like the 2009 Quinta Nova de Nossa Senhora do Carmo Late Bottled Vintage Port during internet discussions amongst geeks. Even less extreme examples such as F85 are much simpler and easier to write.

Placemats may have been the original purpose, but it seems to me at this point that common and recognizable abbreviations on internet forums (and in books!) is more important.

Glenn E. wrote:I thought it was to make it easier to refer to things like the 2009 Quinta Nova de Nossa Senhora do Carmo Late Bottled Vintage Port during internet discussions amongst geeks. Even less extreme examples such as F85 are much simpler and easier to write.

Placemats may have been the original purpose, but it seems to me at this point that common and recognizable abbreviations on internet forums (and in books!) is more important.

Which still says that one of the purposes, for a significant proportion even if not the same proportion for everybody, requires brevity.

Sogrape themselves don’t think São sufficiently important to be written in full:

Sogrape wrote:S. Luiz Vineyard

Quinta S. Luiz is situated …. Today, Quinta de S. Luiz cover 125 hectares of total area, which 90 hectares have, vineyards. The planting of the vineyards in the Quinta de S. Luiz has always been done using ….

*CURIOSITY Quinta S. Luiz was owned by C.N. Kopke & Cª in 1922…

KL.

jdaw1 wrote:Sogrape themselves don’t think São sufficiently important to be written in full:

Sogrape wrote:S. Luiz Vineyard

Quinta S. Luiz is situated …. Today, Quinta de S. Luiz cover 125 hectares of total area, which 90 hectares have, vineyards. The planting of the vineyards in the Quinta de S. Luiz has always been done using ….

*CURIOSITY Quinta S. Luiz was owned by C.N. Kopke & Cª in 1922…

KL.

I rarely see "saint" written out in full, either. Inconclusive - it's simply a commonly abbreviated word.

Wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, abbreviations...

Catching up on things which were discussed while I was on holiday, I've just read through this thread.

Am I too late to join in? Is the list on page 2 the current final version of the list? Do we need to discuss further the abbreviations for Noval Silval, Noval Quinta do Silval, Quinta do Noval Quinto do Silval?

Also, I would observe that the most frequent use of the abbreviations is not on placemats, but in the discussion threads on this board when clarity is much more important that brevity. In the past I have agreed to swap bottles with a fellow port lover but received Feuerheerd port instead of the Ferreira port I had expected! (Although, for the sake of the feelings of the person concerned, I want to stress that I was actually delighted to receive the Feuerheerd port as it was something I had not tried very often before and had never owned.)

AHB wrote:Am I too late to join in?

No. Not final until book at publisher.

AHB wrote:Is the list on page 2 the current final version of the list?

It doesn’t have to be.

AHB wrote:Do we need to discuss further the abbreviations for Noval Silval, Noval Quinta do Silval, Quinta do Noval Quinto do Silval?

{Sigh} Perhaps.

AHB wrote:Also, I would observe that the most frequent use of the abbreviations is not on placemats, but in the discussion threads on this board when clarity is much more important that brevity. In the past I have agreed to swap bottles with a fellow port lover but received Feuerheerd port instead of the Ferreira port I had expected! (Although, for the sake of the feelings of the person concerned, I want to stress that I was actually delighted to receive the Feuerheerd port as it was something I had not tried very often before and had never owned.)

Feuerheerd = Fd. Hard to confuse. Concise (me happy) and unambiguous. Ferreira, with three r’s, is Fr. If clarity so much more important than brevity, one could use ‘abbreviations’ of “Feuerheerd” and “Ferreira”: not concise, but unlikely to be confused.

For me, the abbreviations must be (in order of importance):
Consistently used
Intuitive and unambiguous
Brief

I like Fd, Fr but not Fe. Feist could be Ft, which would be unambiguous.

I like D for Dow. DB works as Bomfim but causes confusion when used close to DG. I would prefer single letter shippers to have double letter Quinta abbreviations. Thus you would have DBo, DSR and these would be distinct from DG. To be consistent you could run this further and have GMa, GST, WCa, VCp etc.

AHB wrote:For me, the abbreviations must be (in order of importance):
Consistently used
Intuitive and unambiguous
Brief

For me, approximately equally weighted.

AHB wrote:I like Fd, Fr but not Fe. Feist could be Ft, which would be unambiguous.

As I say ‘Feist’, the ‘s’ is stronger than the ‘t’. Would you object to ‘Fs’ — which cannot be confused with Feuerheerd, nor with Ferreira?

AHB wrote:I like D for Dow. DB works as Bomfim but causes confusion when used close to DG. I would prefer single letter shippers to have double letter Quinta abbreviations. Thus you would have DBo, DSR and these would be distinct from DG. To be consistent you could run this further and have GMa, GST, WCa, VCp etc.

Brevity important for me. ‘GM’ = Malvedos. ‘GST’ acceptable for the — alas rare — Stone Terraces. Cavadinha = WC; Capela = VC. Brevity important.

List in first post of this thread.

jdaw1 wrote:Updated list:

List looks good to me.

Two added:
SJ = A Pinto dos Santos Júnior
Ud = O-Port-Unidade (precedent)

PhilW wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Updated list:

List looks good to me.

And me.

Do we need an 'E' to fill out the alphabet? I was backing up pictures and ran across several from my 50th birthday party. This was the cake. Everything above the silver-wrapped serving board is edible.

What about Real Vinicola?

(I'm happy with the proposed Fs for Feist.)

AHB wrote:What about Real Vinicola?

= RO?

No, a different brand owned by the same company. The same only in the sense that Gould Campbell and Quarles Harris are the same. While the same wine could be used for the different labels, it was also equally possible that different juice was used.

RVi? RVc? Pee? RVo?


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk