ThePortForum.com

DRT wrote:Don't shoot the messenger!

I have no responsibility for the list of standard abbreviations so you will have to present your case to our local ISO Accreditor.

He seems to be busy organising offlines and therefore distracted for the moment. I'll take this opportunity to also point out that the ISO standard abbreviation for Cockburn is wrong and should be Ck, not C

AHB wrote: Royal Oporto - RO
Quinta das Carvalhas - ROc
Real Vinicola - ROv
Real Compania Velha del Norte - ROn

In general, big words in names of things (‟da” ∉ big) are capitalised. So Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas should be ROC. My memory, rather vague today, thinks that I have used exactly this abbreviation for this. Also very content with RON.

But is there any difference between Royal Oporto and Real Vinicola? I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that one was the customary English name and the other the customary Portuguese name for the same company. If one name implies this-quinta-not-that, and the other name does not, then different abbreviations should be used. Guidance welcomed.

AHB wrote:Cockburn is wrong and should be Ck, not C

I am exerting a little parental authority here: no. Cockburn had a century of being the most prestigious and highly-priced port, and for that reason is awarded the single letter. The records are very clear about the former (and perhaps future) relative prestige of this name.

jdaw1 wrote:But is there any difference between Royal Oporto and Real Vinicola? I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that one was the customary English name and the other the customary Portuguese name for the same company. If one name implies this-quinta-not-that, and the other name does not, then different abbreviations should be used. Guidance welcomed.

I honestly don't know whether there is a difference in blends or grapes between these two labels, but I have seen the same vintage bottled under both labels. I don't know whether this is a marketing difference (cif. Dalva and Presidential) or a compositional difference (cif. Warre and Dow). Does anyone have a contact in the company who might be able to help us?

AHB wrote:whether this is a marketing difference (cif. Dalva and Presidential) or a compositional difference (cif. Warre and Dow).

I agree that the implied question is the correct test.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:Cockburn is wrong and should be Ck, not C

I am exerting a little parental authority here: no. Cockburn had a century of being the most prestigious and highly-priced port, and for that reason is awarded the single letter. The records are very clear about the former (and perhaps future) relative prestige of this name.

I have previously challenged this but conceded and agreed it was appropriate. However, there is now new evidence that should perhaps cause a re-think.

When visiting my local Tesco today I saw a large number of bottles of Cockburn Special Reserve on the shelf. Each bottle had a plastic neck tag, similar to the old style cellar tags which slip around the neck of a horizontal bottle upon which the name of the wine would be written. These labels something like this printed on them...

COCKBURN
WE'RE BACK

This makes me think that the Symingtons are using CK as an abbreviation for their newly acquired company. Perhaps we should do the same to avoid confusion in years to come?

I”m not entirely happy with basing my system on CSR (compare: CkSR), but I am willing to consider giving the Symingtons a limited choice: C, or Ck (lower-case ‘k’). No other shipper has been given any choice: are we happy with this?

And if the Syms choose Ck, should the next-most-important C!, Croft, be offered the C?

I am not suggesting giving any shipper a choice or any preferential treatment. What we use should be intuitive and logical, whether the shippers would have chosen the same abbreviation is somewhat irrelevant as 99% of them haven't chosen one. This is an exception as it appears to me that the Symington marketing team have hooked onto CK as being an abbreviation for the name of the house. If that last the test of time it will come into common usage amongst port drinkers and our "C" will seem illogical and potentially confusing.

I use Ck as the abbreviation in my notes and cellar records, purely as - to me - it seems to be the intuitive (and somewhat ironic given that the ck is silent) abbreviation of Cockburn.

jdaw1 wrote:And if the Syms choose Ck, should the next-most-important C!, Croft, be offered the C?

My vote is for use of Ck and Cr, as they are unambiguous. F, G, D, T, W - everyone knows who you are talking about. But there seems to be scope for confusion when using "C" alone.

RAYC wrote:My vote is for use of Ck and Cr, as they are unambiguous. F, G, D, T, W - everyone knows who you are talking about. But there seems to be scope for confusion when using "C" alone.

D = Delaforce or Dow?

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:My vote is for use of Ck and Cr, as they are unambiguous. F, G, D, T, W - everyone knows who you are talking about. But there seems to be scope for confusion when using "C" alone.

D = Delaforce or Dow?

Dow, as i would guess the vast majority would also assume due to their relative prominence in people's awareness! Croft and Cockburn - tough call, for me at least (having tried only a very limited number of pre-60 bottles of either)

RAYC wrote:relative prominence

Cockburn was, from the mid eighteen hundreds until after WW2, The Shipper. Cockburn, then Taylor, then the rest.

I understand the amnesia of today’s youth, who, deprived of a grammar-school education by KGB agent Barbara Castle, have no sense of history, a youth who live in an immediate present with no sense of a past stretching behind nor a future ahead. But do we, members of TPF, need to have our labelling of the world shaped by such a Soviet victory? Absolutely not.

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:relative prominence

Cockburn was, from the mid eighteen hundreds until after WW2, The Shipper. Cockburn, then Taylor, then the rest.

I understand the amnesia of today’s youth, who, deprived of a grammar-school education by KGB agent Barbara Castle, have no sense of history, a youth who live in an immediate present with no sense of a past stretching behind nor a future ahead. But do we, members of TPF, need to have our labelling of the world shaped by such a Soviet victory? Absolutely not.

Very persuasive.

jdaw1 wrote:Cockburn was, from the mid eighteen hundreds until after WW2, The Shipper. Cockburn, then Taylor, then the rest.

I understand the amnesia of today’s youth, who, deprived of a grammar-school education by KGB agent Barbara Castle, have no sense of history, a youth who live in an immediate present with no sense of a past stretching behind nor a future ahead. But do we, members of TPF, need to have our labelling of the world shaped by such a Soviet victory? Absolutely not.

Croft took its name in 1736. Cockburn did not even exist for the first 79 or so years that it was shipped as such.

RAYC wrote:relative prominence

RAYC wrote:Croft took its name in 1736. Cockburn did not even exist for the first 79 or so years that it was shipped as such.

Do you want prominence or order of foundation? Or whichever suits your particular desires at that moment?

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:relative prominence

RAYC wrote:Croft took its name in 1736. Cockburn did not even exist for the first 79 or so years that it was shipped as such.

Do you want prominence or order of foundation? Or whichever suits your particular desires at that moment?

I prefer relative current prominence.

But you were making reference to the historical perspective ("Back in my day" etc.). I was merely pointing out that there is more than one side to that argument!

jdaw1 wrote:

RAYC wrote:My vote is for use of Ck and Cr, as they are unambiguous. F, G, D, T, W - everyone knows who you are talking about. But there seems to be scope for confusion when using "C" alone.

D = Delaforce or Dow?

or Dalva, and F could theoretically be Fonseca or Ferreira etc.
I would have expected the current most well known to be the first entered into such a list and therefore to get the single letters; the definition of well-known being arguable, but at least F,G,T,D, possibly others. I would then have used the actual shippers second letter in addition either for the original and subsequent, or just for the subsequent e.g. Co, Cr and Ch, only using an alternate second such as Ck if needed for disambiguation to keep the abbreviation short (if we had shippers called Cobalt and Cockburn and C was already used, for example).

Fundamentally though, it's probably a case of "first in gets the most obvious abbreviations" since that avoids changing already entered and referenced information. I wonder what we would use (given QdN already used) if a new house called "Quinta da Nalva" started releasing VP.... though I'm sure we'd manage.

PhilW wrote:I wonder what we would use (given QdN already used) if a new house called "Quinta da Nalva" started releasing VP.... though I'm sure we'd manage.

That's easy. We would use whatever Julian decides. Given the number of abbreviations he (alone) has already come up with, it is difficult to fault or criticise his logic.

We have questioned the use of "C" here and met with resistance and logical argument. I vote to give in and keep Cockburn as "C". Principally because of this!

PhilW wrote:since that avoids changing already entered and referenced information.

PhilW wrote:Fonseca or Ferreira

A good test of those proposing giving priority by date of start of the business.

Hello boys...!!! Thank you Julian for drawing my attention to this thread...

Me, I would vote for Ck - as Derek so rightly points out, the new Cockburn's branding and marketing play with the "ck", stressing the need to pronounce responsibly!! No other port brand has quite this issue with their consonants I think, so Ck could only be Cockburn's in most people's minds, I think!

And if this discussion gets way too heated and you all to need to stop for a chuckle, I will leave you with this...
http://youtu.be/rsl1zCyJ370

Happy New Year!

Hahahaha... love it, Cynthia!

My only counter to Julian's argument is that TPF did not exist when Cockburn was dominant. If popularity is going to be the deciding factor for awarding single-letter abbreviations, then it should be based on the popularity when the abbreviations are awarded.

Personally, I don't think that any 'C' Port deserves the single letter. None are as clearly distinguised from the others as Fonseca is from other Fs, Graham is from other Gs, etc. It might be possible to argue for Croft at this point, but 5 years ago I don't think you could have made that argument.

Is there anybody other than me who prefers C to Ck? If that’s you, speak soon.

From a 1932 wine list of Fortnum & Mason:

Cockburn, then Taylor, then the rest.

Do you have a similar example from the period, say, 1750 - 1800...?

The 1900 catalogue from Harrods has multiple 1896s: Cockburn at 36/0; Martinez at 34/0; Dow, Croft, Taylor Fladgate, and Feuerheerd Zimbro at 33/0; and Fonseca and Smith Woodhouse at 31/0.

I'm not sure what the picture above is trying to demonstrate. All I see is a list of shippers in alphabetical order.

DRT wrote:I'm not sure what the picture above is trying to demonstrate.

Observe prices.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:I'm not sure what the picture above is trying to demonstrate.

Observe prices.

I can't see the prices. It looks like this on my machine...

You could have right-clicked and selected your browser’s equivalent of Open Image in New Tab.

But instead I’ve shrunk the image.

jdaw1 wrote:You could have right-clicked and selected your browser’s equivalent of Open Image in New Tab.

But instead I’ve shrunk the image.

Your second solution was more elegant than your first. Yes, I know that wounds you deeply.

Hmm..

There being several shippers that have a C initial, I don't normally use C on its own for any of them; and just to be awkward, I've long been in the habit of abbreviating Cockburn to Co, which does not cause confusion. I would refer to Canais as CoC.

The 'official' list of abreviations is a little opaque with some of the other C's - Ch clearly references Churchill, so it seems logical for Agua Alta to be ChA and Gricha to be ChG rather than the CAA and CG listed.

Oh well.. - Happy new year!

Tom