ThePortForum.com

The following abbreviations are used ...

<snip> - list moved to first post in thread.

List in first post of this thread.

I've been giving some thought the matter of abbreviations and how we cope with general declarations, lesser declarations, the growth of single quinta wines and also the changing of ownership of quintas.

It seems to me that the only way we could cope was to have a structure that essentially went:
Part 1; Part 2; vintage

Part 1 would identify the shipper, if a shipper was relevant.
Part 2 would identify the quinta, if the port was sourced from a single quinta (or vineyard)
The vintage could be abbreviated, but this could lead to confusion whether we were referring to Taylor 1811, 1911 or 2011.

On this basis you could quickly have a set of rules that allowed flexibility. Consider the example of Vargellas sourced wines:
In 1912, Taylor made a vintage port, a Vargellas single quinta port and a Vargellas single quinta port from the old vines (OK, so they didn't make the latter but just bear with me for the example).
The abbreviations could be:
T 1912
T Vg 1912
T VgVV 1912

This naming structure also allows flexibility so that prior to Taylor Fladgate owning Vargellas, you would have had "Fe Vg 1878", this being the Vargellas 1878 produced under the Ferreira ownership.

If at a point in the future Vargellas become independently owned, the wines would just be identified as Vg 2050.

This type of naming convention would allow a quick search to find all wines produced by a particular shipper or from a particular quinta, or a combination of the two.

It would create some headaches as there would have to be no duplications between quinta abbreviations and shipper abbreviations but it would also help with differentiating between some of the quirks like Quinta do Noval Silval (NoS) and Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval (No Si). A search on "No" would pull out both wines but still allow a more refined search to identify only one of the two.

One of the desiderata is brevity. ‟TV96” works a lot of the time. FrVg1878 (or FeVg1878) is a much smaller proportion of my diet.

jdaw1 wrote:One of the desiderata is brevity. ‟TV96” works a lot of the time. FrVg1878 (or FeVg1878) is a much smaller proportion of my diet.

True - it is a balance between completeness, brevity and clarity.

If we are just looking for a commonly understood abbreviation then TV96 mostly works.

If we're looking for something which in years to come can be searched and found and understood with clarity then TV96 will generally work, but will leave room for confusion - Taylor Vargellas 1896 or 1996?

Perhaps a quick solution is to abbreviate only where there is potential confusion? Thus TV96 would be TV1996 or TV1896 but FeV78 would be just that? Or perhaps abbreviate 20th century vintages and those where there is no confusion - TV96, TV1896 and FeV78

But life is too short for me to become too worried about this. If we develop a common standard, I will use it; otherwise I will use common sense.

jdaw1 wrote:One of the desiderata is brevity. ‟TV96” works a lot of the time. FrVg1878 (or FeVg1878) is a much smaller proportion of my diet.

Also, we have to allow for user having a certain amount of brain at their disposal. Perhaps not the end of the world if they are presented with a choice between 1878 and 1978 on searching for a particular wine. They will have very little to do in order to find the notes on the tipple by which they are confronted at that moment. Of course, an infallible system that is ready for any eventuality is always good. Good luck with that one...

Perhaps what is wanted is a system with AHB-style longer abbreviations, but also with concise versions to be used only where context disambiguates.

jdaw1 wrote:Perhaps what is wanted is a system with AHB-style longer abbreviations, but also with concise versions to be used only where context disambiguates.

thoroughly sensible. +1

Agree with all of AHB's post, plus the benefit of brevity/simplicity.

jdaw1 wrote:Perhaps what is wanted is a system with AHB-style longer abbreviations, but also with concise versions to be used only where context disambiguates.

Agree, though I would suggest the additional rule that the Shipper should never be abbreviated.

PhilW wrote:Agree, though I would suggest the additional rule that the Shipper should never be abbreviated.

So, for Churchill Agua Alta, you want ChAA rather than CAA. Presumably you give greater weight to internal consistency than to brevity.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:Agree, though I would suggest the additional rule that the Shipper should never be abbreviated.

So, for Churchill Agua Alta, you want ChAA rather than CAA. Presumably you give greater weight to internal consistency than to brevity.

I would also accept ChA for brevity (thought ChAA seems more natural), but yes, very strong dislike for CAA.

PhilW wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:Agree, though I would suggest the additional rule that the Shipper should never be abbreviated.

So, for Churchill Agua Alta, you want ChAA rather than CAA. Presumably you give greater weight to internal consistency than to brevity.

I would also accept ChA for brevity (thought ChAA seems more natural), but yes, very strong dislike for CAA.

Agreed. CAA would be a Cockburn property.

List in first post of this thread.

I would make the following changes:

Ck = Cockburn
VC = Vesuvio Capela

and would suggest:

ChAA Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
DSR Dow Quinta da Senhora da Ribeira
KSL = Kopke Quinta São Luiz

Agree with Phil regarding the Ck and VC. Is there any reason why Krohn isn't Kr?

PhilW wrote:Ck = Cockburn

Oops, I started from an old list. Agreed.

PhilW wrote:VC = Vesuvio Capela

idj123 wrote:Agree with Phil regarding the Ck and VC.

Clarity versus pedantry. I’m happy with either. VC it is.

PhilW wrote:ChAA Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta

I prefer the brevity of ChA, which is still unique.

PhilW wrote:DSR Dow Quinta da Senhora da Ribeira

Senhora feels to me to be a low-information word, hence my preferring the DB-like DR. Other votes?

PhilW wrote:KSL = Kopke Quinta São Luiz

São is definitely a low-information word. Yes yes, obviously Luiz’s mother was pleased with the promotion, but for our purposes, low-information. And KL traditional: 27 June 2009, 23 Oct 2009, 16 March 2010, 28 Sep 2010 (which also has Kh for Krohn), and 20 Jan 2013.

idj123 wrote:Is there any reason why Krohn isn't Kr?

None except being traditional. Though WK also has merit.

Additional suggestions:

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. (This has been previously suggested by Phil.)

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.

Question: do you distinguish between Graham Malvedos and Graham Quinta dos Malvedos?

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) ).

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.

Glenn E. wrote:Question: do you distinguish between Graham Malvedos and Graham Quinta dos Malvedos?

The abbreviations are meant to cope as well as concision allows with almost all relevant cases. Are there any years in which there are both Graham Malvedos and Graham Quinta dos Malvedos? No. Good.

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

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.

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

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.