A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
I was pretty sure we had a list, somewhere, of abbreviations but each time I go looking for it I can't find it. Do you have the URL handy for us? We used QV for Quevedo, after much discussion about Vesuvio and Vargellas (which are apparently other abbreviations).jdaw1 wrote:3. H = Hutcheson, which might be worse than Hooper.
You know, I've looked at that list multiple times wondering why it wasn't there, and only just realized i've been skimming right over it.Glenn E. wrote:There isn't a separate listing of abbrevations that I'm aware of, but you can easily find them by using the alphabetical index of tasting notes in the TN forum.
Such a system works until the Quinta changes hands; for instance, it would seem inappropriate to abbreviate Vargellas 1890 as TV 1890Glenn E. wrote:Taylor (Fladgate) Quinta de Vargellas is TV to indicate that it is Taylor's Vargellas and not an independent Quinta.
Ahh, back to building a singl definitive list of port names from which the abbreviations flow readily.JacobH wrote:Such a system works until the Quinta changes hands; for instance, it would seem inappropriate to abbreviate Vargellas 1890 as TV 1890
Agreed. But to me it would also seem inappropriate for them to use the same abbreviation, because the cash influx from the purchase of a large Quinta like that can easily change the entire dynamic of the estate. Thus creating, essentially, an entirely new producer.JacobH wrote:Such a system works until the Quinta changes hands; for instance, it would seem inappropriate to abbreviate Vargellas 1890 as TV 1890Glenn E. wrote:Taylor (Fladgate) Quinta de Vargellas is TV to indicate that it is Taylor's Vargellas and not an independent Quinta.
One might also say that someone who truly appreciated the Port would know in which years the quinta or house had each owner, and thus the combination of abbreviation and year would say everything necessary. (snark snark)Glenn E. wrote:It's a difficult decision, in no small part because there are only so many reasonable combinations of suitable letters available. If a Quinta changes hands a few times over 100 years, does it really need to have a different abbreviation for each set of owners?
Might, I wondered, be of general amusement.[url=http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/placemat/placemat.html#examples]The Manual[/url], following a recent addition, wrote:As further examples, the following link to placemats from actual tastings, or draft placemats for future tastings. Note: some of these required expert use of the program’s features; most were made with an earlier version of the software. â—¦ 22nd March 2010, Malvedos; â—¦ 23rd February 2010, Vesuvio; â—¦ 1st February 2010, bring a bottle; â—¦ 30th January 2010, decanter labels; â—¦ 5th January 2010, 1985 or 1970; â—¦ 17th December 2009, blind tasting at The Bell; â—¦ 13th November 2009, partially blind double vertical; â—¦ 13th November 2009, bring a bottle; â—¦ 28th October 2009, Portal Restaurant; â—¦ 23rd October 2009, Paris; â—¦ 14th October 2009, AHB’s birthday; â—¦ 2nd October 2009, Warre vertical; â—¦ 29th June 2009, best mature ports; â—¦ 26th June 2009, Sandeman; â—¦ 13th June 2009, Fonseca mini-vertical; â—¦ 13th February 2009, Graham; â—¦ 30th January 2009, Horizontal of 1970; â—¦ 3rd January 2009, Emergency Port.
Rephrased for the hard of understanding: before pre-pouring glasses, put one of these sheets on a tray, then fourteen glasses on that. Then pour. Should reduce the what-is-on-this-tray type of confusion.The Manual wrote:â—Š Tastings arranged on ThePortForum are for a maximum of fourteen people, in order to give a 5cl portion to each person (75cl bottle, less the angels’ share and less a little loss during decanting leaves only an edge more than 14×5cl = 70cl). At a tasting attended by eight people, decanters can circulate and people help themselves. But when there are fourteen people and so only 5cl each, portions need to be pre-poured. Typically this necessitates many trays holding fourteen glasses, and, to avoid confusion, these trays should be labelled: a sheet of paper on each tray.
The Manual wrote:Why both decanter labels and bottle labels? Decanter labels are ‘front of house’, intended to match very closely the design on the glasses sheets, and to be pasted to business cards and hung around decanters. Because of the desired close match between glasses sheets and decanter labels, the decanter labels are generated as a special type of glasses sheet, omitting the inappropriate elements.
So go back in time, to the start of decanting. Some bottles will be clearly labelled. Others might have little more than a capsule, so after opening, could be entirely unlabelled. To prevent confusion there should be, printed onto sheets of sticky labels, a means of avoiding the potential confusion. These are the bottle labels, and their specification largely requires describing the sheet of labels.
Bottle labels appear if BottleLabelsNumCopies exceeds zero, and multiple copies are permitted. The following are then defined assuming that the page is portrait.The default parameters were fitted to Ryman product 0220013460 (or equivalently 0220023460), being 8 labels per A4 sheet. Therefore those constrained to /USL (8½″×11″) will need to alter the bottle-label specification.
- BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitNumRows is the number of rows.
- BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitNumCols is the number of columns.
- BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapBetweenRows is the gap between the rows of labels. ! Likewise, BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapBetweenCols is the gap between the columns of labels. !
- BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapL is the margin on the left of the page, that is, the gap between the edge of the page and the left edge of the leftmost column of labels. Mutatis mutandis, BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapR, BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapT, and BottleLabelsWithPagePortraitGapB.
- BottleLabelsPaperType is the paper type of the sticky labels, accepting values such as /A4 or /USL, and defaulting to TastingNotesPaperType.
Examples of this new page can be found on the 10th page of the PDF example, and also on the last sheet of the paperwork for the forthcoming 1982 horizontal.The Manual wrote:• Points: The Vote Recorder
â—Š At the end of a tasting there is typically a vote for the Wine Of The Night (WOTN), and for large tastings there might also be a vote after each flight or page. The vote is not usually secret, people being asked to declare 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places (scoring 3, 2, 1). To assist the ‘returning officer’ there are VoteRecorderNumCopies copies of a single sheet of paper on which votes can be recorded. It is the points that should be recorded, rather than the ranks, as doing so simplifies the addition of the totals. (There is also benefit in there being agreement as to what is recorded: if you record, but I retain the vote-recorder sheet and enter it into a description of the tasting, it is useful that ‟3” be unambiguously first place three points.)
It was derived from a suggestion of DRT. Send some gratitude to him.DRT wrote:Excellent. Only a genius would have thought of this.
Thank you.
Insufficient consensus was built as to what would be the best voting system. Considering this only became an issue at 10pm following a "8-bottles-for-6-people" tasting, consensus was not achieved. I suggest the Approval System.jdaw1 wrote:Comment and feedback encouraged.The Manual wrote:The vote is not usually secret, people being asked to declare 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places (scoring 3, 2, 1).
Even with that, ahem, voting system, I think the vote-recording sheet produced by the software would work: ✠“ each approved port.JacobH wrote:Insufficient consensus was built as to what would be the best voting system. Considering this only became an issue at 10pm following a "8-bottles-for-6-people" tasting, consensus was not achieved. I suggest the Approval System.
A good point. I note, however, that the 3-2-1 points system produces a similar result: the Niepoort 1982 was WOTN at the 1982 tasting due a consistent performance as the 2nd choice. I think (though AHB has the ballot sheet), AV would have done likewise. STV produced a hung result. Which is preferable for determining the WOTN?jdaw1 wrote:Voting system: are you voting for ‟Port Most Widely Deemed Drinkable” (for which Approval is excellent), or for ‟Wine Of The Night” (for which Approval is awful)? See www.jdawiseman.com/papers/electsys/conundrum.html.
Not really live in this context. If a context strongly implies that only the Dutch language is being used so there isn’t a ‟ÿ” then a connected ‟ij” can be OK. But a port tasting can contain ports with names of non-Dutch origin (J. H. Andresen comes to mind), and non-Dutch drinkers. So I’d much prefer the simple ‟ij” non-ligature.JacobH wrote:On an unrelated point, the translation of the placemat software into Dutch has made the ij ligature issue live...
?Zzzzz...jdaw1 wrote:...I’d much prefer the simple ‟ij” non-ligature.
Is that a controversial view on
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=37212#p37212]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:Not using Adobe Distiller revealed a very small bug in code, and the following is a note to self.[/size]Code: Select all
false false PaperType Orientation SetPaperSize % Perhaps page dimensions accessed by CrossHatchingTitles or CrossHatchingSubtitles TitleSubtitleForms SheetNum get WithinPage get VariesByNameTitlesSubtitlesOrnamentsDecanterLabels {dup /PaintProc get exec} {execform} ifelse false false PrePourPaperType PrePourOrientation SetPaperSize
Thank you. I like simple things.jdaw1 wrote:
- Added WaterCountsOverrideShowEverySheet (a parameter simplification for DRT).
I do care. Deeply. Thank you.jdaw1 wrote:
- Changed default value of SameSizeTitlesIfAllOf (you probably don’t care).
This doesn't sound like something I should either care about or understand. But thank you anyway.jdaw1 wrote:[/list][/list]
- Fixed bug on pre-pour pages:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=37212#p37212]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:Not using Adobe Distiller revealed a very small bug in code, and the following is a note to self.[/size]Code: Select all
false false PaperType Orientation SetPaperSize % Perhaps page dimensions accessed by CrossHatchingTitles or CrossHatchingSubtitles TitleSubtitleForms SheetNum get WithinPage get VariesByNameTitlesSubtitlesOrnamentsDecanterLabels {dup /PaintProc get exec} {execform} ifelse false false PrePourPaperType PrePourOrientation SetPaperSize
jdaw1 wrote:(somebody please email me a picture of the menu)
As you witnessed first hand last weekend, the same principle can be applied to "individual" steak and kidney pies.jdaw1 wrote:If somebody wants to share, we can share. If nobody wants to share, I’ll share with myself: half each.
The manual wrote:In some multi-page tastings, for each page all the wines have something in common. A typical example is a multi-horizontal, in which wines from several houses are tasted from two or few vintages. As everything on a page has a common feature, perhaps this common feature should be marked, faintly, as in the two-session four-page example
”ƒ 
jdaw1 wrote:This was the first placemat-free tasting, with glasses being identified with stickers. Feedback welcomed.
uncle tom wrote:Stickers for glasses works really well, except that we need one sheet of stickers person (or per two people) as we were constantly passing the sheets around and trying to find our respective labels - at one point [somebody] put one of his on his forehead so he could find it later!
jdaw1 wrote:Problems:
- At the time the PDF is made, it isn’t yet known who will be sitting next to whom.
- One sheet has 65 stickers, so one sheet per person would waste two-thirds to three-quarters of each sheet.
WS1 wrote:Indeed one sheet per person would be too much waste; but would it be possible to slot the stickers of two or three people on equal sections onto one sheet (each person has ~20 stickers)? They could be after printing cut into the portions of the individual person.
The glass stickers were also rather hackerish to produce, so some improvement to the code is required.JacobH wrote:The stickers also worked extremely well; thanks Julian. As Wolfgang suggested, the only improvement would be to have each person’s stickers as a block so they could be cut up and distributed before the tasting starts. Also, for blind tastings it might be nice if the number took up only half the sticker so that we can write the name of the wine in when revealed.
Code: Select all
AAAAA FFFFF
AAAAA FFGGG
AABBB GGGGG
BBBBB GGGGH
BBBBC HHHHH
CCCCC HHHHH
CCCCC HIIII
CDDDD IIIII
DDDDD IIIJJ
DDDEE JJJJJ
EEEEE JJJJJ
EEEEE KKKKK
FFFFF KKKKKWould your cool have survived Wolfgang drinking your Ni42? (You’ll be pleased to know that your post made it to Apostrophe crimes.)Cookie wrote:My Niepoort 1942 had Woolfgangs sticker on it but I do not recall this having any adverse effect on the contents of my glass
Code: Select all
AAAAA EEEEE
AAAAA EE
AA FFFFF
BBBBB FFFFF
BBBBB FF
BB GGGGG
CCCCC GGGGG
CCCCC GG
CC HHHHH
DDDDD HHHHH
DDDDD HH
DD IIIII
EEEEE IIIIIDoes Postscript have a modulo operand? If so a slight optimisation would be to test to see whether the stickers should be arranged horizontally or vertically by calculating the number of wasted stickers left. For example, consider 4 people (A-D), tasting 5 wines, with a 5 by 4 set of stickers:jdaw1 wrote:Back to the subject. Would it suffice to have a boolean compelling each person’s stickers to start on a new line? That strikes a balance between simplicity of cutting and not wasting too many stickers.
Code: Select all
Hoz. Vert.
AAAA ABCD
A... ABCD
BBBB ABCD
B... ABCD
.... ABCD
Code: Select all
1cut 2cuts
AAAA ACEG
A... ACEG
BBBB ACEG
B... ACEG
CCCC ACEG
C... BDFH
DDDD BDFH
D... BDFH
EEEE BDFH
E... BDFH
Yes, mod, though even if it didn’t one could be written as something like /Mod {2 dict begin /n exch def /m exch def {m 0 ge {m n lt {m exit} if /m m n sub def} {/m m n add def} ifelse} loop end} def.JacobH wrote:Does Postscript have a modulo operand?
I suppose the simplest way of dealing with it is to have one option to choose whether force a line-break after each person's stickers or not, and another to choose whether to arrange the labels horizontally or vertically. That is especially true since the optimisation is perhaps a bit more subtle than I had first thought: the aim is to have the remaining labels in the largest block so they are most likely to be reusable. For example:jdaw1 wrote:You’re right about it being possible to find tighter fittings, still with complete cuts, but fewer cut or fewer wasted labels. However, my immediate reaction is that the problem of minimising could be a form of Knapsack problem. Also, before veering off to a completely general case, with the parameters actually likely to be used, is this really useful? With the 5×13 labels, and quite a few glasses per person, wastage will not be much worse than lightly sub-optimal. I’m reluctant to rearrange and rewrite code for a more general case that will be encountered rarely, and with little gain to the simple case.
Code: Select all
xxx
x..
xxx
x..
xxx
x..
...
is less preferable to:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
...
...
...
I understand the theory, but the last time I printed a very large set of placemats, it did take a disproportional amount of time. I think the problem was because of the density of complex vector patterns in the file which are inexpensive in terms of instructions--hence the small file size--but expensive in terms of rendering. I think when the file is unpacked into the printing stream the amount of data exponentially increased to such an extent that it choked the printer (100s of megabytes). Looking around this seems to be a general issue with PDFs (particularly with patterns), although apparently when printed on a printer without postscript support, since those with postscript support can print the vectors in the document natively.jdaw1, in ‟[url=http://theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4447&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=125#p41767]A birthday tasting 2011 - 4th April 2011[/url]” wrote:Not so. The printing is of the PDF, which has been distilled. The calculations for each page have been done. (Average page size: only 4k!)