ThePortForum.com

Do you have Excel or Microsoft Word? If yes, I’ll send an example.

jdaw1 wrote:Let’s allow wider comment. The spreadsheet has a list of ports. All names should look like one of the list below: comment welcome, improvements better.

1. Quinta da Brunheda;
2. Quinta da Brunheda Colheita;
3. do Vesuvio Finest Reserve 1991;
4. Graham’s Crusted;
5. Graham’s Crusted Port;
6. Noval LBV;
7. Noval LBV Unfiltered;
8. Vista Allegre;
9. Quinta da Vista Allegre;

I suspect that Brunheda and Brunheda Colheita should be the same port. Should I amend my tasting note title to just read Brunheda?

I suspect that the do Vesuvio 1991 Finest Reserve should just be Vesuvio (or should we also include the Quinta do in our titles?).

Graham's Crusted and Graham's Crusted Port are clearly the same thing.

Should we just have a single kind of title for our LBVs, as suggested above?

Clearly the Vista Allegre's are the same thing.

So what can we do with the titles of our tasting notes to make your life easier and the TN sort more automated?

Alex

Don’t worry at all about TNs that are already in the index. Don’t waste your time.

Useful steps include helping me fix my mess (duplicates, errors, inconsistent capitalisation), and then always using one of the names on a list I’ll post somewhere.

Alex: you seem to be keenest on the index, so let’s proceed as follows. You propose rules, without consultation. If nobody objects, that’s agreed. For example, which of:

• Graham 1985
• Graham Vintage Port 1985
• Graham vintage port 1985
• Graham’s 1985
• Graham’s Vintage Port 1985
• Graham’s vintage port 1985

? Don’t hum and haw: just say how you think it should be.

OK, I'm happy to do this. Here are my proposals:

Vintage ports should be named thus:
1985 Graham vintage port or
1979 Malvedos vintage port
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the words "vintage port" without capitalisation

Single Quinta vintage ports should be named thus:
1989 Quinta do Vesuvio vintage port
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the words "Quinta do / da / de / dos" as appropriate and the words "vintage port" without capitalisation but with the word Quinta starting with a capital Q

Crusted ports should be named thus:
Graham's crusted port
That is to say, no reference to vintage or bottling date in the title; the possessive is used (with apostrophe); the full phrase of "crusted port" being used but without capitalisation

Late Bottled Vintage ports should be named thus:
1983 Croft LBV
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the capital letters LBV after the name of the shipper to indicate the nature of the port. No reference should be made in the title to whether the port is filtered or unfiltered or to the bottling date, these details should be included in the tasting note text.

Ruby and reserve ports should be named thus:
Fonseca Bin 27; or
Croft Warrior's Reserve
That is to say, the name of the shipper (without possessive) followed by the name of the port as written on the bottle.

Colheita ports should be named thus:
1988 Warre colheita
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; the name of the shipper; no possessive; the word "colheita" (ideally spelt this way) without a capital letter

Tawny ports should be named thus:
10 year old Taylor tawny port; or
Barros tawny port; or
Delaforce His Master's Eminence tawny port
That is to say, if the tawny port has an indication of age then this should appear as the first part of the tasting note title as a two digit number and the words "year old" without capitalisation; this should be followed by the name of the shipper; no possessive; the words "tawny port" without capitalisation. If the tawny port has a brand name such as "His Master's Eminence" then this should be included between the name of the shipper and the words "tawny port" and should be exactly as written on the port label.

So this is my suggestion - what have I forgotten?

Alex

Great: something on which to work. Presumably the same formats would apply in the TN index?

AHB wrote:Vintage ports should be named thus:
1985 Graham vintage port or
1979 Malvedos vintage port

For second-name single-quinta I prefer “Graham Malvedos†.

AHB wrote:Crusted ports should be named thus:
Graham's crusted port
That is to say, no reference to vintage or bottling date in the title; the possessive is used (with apostrophe); the full phrase of "crusted port" being used but without capitalisation

Do you want the TN index to use the sub-list, that is usually vintages, for bottling date? If yes, that should appear in the title.

AHB wrote:Late Bottled Vintage ports should be named thus:
1983 Croft LBV
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the capital letters LBV after the name of the shipper to indicate the nature of the port. No reference should be made in the title to whether the port is filtered or unfiltered or to the bottling date, these details should be included in the tasting note text.

Works for me, but does mean that the TN index lumps together the various shades of LBV. But, as I say, works for me.

AHB wrote:Ruby and reserve ports should be named thus:
Fonseca Bin 27; or
Croft Warrior's Reserve
That is to say, the name of the shipper (without possessive) followed by the name of the port as written on the bottle.

I’d only fix it later to say “Croft Warrior’s Reserve†, with a curly single quotation mark, so why not get it right in the title?

AHB wrote:Colheita ports should be named thus:
1988 Warre colheita
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; the name of the shipper; no possessive; the word "colheita" (ideally spelt this way) without a capital letter

Works for me.

AHB wrote:Tawny ports should be named thus:
10 year old Taylor tawny port; or
Barros tawny port; or
Delaforce His Master's Eminence tawny port
That is to say, if the tawny port has an indication of age then this should appear as the first part of the tasting note title as a two digit number and the words "year old" without capitalisation; this should be followed by the name of the shipper; no possessive; the words "tawny port" without capitalisation. If the tawny port has a brand name such as "His Master's Eminence" then this should be included between the name of the shipper and the words "tawny port" and should be exactly as written on the port label.

Brevity and automation would be aided by using “10Y† instead of “10 year old†. Do you strongly object?

jdaw1 wrote:Do you have Excel or Microsoft Word? If yes, I’ll send an example.

I have microsoft Word?

Alan

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:Vintage ports should be named thus:
1985 Graham vintage port or
1979 Malvedos vintage port

For second-name single-quinta I prefer “Graham Malvedos†.

This is fine by me and makes sense in the index listing.

AHB wrote:Crusted ports should be named thus:
Graham's crusted port
That is to say, no reference to vintage or bottling date in the title; the possessive is used (with apostrophe); the full phrase of "crusted port" being used but without capitalisation

Do you want the TN index to use the sub-list, that is usually vintages, for bottling date? If yes, that should appear in the title.

Personally, I think that we will drink relatively small numbers of bottles of crusted port and therefore this probably doesn't matter. However, I would be easy to persuade otherwise.

AHB wrote:Late Bottled Vintage ports should be named thus:
1983 Croft LBV
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the capital letters LBV after the name of the shipper to indicate the nature of the port. No reference should be made in the title to whether the port is filtered or unfiltered or to the bottling date, these details should be included in the tasting note text.

Works for me, but does mean that the TN index lumps together the various shades of LBV. But, as I say, works for me.

I agree with the observation but, personally, feel that there is more confusion being created from the differences than would be created from lumping everything in to just one category differentiated by vintage.

AHB wrote:Ruby and reserve ports should be named thus:
Fonseca Bin 27; or
Croft Warrior's Reserve
That is to say, the name of the shipper (without possessive) followed by the name of the port as written on the bottle.

I’d only fix it later to say “Croft Warrior’s Reserve†, with a curly single quotation mark, so why not get it right in the title?

Noted, however I suspect that most people will only be willing to use the apostrophe on the keyboard as an "all purpose apostrophe".

AHB wrote:Tawny ports should be named thus:
10 year old Taylor tawny port; or
Barros tawny port; or
Delaforce His Master's Eminence tawny port
That is to say, if the tawny port has an indication of age then this should appear as the first part of the tasting note title as a two digit number and the words "year old" without capitalisation; this should be followed by the name of the shipper; no possessive; the words "tawny port" without capitalisation. If the tawny port has a brand name such as "His Master's Eminence" then this should be included between the name of the shipper and the words "tawny port" and should be exactly as written on the port label.

Brevity and automation would be aided by using “10Y† instead of “10 year old†. Do you strongly object?

Good suggestion and one that I would fully agree to.

Alex

OK. Do you want to re-post your original rules, with amendments, as the state of the art suggestion?

I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else has any feedback.

It will be easier for others to comment on a singe post that contains your best judgement (as that judgement might have been modified by my comments).

If something doesn't have a vintage year, or a year for that matter then it should be prefixed with "NV", this helps with automatic selection.

I think that Crusteds should be allowed the year that is on the label as this distinguishes them from other years, it is only a year just like Colheitas and LBVs.

Does Croft make a Warrior Reserve as well?

KillerB wrote:Does Croft make a Warrior Reserve as well?

I suppose it shows how little experience Alex and I have with this style of port.

KillerB wrote:If something doesn't have a vintage year, or a year for that matter then it should be prefixed with "NV", this helps with automatic selection.

I'll include this in my update, written when I get a few minutes spare.

KillerB wrote:I think that Crusteds should be allowed the year that is on the label as this distinguishes them from other years, it is only a year just like Colheitas and LBVs.

Although I wasn't going to go for this approach, I am happy to be persuaded otherwise and will consider your comment and Julian's initial comment as two votes in favour of using the bottling date in the title and index to my one vote against.

KillerB wrote:Does Croft make a Warrior Reserve as well?

Absolutely they do. It sits on the shelves next to the Taylor 6 Grapes and the Offley Bin 27. You should try one when you next see it in your local supermarket or off-licence.

Alex

I vote for

• the use of the possesive
• inclusion of bottling year for Crusted Port
• the use of "Un-filtered", "Traditional" or "Bottle Matured" where appropriate for LBV's as some shippers produce both filtered and unfiltered LBV's
• capitalisation of Vintage Port, Crusted Port, Colheita etc
• the right to continue to randomly mis-spell Colhieta

Derek

Derek T. wrote:I vote for

• the use of the possesive
• inclusion of bottling year for Crusted Port
• the use of "Un-filtered", "Traditional" or "Bottle Matured" where appropriate for LBV's as some shippers produce both filtered and unfiltered LBV's
• capitalisation of Vintage Port, Crusted Port, Colheita etc
• the right to continue to randomly mis-spell Colhieta

Derek

I'm lazy so proposed no possessive in order to save two letters of typing every tasting note. However, in the spirit of democracy if I am outvoted on this then I will bow to the wishes of the majority. I make that one for against the use of the possessive and one in favour.

I concede on the use of the bottling date for crusted port. This is now 3 votes in favour and 1 against.

I would still prefer not to use the filtered / unfiltered / traditional / bottle matured nomenclature for the LBVs. I feel that trying to include these into the title will cause confusion as to which term to use and this is easily covered if you read the note itself. My vision is that the TN index says something along the lines of (you'll just have to imagine the fancy formatting that Julian can give it):
Noval LBV
1984 JDAW1
AHB
1988 DRW
etc.
By reading the notes, you will easily be able to see whether the LBV was a filtered or unfiltered version. The advantage that I can see for simply listing all the LBVs together is that you also have the filtered vs unfiltered tasting notes side by side so you can easily see if filtering actually makes a difference. However, I will again bow to the majority wish on this. Any other preferences that people would like to express?

Capitalisation - again, happy to go with the flow. Who else would prefer to use or not use capitals?

Mis-spelling of vintage dated aged tawny ports - absolutely not. There is only one correct way to spell colheita in the title of a tasting note. My recommendation is that you invest in a spellchecker, perhaps borrow Conky's, or restrain your anarchic tendencies for the body of the tasting note.

Alex

AHB wrote:My vision is that the TN index says something along the lines of ...

One of my New Year's Resolutions is never to argue with a man with a Vision, so I concede on the filtered/unfiltered point.

AHB wrote:Capitalisation - again, happy to go with the flow. Who else would prefer to use or not use capitals?

This is essential to my Vision that all words in the titles should adopt Title Case.

AHB wrote:Mis-spelling of vintage dated aged tawny ports - absolutely not. There is only one correct way to spell colheita in the title of a tasting note. My recommendation is that you invest in a spellchecker, perhaps borrow Conky's, or restrain your anarchic tendencies for the body of the tasting note.

I have only just noticed that this word conforms to the i-before-e-except-after-c principal (or is it principle? I'm never sure which) that I learned at a very young age therefore the chances of future instances of me mis-spelling the word Colhieta are now drastically reduced.

Derek

I always thought that colhieta was a wine principally made from the principle reisling grape.

I'M LOSING THE WILL TO LIVE!!!

Alan

Conky wrote:I'M LOSING THE WILL TO LIVE!!!

Alan

Have a glass of port instead, it'll help you to feel better!

(Nice emoticon).

Updated proposals based on feedback to date:

Vintage ports should be named thus:
1985 Graham Vintage Port or
1979 Graham Malvedos Vintage Port
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the words "Vintage Port" with capitalisation.

Single Quinta vintage ports should be named thus:
1989 Quinta do Vesuvio Vintage Port
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the words "Quinta do / da / de / dos" as appropriate and the words "Vintage Port" with capitalisation and also with the word Quinta starting with a capital Q

Crusted ports should be named thus:
2001 Graham's Crusted Port
That is to say, 4 digits for the year of bottling in the title; the possessive is used (with apostrophe); the full phrase of "Crusted Port" being used with capitalisation

Late Bottled Vintage ports should be named thus:
1983 Croft LBV
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; no possessive; including the capital letters LBV after the name of the shipper to indicate the nature of the port. No reference should be made in the title to whether the port is filtered or unfiltered or to the bottling date, these details should be included in the tasting note text.

Ruby and reserve ports should be named thus:
NV Fonseca Bin 27; or
NV Warre Warrior's Reserve
That is to say, the capital letters NV to indicate the wine is not vintage dated, followed by the name of the shipper (without possessive) followed by the name of the port as written on the bottle.

Colheita ports should be named thus:
1988 Warre Colheita
That is to say, 4 digits for the year; the name of the shipper; no possessive; the word "Colheita" (ideally spelt this way) with a capital letter

Tawny ports should be named thus:
10Y Taylor Tawny Port; or
NV Barros Tawny Port; or
NV Delaforce His Master's Eminence Tawny Port
That is to say, if the tawny port has an indication of age then this should appear as the first part of the tasting note title as a two digit number and a capital Y immdiately following (no space between the digits and the letter Y) otherwise the letters "NV" should be used to indicate it is a non-vintage dated port; this should be followed by the name of the shipper; no possessive; the words "Tawny Port" with capitalisation. If the tawny port has a brand name such as "His Master's Eminence" then this should be included between the name of the shipper and the words "Tawny Port" and should be exactly as written on the port label.

This is based on feedback to date, further feedback would be very welcome. One specific piece of feedback I'm after is whether you would be happier to use the possessive (ie. Graham's Vintage Port) or not (ie. Graham Vintage Port) in the title of the tasting note.

Thanks all.

Alex

Derek T wrote:I have only just noticed that this word conforms to the i-before-e-except-after-c principal (or is it principle? I'm never sure which) that I learned at a very young age therefore the chances of future instances of me mis-spelling the word Colhieta are now drastically reduced.

I'm obviously feeling slow today - I've only just got the joke!

AHB wrote:Updated proposals based on feedback to date:

Vintage ports should be named thus:
1985 Graham vintage port or
…
… including the words "Vintage Port" with capitalisation.

Your example is inconsistent with the proposed rule. Please edit.

I'm confused. Should we post Graham's Quinta do Malvedos as:

- Graham Malvedos,
- Graham Quinta do Malvedos, or
- Quinta do Malvedos


Your example says the first, but lists it under classic vintage ports, while it is clearly a single quinta vintage port.

All other points are perfectly clear and fine by me.

Another thing: browsing the index I noticed that Quinta do Passadouro is listed as Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro. Since 2003 Passadouro and Niepoort have split, the ports of Passadouro are now made and bottled under their own name. Therefore, please remove the 'Niepoort'. Thanks!

RonnieRoots wrote:I'm confused. Should we post Graham's Quinta do Malvedos as:

- Graham Malvedos,
- Graham Quinta do Malvedos, or
- Quinta do Malvedos


Your example says the first, but lists it under classic vintage ports, while it is clearly a single quinta vintage port.

Graham's Malvedos is a second label port, not an SQVP. In reality, modern Malvedos bottlings contain grapes only from the Quinta but this was not always so. The words "Quinta do" do not appear in the description on the label.



Please note the proper use of the possesive on the above label image which resides on the Symington's website.

Derek

I like the possessive for Graham’s, and for almost no other ports. A previous discussion did find old labels of Fonseca’s, but modern ones are plain Fonseca. (And for some houses copying the labels would entail unacceptable ALL CAPITALS.)

Derek T. wrote:Graham's Malvedos is a second label port, not an SQVP.

What type is Vargellas? Ervamoira?

Do you have a list of those you deem second label?

jdaw1 wrote:

Derek T. wrote:Graham's Malvedos is a second label port, not an SQVP.

What type is Vargellas? Ervamoira?

Do you have a list of those you deem second label?

Vargellas is always described as an SQVP - I'm not sure about Ervamoira as I have never seen one.

Another example of where the shipper does not use the "Quinta de/do/dos/das" in the description of the wine is SW's Madelena. However, I'm not sure if this is for the same reasons as Graham's Malvedos.

Sandeman now produce Sandeman Vau Vintage - I do not know whether or not all the grapes come from Quinta do Vau.

Neipoort Secundum is presumably not the product of the infamous Quinta do Secundum

If anyone has the energy to find it I recall a lengthy debate about whether or not Malvedos was an SQVP on FTLOP a couple of years back. That, and from reading labels on some old Malvedos bottlings, is where I learned that Malvedos has at times been produced using a blend of grapes from more than one Quinta.

Derek

The Fladgate Partnership stopped using "Quinta do/de/etc." on their SQ bottlings a couple of years ago, but these wines are stil SQ's. Since Malvedos is also a SQ (at least nowadays), I would suggest treating it as such.

Another option would be to make a distinction between Single Quinta's from Shippers (that are mostly used as second labels) and Single Quinta's from independent producers. The latter can be listed with their proper name, whereas the first category can be grouped with bottlings such as Guimaraens, Secundum and Vau.

I would strongly suggest to be consistent in the use of the possesive. Otherwise my foreign braincells may fail to understand the rule.

Sandeman now produce Sandeman Vau Vintage - I do not know whether or not all the grapes come from Quinta do Vau.

The Vau vintage is a blend from several quinta's. There also used to be a Quinta do Vau bottling. I don't know if it still exists.

RonnieRoots wrote:The Fladgate Partnership stopped using "Quinta do/de/etc." on their SQ bottlings a couple of years ago

This is the most significant thing I have learned thus far in 2008.

Whay did they stop?

Derek

It has just ocurred to me that this has drifted into a proper port thread - do we need to split and move? If so, where do we split?

Derek

No. We are try to establish a canonical list of names for the TN index. My vote, FWLIW, is to keep here.

Four Wives Lie In Wait?

I thought similar.

I came to the conclusion it was .... For What Its Worth!...with an L thrown in for good measure.

For What Liver is Worth?

For What Little It’s Worth.

Back on subject now please.

Derek T. wrote:

RonnieRoots wrote:The Fladgate Partnership stopped using "Quinta do/de/etc." on their SQ bottlings a couple of years ago

This is the most significant thing I have learned thus far in 2008.

Whay did they stop?

Derek

Don't know why, probably for marketing reasons. It was done in the general effort to make their labels uglier.

I’m a firm fan of us using the term “Graham Malvedos†, as M really is a subsidiary part of the concept of G. For what other house/SQ pairs should this be done?

Fonseca Guimaraens
Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas
Taylor's Quinta de Terra Feita
Dow's Quinta do Bomfim

The house style is without possessive. So far we have:

• Graham Malvedos;
• Fonseca Guimaraens;
• Taylor Quinta de Vargellas;
• Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita;
• Dow Quinta do Bomfim.

Any others? Smith Woodhouse Madelena? Ramos Pinto Ervamoira?

(Remember: you don’t have to be correct; you merely have to be definitive.)

Doesn't it?

Martinez doesn't appear in the 'M's, where a simple lad like me expects to find it, but in the 'H's.

Please (on the next update) could you help thickies by inserting a Martinez link at the 'M's to where it appears in the 'H's?

Thank-you!

Sorry, the previous comments pertains to the tasting note index. The JDAW link said I should paste comments in this thread, so I did.

I'm obedient, if stupid, nonetheless.

So the attempt to tidy the names failed. No definitive list has been submitted.

Nonetheless, it’s almost time for another update. I’m going to the old world Thursday week, so please send me updated data several days before then. The weekend, perhaps?

Shouldn't someone set up TNs for the 1966 tasting?

KillerB wrote:Shouldn't someone set up TNs for the 1966 tasting?

We all know that "someone" will, so I don't think those of us who are helpful-link-deficient should interfere

Derek

KillerB wrote:Shouldn't someone set up TNs for the 1966 tasting?

‘Someone’ was going to the week before. There is still uncertainty about the presence of the Adam.

'Someone' could always create all the others and wait for certainty.

KillerB wrote:'Someone' could always create all the others and wait for certainty.

‘Someone’ has told me that the cross-linking is more easily done in one go.

jdaw1 wrote:

KillerB wrote:'Someone' could always create all the others and wait for certainty.

‘Someone’ has told me that the cross-linking is more easily done in one go.

'Someone' has told me that 'Someone' is best left alone to decide the best time for 'Someone' to do what 'Someone' does very well.