ThePortForum.com

Split by jdaw1 from Time for a TN sort?.

RonnieRoots wrote:One thing that's been bugging me: can you please remove the 'Niepoort' from Passadouro? The two have seperated in 2003 and there's no connection between them since. Thanks!

For the sake of historic accuracy, shouldn't the Passadouro wines made by Niepoort by retained under Niepoort? (Perhaps with a note explaining the switch)?

Whilst we are on small details, the wines under Casa de Santa Eufemia should be under Quinta de Santa Eufémia

JacobH wrote:For the sake of historic accuracy, shouldn't the Passadouro wines made by Niepoort by retained under Niepoort? (Perhaps with a note explaining the switch)?

If we keeping moving Quintas around then, for many quintas, each listing will have only a small number of years.

JacobH wrote:Whilst we are on small details

These are major matters of substance, not small details.

JacobH wrote:the wines under Casa de Santa Eufemia should be under Quinta de Santa Eufémia

CasaSantaEufemia.com suggests ‟Casa”, both by URL and contents of website. (Though your reprimand about the missing accent is accepted.)

jdaw1 wrote:

JacobH wrote:For the sake of historic accuracy, shouldn't the Passadouro wines made by Niepoort by retained under Niepoort? (Perhaps with a note explaining the switch)?

If we keeping moving Quintas around then, for many quintas, each listing will have only a small number of years.

The key question will be whether this will apply for many quintas or just one or two. Are there any other cases where this would apply (i.e. a Quinta which was formally used for SQVP became independent or was sold to another shipper)? I suppose Quinta de Roriz might be an example, depending on what the Symingtons do to it, but I can't think of any others.

jdaw1 wrote:

JacobH wrote:the wines under Casa de Santa Eufemia should be under Quinta de Santa Eufémia

CasaSantaEufemia.com suggests otherwise, both by URL and contents of website.

Quinta de Santa Eufémia≠Casa de Santa Eufémia. It's one property that was split in two, the tasting notes referring to wines from the former.

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Santa Eufémia≠Casa de Santa Eufémia. It's one property that was split in two, the tasting notes referring to wines from the former.

Annoyance!

Adding extra names to my list. Then the vexed question of abbreviations: ‟EfC”, and ‟EfQ”? Is one bigger and better than the other, the superior claiming ‟Ef”?

jdaw1 wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Quinta de Santa Eufémia≠Casa de Santa Eufémia. It's one property that was split in two, the tasting notes referring to wines from the former.

Annoyance!

Adding extra names to my list. Then the vexed question of abbreviations: ‟EfC”, and ‟EfQ”? Is one bigger and better than the other, the superior claiming ‟Ef”?

I have had Port from both.

To my understanding, the property and all of its stocks were split more-or-less exactly in half. The only real anomaly I can find is that the Casa side of the split seems to have received most (if not all) of the White Ports. This is further confused by the fact that most stores can't tell Quinta from Casa, nor white from tawny, to the point of one store labeling a bottle as "Casa Sta Eufemia Special Reserve 30 Year Old White Port" which is then described as a Tawny. More to the point, it does not exist. There is a Casa Special Reserve White and a Casa 30 Year Old White, but they are note the same. There is also (I believe) a Quinta 30 Year Old Tawny. The Special Reserve is the infamous 1973 White Colheita that cannot be labeled as such due to improperly filed paperwork. But I digress.

My point is that I do not believe either side of the split is larger or better, so the abbreviations should reflect an even split. "EfC" and "EfQ" seems appropriate to me.

JacobH wrote:Quinta de Santa Eufémia

That website mentions ‟Quinta de Santa Eufêmia”, with a circumflex accent, and has numerous mentions with no accent.

Are you sure about the acute accent? (I’d be entertained by abbreviations ‟E锝 and ‟Eꔝ.)

jdaw1 wrote:

JacobH wrote:Quinta de Santa Eufémia

That website mentions ‟Quinta de Santa Eufêmia”, with a circumflex accent, and has numerous mentions with no accent.
Are you sure about the acute accent? (I’d be entertained by abbreviations ‟E锝 and ‟Eꔝ.)

Pass. There are acute accents all over the Casa’s website and that appears to be its conventional spelling in Portuguese but searching for Eufêmia brings up lots of references to the Quinta. Without an accent appears to be the conventional Italian spelling. Perhaps ‟E锝 and ‟Eꔝ might indeed be appropriate?

CasaSantaEufemia.com indeed has plenty of acute accents: ‟Casa de Sta. Eufémia”, with the abbreviation, seems as standard as it gets. Though the URL includes ‟Santa” rather than ‟Sta.”: go on, make it difficult then.

Despite the one circumflex on QtaStaEufemia.com, the IVDP mentions ‟Quinta de Santa Eufémia”. Not clear at all.

Emails sent.

Presumably the bottles show the correct accent?

DRT wrote:Presumably the bottles show the correct accent?

Well found.

JacobH wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

JacobH wrote:For the sake of historic accuracy, shouldn't the Passadouro wines made by Niepoort by retained under Niepoort? (Perhaps with a note explaining the switch)?

If we keeping moving Quintas around then, for many quintas, each listing will have only a small number of years.

The key question will be whether this will apply for many quintas or just one or two. Are there any other cases where this would apply (i.e. a Quinta which was formally used for SQVP became independent or was sold to another shipper)? I suppose Quinta de Roriz might be an example, depending on what the Symingtons do to it, but I can't think of any others.

Well, yes Roriz is one (going from independent to Noval, to independent, to Symington, back again and again back), but there's also Quinta Nova de Nossa Senhora do Carmo (first Burmester now marketed independently by Amorim), Quinta do Pego (first Calem now independent) and Quinta do Foz (first Calem now independent, owned by the Calem family). Oh and Eira Velha is sold to TFP, while the Symingtons now produce Martinez. But as long as TFP doesn't produce SQVP from this quinta, there isn't a problem yet. I'm sure there are others.

You got to love the way the port producers try to keep us geeks busy.

jdaw1 wrote:Please, what is the correct way to write the name of your quinta. Is it:
> Casa da Quinta Sta Eufémia
as you write on the website, or is it
> Casa da Quinta Santa Eufémia
as suggested by the URL.

Lúcia Carvalho wrote:CASA SANTA EUFEMIA

SQVP from Eira Velha? Can't imagine them doing that. BTW, got to pick up the last four bottles of Eira Velha from Sainsbury's in Solihull today, they've reserved them for me.

jdaw1 wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Please, what is the correct way to write the name of your quinta. Is it:
> Casa da Quinta Sta Eufémia
as you write on the website, or is it
> Casa da Quinta Santa Eufémia
as suggested by the URL.

Lúcia Carvalho wrote:CASA SANTA EUFEMIA

So I had a copy-paste error in typing (idiot!), and Lúcia Carvalho has omitted both preposition and accent.

KillerB wrote:SQVP from Eira Velha? Can't imagine them doing that.

According to their website, and an answer to a question I asked of David Guimareans on recently, they have not yet decided what to do with QdEV as yet. I think they have re-planted lots of it so it will take a few years before it could produce great VP again. TFP may use it for one of their smaller brands, but I doubt we will see Taylor, Fonseca or Croft QdEV SQVP anytime soon.

DRT wrote:

KillerB wrote:SQVP from Eira Velha? Can't imagine them doing that.

TFP may use it for one of their smaller brands, but I doubt we will see Taylor, Fonseca or Croft QdEV SQVP anytime soon.

So it will be Skeffington Eira Velha? Morgan Eira Velha? I think I like the sounds of Romariz Eira Velha best.

Dixon Eira Velha.

Dixon? Never heard of that, tell me more.

Owned by Morgan. Long deceased.

JacobH wrote:The key question will be whether this will apply for many quintas or just one or two. Are there any other cases where this would apply (i.e. a Quinta which was formally used for SQVP became independent or was sold to another shipper)? I suppose Quinta de Roriz might be an example, depending on what the Symingtons do to it, but I can't think of any others.

Well, there's also Quinta do Silval and Quinta do Noval's Silval. Not quite the same issue, though. IIRC Quinta do Silval produces Port under the Magalhaes name to avoid confusion.

Glenn E. wrote: IIRC Quinta do Silval produces Port under the Magalhaes name to avoid confusion.

And because they're not allowed to use the name Silval...

RonnieRoots wrote:

Glenn E. wrote: IIRC Quinta do Silval produces Port under the Magalhaes name to avoid confusion.

And because they're not allowed to use the name Silval...

My understanding is that they reached an agreement with Quinta do Noval that probably included compensation in return for not pressing the issue.

I have long lobbied for the single quinta wines to be listed solely under an abbreviation for the quinta and with no link to the house that owned them at the time the wines were bottled - anything else can just get too confusing with the many changes in ownership that there have been.

Passadouro, for example, could just be Passadouro and not Niepoort's Passadouro.

AHB wrote:I have long lobbied for the single quinta wines to be listed solely under an abbreviation for the quinta and with no link to the house that owned them at the time the wines were bottled - anything else can just get too confusing with the many changes in ownership that there have been.

Passadouro, for example, could just be Passadouro and not Niepoort's Passadouro.

I agree. Keep it simple or it's way too confusing.

And people always think Passadouro Ports are Niepoort Ports. They are not, if you read the label carefully they are bottled by Niepoort. People always seem to miss the "bottled" part of that.

Andy V wrote:And people always think Passadouro Ports are Niepoort Ports. They are not, if you read the label carefully they are bottled by Niepoort. People always seem to miss the "bottled" part of that.

And not even that anymore since 2003.

AHB wrote:I have long lobbied for the single quinta wines to be listed solely under an abbreviation for the quinta and with no link to the house that owned them at the time the wines were bottled - anything else can just get too confusing with the many changes in ownership that there have been.

Passadouro, for example, could just be Passadouro and not Niepoort's Passadouro.

I’m not sure that would ever gain much support with those responsible for marketing Port; how many people (beyond the readership of and ) would know what a bottle of Passadouro Port was compared to those who have heard of Niepoort? It’s probably even more pronounced with something like Sandeman’s Quinta do Vau.

Andy V wrote:And people always think Passadouro Ports are Niepoort Ports. They are not, if you read the label carefully they are bottled by Niepoort. People always seem to miss the "bottled" part of that.

Wasn’t Passadouro owned by the Niepoorts when they were bottled by them?

JacobH wrote:

Andy V wrote:And people always think Passadouro Ports are Niepoort Ports. They are not, if you read the label carefully they are bottled by Niepoort. People always seem to miss the "bottled" part of that.

Wasn’t Passadouro owned by the Niepoorts when they were bottled by them?

No, Passadouro is owned by a German (no, not Axel) by the name of Ir. D.H. Bohrmann. A couple of years ago I sat next to him at a dinner in Pinhao and we had a wonderful conversation. He is also quite the Madeira lover and collector. He had a partnership with Dirk to help him get Passadouro back on track after buying it and Dirk did some consulting and bottled his Ports. Sadly that partnership fell through several years ago and they ended their working relationship.

JacobH wrote:

AHB wrote:I have long lobbied for the single quinta wines to be listed solely under an abbreviation for the quinta and with no link to the house that owned them at the time the wines were bottled - anything else can just get too confusing with the many changes in ownership that there have been.

Passadouro, for example, could just be Passadouro and not Niepoort's Passadouro.

I’m not sure that would ever gain much support with those responsible for marketing Port; how many people (beyond the readership of and ) would know what a bottle of Passadouro Port was compared to those who have heard of Niepoort? It’s probably even more pronounced with something like Sandeman’s Quinta do Vau.

Perhaps I should clarify - I mean I have been lobbying JDAW to use an abbreviation for the name of the quinta in our tasting note database, with no reference to the owner at the time of bottling. I'm all in favour of the labels and marketing linking the two.

AHB wrote:I have long lobbied for the single quinta wines to be listed solely under an abbreviation for the quinta and with no link to the house that owned them at the time the wines were bottled - anything else can just get too confusing with the many changes in ownership that there have been.

Even Vargellas? Malvedos?

Yes, even Vargellas and Malvedos. I have a bottle of Ferreira Vargellas and one day there will be need for a TPF tasting note.

IMO, it's just best to list them as Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas (for example only), if that is what is listed on the label.

Trying to list them as anything other that what is on the label is confusing and difficult for others who may try to find a TN on it later. EXAMPLE ONLY: So if the label says "Taylor's Quinta de Pablo" then this is how it should be listed in a tasting note.

Same goes for BOB's. They should be listed by their BOB since many of these are provided by different producers each vintage. So a 1999 Berry Brother's LBV, should be listed as such. Of course there is nothing wrong with adding something after to show where it came from. Example: 1999 Berry Brother's LBV (by Croft).

Again, someone who is looking for a tasting note on a BB&R Port would never find it if it was listed as a Croft LBV.

Andy V wrote:..."Taylor's Quinta de Pablo" then this is how it should be listed in a tasting note.

My personal preference would be for the tasting note to be listed as Quinta de Pablo and have a reference in the tasting note to the fact that the quinta was owned by or the wines were bottled by Taylor. The issue that I have is that if a quinta has changed hands or bottlers many times in a relatively short period then it becomes more difficult to find the sequence of tasting notes. I'd rather look under "Pablo, Quinta de" than under "Taylor, Quinta de Pablo" and seperately "Sandeman, Quinta de Pablo" etc.

But that's only my preference and I'm happy to go with the flow.

Alex,
Totally understand where you're coming from. A good compromise is listing it as

1980 Quinta de Pablo by Taylors
1990 Quinta de Pablo by Dow's (if it ended up being sold)

This way people searching could search under Dow's, taylor's, or the Quinta name itself. It would also provide an easy reference as to who owned it and around what time frames.

AHB wrote:Yes, even Vargellas and Malvedos. I have a bottle of Ferreira Vargellas and one day there will be need for a TPF tasting note.

When did Ferreira own Vargellas? Imagine if Ferreira was now made from both Vargellas and Versuvio!

Andy V wrote:No, Passadouro is owned by a German (no, not Axel) by the name of Ir. D.H. Bohrmann. A couple of years ago I sat next to him at a dinner in Pinhao and we had a wonderful conversation. He is also quite the Madeira lover and collector. He had a partnership with Dirk to help him get Passadouro back on track after buying it and Dirk did some consulting and bottled his Ports. Sadly that partnership fell through several years ago and they ended their working relationship.

Ah, didn’t realise that. Thanks

AHB wrote:Perhaps I should clarify - I mean I have been lobbying JDAW to use an abbreviation for the name of the quinta in our tasting note database, with no reference to the owner at the time of bottling. I'm all in favour of the labels and marketing linking the two.

I feel I spend my life drowning in abbreviations, so I’m not too bothered by those which jdaw1 uses, though I do strongly lobby that the two Euf[e]mias are abbreviated thus: Eué and Euê