ThePortForum.com

There is a list of shipper abbreviations, first made for the TN index. When making this I list I set Martinez to be ‘Mz’” . But we don’t have an ‘M’, and the most important (historically as well as currently) of the M candidates is Martinez.

Are there any objections to changing to ‘M’ the official abbreviation of Martinez?

”  Not sure why. Perhaps because there was so much Mg91 to drink.

I say keep it as it is. Clarity is vital. If one does not have a reference list, Mz is obviously Martinez but if I read an M on its own, I would have to think whether it was Morgan, Martinez or Messias. Indeed, I would give some thought to whether Cockburn should switch from C since reading a priori C77, I would have thought it would be a Croft 1977. The same might go for Noval and Niepoort (particularly since it is Quinta do Noval) and Fonseca and Ferreira. In both those cases an extra letter would assist enormously with clarity. It would also help future-proof you book since who can tell if, in 100 years' time, Noval will have gone the way of Quinta do Roriz's shipping business and Quinta Nova would become the most drunk "N"?

Good reasoning. A powerful vote for ‘Mz’.

Are you saying that the likes of F66, G85 and T70 are too ambiguous?

I think that a single-letter abbreviation should indicate something more than "First!"

F66, G85, and T70 are excellent examples of what is required to claim a single letter.

To me, neither Croft nor Cockburn deserves 'C'. I see C77 and have no clue what it is, but I readily admit that an Englishman might have superior knowledge of those two producers. Cr and Co would be much clearer to me.

I have no problem with N and Ni, however. I'm satisfied to promote Noval for no other reason than NN. N31 provides good backup for the claim.

Q is an exception. To me, it is actually clearer for Quevedo to be Q because Qv would make me start running through various Quinta names trying to figure out which one might be Qv. (Ah yes, that must be Quinta do Vallado. But wait, shouldn't that be QV?)

For about a century Cockburn was the shipper that could command the highest price, typically about 10% to 20% more than other main shippers. Croft make excellent port, but it has never been perceived as being generally the best even if it rates very well in a few specific vintages. Given which, I felt it right to give Cockburn the single letter.

Q: single-letter Q is, of course, the most important of the ‘Quinta d!’s, that being Quinta do Noval. For which reason I reasoned that plain Q would not be used.

jdaw1 wrote:Are you saying that the likes of F66, G85 and T70 are too ambiguous?

I think there are not obvious competitors for T or G which is why they could be single letters. Although Fonseca is (now; quare the historic position) perhaps more notable than Ferreira, the latter is still a significant shipper which is why I thought there was the possibility for confusion.

With N, I was particularly thinking that a tawny/colheita drinker (or Dutchman!) would be far more likely to think N was Niepoort than Noval.

jdaw1 wrote:For about a century Cockburn was the shipper that could command the highest price, typically about 10% to 20% more than other main shippers. Croft make excellent port, but it has never been perceived as being generally the best even if it rates very well in a few specific vintages. Given which, I felt it right to give Cockburn the single letter.

That was my concern about future sustainability. Although Cockburn was historically significant, it is now (even in the UK) no bigger player than Croft, so unless one is historically minded, perhaps some extra assistance might help...

All very fair.

However, future-proofing is impossible. There could, hypothetically, be port brands ‟Symington, descendants of Dominic”, ‟Symington, descendants of Rupert”, and so forth. So we can try to be sensible but cannot cater to all possibilities.

Suggestion: what we have works quite well. So the presumption should be that errors are fixed, manifest improvements considered, but much-used custom maintained. In practice that fixes quite a few names (A, B, BI, BN, Br, C, Cá, Ch, Cn, Cr, Cz, D, Dl, Df, F, Fr, G, GB, GC, I, K, Mg, Ms, Mz, N, NN, Ni, O, OBV, QH, Qv, RP, RO, RV, Rz, S, SW, T, V, W). {Consider the list to be a quiz.}
• Hutcheson should become Ht, from plain H. Hooper is to remain at Ho.
• Ventozelo: Vt (as now), or Vz?
• Other rarely used names might be altered.

jdaw1 wrote:{Consider the list to be a quiz.}

Having run through those, in addition to the ones talked about above, I got the following wrong: B (couldn’t guess which ‟B” it would be), Cn (‟Cockburn”); Dl (‟Delaforce”), I (couldn’t guess: didn’t expect it to be a Quinta), O (‟Osborne”). I also couldn’t guess BN with less than 10 seconds thought, but then I think that’s more a reflection of that shipper than anything else! Perhaps, unless there is a leading shipper which obviously dominates the letter (e.g. Taylor or Warre), then the single initial should be reserved for future use?

So you got correct 34/40. That is interesting. Others?

jdaw1 wrote:{Consider the list to be a quiz.}

Bugger. I missed A (swapped with Ad), didn't know BI, missed Br, missed Dl (Dv seems more obvious to me, especially next to Df), and O for the same reason as Jacob. But several of my correct answers (B, C, Cn, Df, K, Mg) required thought, sometimes significant, and might not have been identifiable by me had they not been in a list.

jdaw1 wrote: • Hutcheson should become Ht, from plain H. Hooper is to remain at Ho.
• Ventozelo: Vt (as now), or Vz?
• Other rarely used names might be altered.

I agree with changing Hutcheson. Ventozelo works (for me) with either abbreviation.

Glenn E. wrote:I missed A (swapped with Ad), didn't know BI, missed Br, missed Dl (Dv seems more obvious to me, especially next to Df), and O for the same reason as Jacob.

For what it’s worth, I nearly made those mistakes too: my first thought was that A was Adam’s, until I realised that Adam’s is actually a tiny and obscure brand which has a unduly high place in my mind due to that fabulous bottle we drunk about two years ago. Also, I only guessed what BI was once I realised it was an i rather than l!

JacobH wrote:Also, I only guessed what BI was once I realised it was an i rather than l!

The few placemats featuring BI are in a serif typeface, for just that reason.

As an aside, this conversation (and the associated consultation with the Tasting Note Index) is making me dramatically re-appraise the size of various shippers. For instance, I thought Borges & Irmão was quite a big, regularly encountered shipper but throughout the whole of we have drunk a mere 8 bottles of it...And am I really the only person to have written a tasting note about Barão de Vilar?

JacobH wrote:I thought Borges & Irmão was quite a big, regularly encountered shipper but throughout the whole of we have drunk a mere 8 bottles of it

Three of which were bought at auction as ‟Unknown Vintage Port”, only subsequently being revealed to be BI63.

Personally, I would go back to the early point that was made by (I think) Jacob that the abbreviations should be easy to guess as far as is possible.

For this reason I would suggest that unless there is a clear and obvious candidate for a single character abbreviation, that all abbreviations should be two characters with the first being the initial letter of the shipper's name and the second being (as far as is possible) the last letter in the shipper's name that is unique as a last letter to that shipper in the group of shippers whose names begin with the same letter. This matches human psychology in that we tend to look at the first and last letters of a word and then intuitively guess what the word should be.

Thus with the shippers Croft, Cockburn, Calem, Quinta do Cachao, Quinta dos Canais, Quinta das Carvalhas, Quinta de Cavadinha, Churchill, Constantino, Quinta de Corte, Quinta de Crasto and Cruz you could use:
Ct - Croft
Cn - Cockburn
Cm - Calem
Ca - Cavadinha
Ce - Corte
Cl - Churchill
Cz - Cruz

Duplications occur with the other shippers, but be solved by using common sense such as:
Cc - Cachao
Co - Constantino
Ct - Crasto
Cs - Canais
Cv - Carvalhas

AHB wrote:I would suggest that unless there is a clear and obvious candidate for a single character abbreviation, that all abbreviations should be two characters with the first being the initial letter of the shipper's name and the second being (as far as is possible) the last letter in the shipper's name that is unique as a last letter to that shipper in the group of shippers whose names begin with the same letter.

We disagree. Of all the possibilities, ‘Ch’ is far and away the most suggestive of Churchill. And Cá, because the rarity of the accent, Cálem. Constantino has three non-silent n’s: it must be Cn. For Cruz we agree about Cz, but for different reasons: for me because the z is the strongest internal sound, and for the rarity of z’s. Canais is Cockburn Canais, so CC.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:I would suggest that unless there is a clear and obvious candidate for a single character abbreviation, that all abbreviations should be two characters with the first being the initial letter of the shipper's name and the second being (as far as is possible) the last letter in the shipper's name that is unique as a last letter to that shipper in the group of shippers whose names begin with the same letter.

We disagree. Of all the possibilities, ‘Ch’ is far and away the most suggestive of Churchill. And Cá, because the rarity of the accent, Cálem. Constantino has three non-silent n’s: it must be Cn. For Cruz we agree about Cz, but for different reasons: for me because the z is the strongest internal sound, and for the rarity of z’s. Canais is Cockburn Canais, so CC.

I also disagree with AHB's suggestions, and not just because it would be confusing if both Croft and Crasto had the same abbreviation

I am in general agreement with the selections that Julian makes for these so, without really understanding why, I am happy to defer to his judgement. The only change I would like to see is for every shipper to have a double letter abbreviation. This is principally down to future-proofing but also so that we do not have a false hierarchy.

jdaw1 wrote:

AHB wrote:I would suggest that unless there is a clear and obvious candidate for a single character abbreviation, that all abbreviations should be two characters with the first being the initial letter of the shipper's name and the second being (as far as is possible) the last letter in the shipper's name that is unique as a last letter to that shipper in the group of shippers whose names begin with the same letter.

We disagree. Of all the possibilities, ‘Ch’ is far and away the most suggestive of Churchill. And Cá, because the rarity of the accent, Cálem. Constantino has three non-silent n’s: it must be Cn. For Cruz we agree about Cz, but for different reasons: for me because the z is the strongest internal sound, and for the rarity of z’s. Canais is Cockburn Canais, so CC.

I'm happy to be disagreed with, and will support whatever decisions are made. If they seem intuitive, then I may even adopt them in my notes and nomenclature.

DRT wrote:I am in general agreement with the selections that Julian makes for these so, without really understanding why, I am happy to defer to his judgement. The only change I would like to see is for every shipper to have a double letter abbreviation. This is principally down to future-proofing but also so that we do not have a false hierarchy.

Please confirm that you would prefer to double-letter such obscure ports as Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Kopke, Noval, Sandeman, Taylor, Vesuvio, Warre.

AHB wrote:If they seem intuitive

That intangible quality of ‘intuitive’ness is what I have been seeking, whilst also being desirous of brevity, and absolutely requiring uniqueness.

jdaw1 wrote:That intangible quality of ‘intuitive’ness is what I have been seeking, whilst also being desirous of brevity, and absolutely requiring uniqueness.

I think you have done very well. There are only a few that I find confusing, and some of those are no doubt due to me being American and you being British.

My only suggestion would be that as often as possible, some common rule should be followed. Thus my earlier comment regarding Dalva and Delaforce - you currently have Dalva using the last consonant of the first syllable while Delaforce uses the first consonant of the last syllable. I do understand that the 'l' in Dalva is more pronounced than the 'v', though. I would try to use the second most stressed consonant in the word, provided that does not duplicate another abbreviation.

jdaw1 wrote:Please confirm that you would prefer to double-letter such obscure ports as Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Kopke, Noval, Sandeman, Taylor, Vesuvio, Warre.

In many ways, I could see declaring that only Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor, and Warre qualify for single-letter status. At least to me, those are easily the 5 biggest brands in Port.

Glenn E. wrote:My only suggestion would be that as often as possible, some common rule should be followed. Thus my earlier comment regarding Dalva and Delaforce - you currently have Dalva using the last consonant of the first syllable while Delaforce uses the first consonant of the last syllable. I do understand that the 'l' in Dalva is more pronounced than the 'v', though.

Dv or Dl? I can live with either. Any other views?

Glenn E. wrote:I would try to use the second most stressed consonant in the word, provided that does not duplicate another abbreviation.

I might be trying for the most-stressed internal character.

jdaw1 wrote:Please confirm that you would prefer to double-letter such obscure ports as Kopke, Noval

I've mentioned Noval above, but I would also question whether Kopke is big enough to make K unconfusable with Krohn.

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:That intangible quality of ‘intuitive’ness is what I have been seeking, whilst also being desirous of brevity, and absolutely requiring uniqueness.

I think you have done very well. There are only a few that I find confusing, and some of those are no doubt due to me being American and you being British.

I agree, though as Glenn stumbled over pretty much the same abbreviations as I did, I don't think there is much in the way of American v. UK difficulties. Perhaps it would be worth running the list past a Portuguese, though?

These comments have been very helpful, and the list will change, though probably not this year. Thank you folks.

Further thoughts welcomed.

¿Does J. H. Andresen ‘dominate’ the A’s?

DRT wrote:The only change I would like to see is for every shipper to have a double letter abbreviation. This is principally down to future-proofing but also so that we do not have a false hierarchy.

Glenn E. wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Please confirm that you would prefer to double-letter such obscure ports as Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Kopke, Noval, Sandeman, Taylor, Vesuvio, Warre.

In many ways, I could see declaring that only Dow, Fonseca, Graham, Taylor, and Warre qualify for single-letter status. At least to me, those are easily the 5 biggest brands in Port.

50 years ago that list would undoubtedly have included Cockburn. Today it doesn't. Selecting today's top houses for single-letter status is not future-proof.

{Long deep intake of breath.} We are here as drinkers of port, not as drinkers of new New-World stuff that has existed for, ooh, three summers! We are here as drinkers of port, a drink of these isles, even if not wholly from these isles, and sharing a few centuries of its resplendent history, and some of its not-quite-so-resplendent moments. We scorn the idea that, at any moment, a progressive Leader might bring us to the promised time of Year 0. All will change! All be new! Cast out the old! Nonsense. Rather, we are deeply rooted in our history, and we will not idly cast aside these fine shippers who have nourished our forebears, our admirals and generals, our leaders and those led the great and the forgotten. Yes, we may safely assume that, just as today one cannot have too much G85, that will also be true of future vintages, similarly labelled.

G is Graham. For it should be so. W is Warre. V is Vesuvio, despite the interrupted history. T is Taylor; F is Fonseca. And a century of being the best entitles Cockburn, despite its hiatus for two-and-a-half decades from 1980, to the letter C. For it should be so.

{Looks scornfully at these whippersnappers who dare to cast aside the achievements of their foresighted predecessors; strokes beard; looks around for glass; sees that it is empty; snorts loudly; and leaves, closing the door quietly.}

jdaw1 wrote:Further thoughts welcomed.

You appear to have missed out the words "will not be" from this sentence.

Further thoughts were, and still are, welcomed. But I do not promise to agree with them.

To what would you abbreviate Dow?

SD.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

jdaw1 wrote:To what would you abbreviate Dow?

SC.

For a set of abbreviations to become the de facto standard, they have to go with the grain of what people have been doing. There can be improvements, especially at the edges, but a major overturning of the whole cart will require a reward of immediate gratification. My anecdotal observation is that, even before the TN index and abbreviation list, people referred to the likes of T63, F66, D70, W77, G85, V94, and didn’t seem to use anything longer for those shippers.

If our list of abbreviations has Dow as S&C, is it more likely that:

• People will use ‟S&C”?
• People will ignore our list and use ‟D”?

SC was a joke.

"Dw" would work.

If our list of abbreviations has Dow as Dw, is it more likely that:

• People will use ‟Dw”?
• People will ignore our list and use ‟D”?

Also, I think Kopke should be K, as it is, and Krohn should be WK, as in ‟Wiese & Krohn”. Thoughts?

jdaw1 wrote:If our list of abbreviations has Dow as Dw, is it more likely that:

• People will use ‟Dw”?
• People will ignore our list and use ‟D”?

Whatever our list contains people will use what they want to use. My objective is to arrive at a list of abbreviations that is intuitive, consistent and in no way implies a hierarchy. The selection of a handful of today's top shippers to have the honour of a single letter abbreviation is creating a hierarchy. That is bad (a) because the list doesn't need a hierarchy and (b) because it might not stand the test of time.

DRT wrote:Whatever our list contains people will use what they want to use. My objective is to arrive at a list of abbreviations that is intuitive, consistent and in no way implies a hierarchy. The selection of a handful of today's top shippers to have the honour of a single letter abbreviation is creating a hierarchy. That is bad (a) because the list doesn't need a hierarchy and (b) because it might not stand the test of time.

Ah ha! My objective is to have a list of abbreviations that is intuitive, consistent, and sufficiently so that it will actually be used such that it will become the de facto standard. I’m perfectly happy to have a hierarchy: the single-letter shippers have been important for long enough to have earned that. For almost all users of such a list, W is Warre. Etc.

jdaw1 wrote:Ah ha! My objective is to have a list of abbreviations that is intuitive, consistent, and sufficiently so that it will actually be used such that it will become the de facto standard. I’m perfectly happy to have a hierarchy: the single-letter shippers have been important for long enough to have earned that. For almost all users of such a list, W is Warre. Etc.

Let's put this in the context of a book that uses these abbreviations extensively and, with a following wind, is published during the next decade and remains relevant, in print and in use for ten more decades thereafter. Is it likely that the hierarchy will have remained consistent through that time? Even if those given single-letter designation now do not go backwards, will others have a claim to a place in the elite list?

DRT wrote:My objective is to arrive at a list of abbreviations that is intuitive, consistent and in no way implies a hierarchy. The selection of a handful of today's top shippers to have the honour of a single letter abbreviation is creating a hierarchy. That is bad (a) because the list doesn't need a hierarchy and (b) because it might not stand the test of time.

In that case I believe you need to use 3-letter abbreviations. What may seem intuitive to us right now may not seem intuitive in 100 years after a shipper has (nearly) disappeared and some other shipper with a similar name has shown up. Even 3-letter abbreviations might not survive the test of time.

Mostly surviving the test of time, with modest alterations as the facts develop, would suffice for me. Especially if we gain widespread use, that is, being the de facto standard.

DRT wrote:SC was a joke.

Please - explain this concept. What is this?

jdaw1 wrote:S&C

Clue!

Ah ha! My objective is to have a list of abbreviations that is intuitive, consistent, and sufficiently so that it will actually be used such that it will become the de facto standard.

I've mulled this one several times over the years, being as pedantic as most of us here, and in pursuit of the perfect formula..

..trouble is, just about every system I can conceive gets confounded along the way!

If you use single letters for the big names, two for the 'second division' and three for the rest; you get the problem Derek identifies, of the big name line-up changing over time, and more frequent changes in the second division.

In theory you have enough permutations of two letters to go round, but in practice, this would lead to many abbreviations being wholly unrecognisable.

Then you could opt for the airport coding system - three letters that are usually an identifiable abbreviation. However, without the authority to dictate; such an abbreviation needs to be constructed according to a standard formula; and just about every formula I can come up with (that is not impossibly complex..) -gets scuppered when applied to Noval, Noval Silval & Noval Nacional, which are sometimes all produced in the same vintage.

The only real solution is to have a system that is annexed to the document concerned, and which, in our increasingly paperless age, will expand to reveal the full text when one highlights or hovers over the relevant abbreviation. Once such a system has been created by one person, others would be easily tempted to copy and paste, rather than create their own.

Tom

Excepting C, no letter has more than one ‘big-name’ candidate. These are all obvious: D, F, G, N, O, S, T, V, W. (Note that I’m conceding B and K.)

As for C, well, Croft has been superior to Cockburn for a handful of decades, but Croft has never been top-dog. (Even TFP might see F and T as better VPs.) And as Cockburn had a century of supremacy, I exerted a little authorial authority but only a little and said that C is Cockburn, Cr is Croft.

I agree that there is no system guaranteed to last forever. But lasting for a while, with occasional small alterations, rather like ISO 3166, would be good enough for me.

Is this so terrible?