Handwriting questions

Anything to do with Port.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 13:42 Sun 04 Jan 2015

I think the main body of the text is correct and a letter here or there makes no difference to the general tenor. Yes, browny, not brown. But the last 'do' must refer to a repeated opinion from the previous note. This is from the Christie's catalogues, no? I recognise the handwriting from your previous posts. So perhaps a final comment that echoes that already given previously.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 13:44 Sun 04 Jan 2015

PhilW wrote:am assuming the cropped area to its immediate left is not of assistance in this regard?
Correct. All the green ink is shown.

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 13:44 Sun 04 Jan 2015

AW77 wrote:Perhaps it's just a typo that was caused by the haste in which tasting notes sometimes are written. I would suggest 'Plenty of bite to[o]' (with the last 'o' simply missing).
-1. There's a full stop after 'bite' and the form of the letter is definitely 'd' to my eyes.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

PhilW
Dow 1980
Posts: 2705
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by PhilW » 13:51 Sun 04 Jan 2015

djewesbury wrote:There's a full stop after 'bite'
Agree.
djewesbury wrote:and the form of the letter is definitely 'd' to my eyes.
I'm less definitive; it could be "do", but I think "no" is viable also, and given the preceeding note would make sense if this were someones personal notes (do I buy or not based on the tasted sample, perhaps). If this were a handwritten catalogue then "no" would seem to make less sense as an option, however.

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 13:52 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Have a look at the last posts in the Christie's threads, Phil. These seem to be the notes of the specialist given the arduous task of assessing the wines on sale.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 13:56 Sun 04 Jan 2015

PhilW wrote:if this were someones personal notes (do I buy or not based on the tasted sample, perhaps)
This catalogue is at Christie’s, so is presumably that of Christie’s staff, who really shouldn’t be buying for themselves.

PhilW
Dow 1980
Posts: 2705
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by PhilW » 14:16 Sun 04 Jan 2015

I had a look at other posts, but to no further illumination. Might an image of any preceding or following handwritten comment(s) in the same document be of help?

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 14:27 Sun 04 Jan 2015

And I’ve asked the obvious question in 1?@aT.

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15222
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by DRT » 16:06 Sun 04 Jan 2015

I think it is "No". There is similarity to the way "no" at the beginning of "nose" is written a few lines above. The upper v lower case difference might explain why they are not identical.

I also think it is "No" because the note is not complimentary. Perhaps the lot was rejected?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 16:52 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Thank you. It seems people generally read it as I did. Next up, from a catalogue of 22 July 1976, Morgan 1950:
Image

and Morgan 1960:
Image

User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15222
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by DRT » 17:46 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Very pale col. Musty. Spirity rather hot. Funny one but good.

Red pale col. Rich & straw col. Light. V ford easy & n?v

I think "v ford" is "very forward" - should this go in apostrophe crimes?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 18:08 Sun 04 Jan 2015

No no. You're misreading all the "g"s.

Very pale col. Musky. Spirity rather hot. Going over but good.

Med pale col. Rich q. strong col [? He's already described the colour; I think this is different, also the "o" is formed differently]. Light. V good easy & soft.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

PhilW
Dow 1980
Posts: 2705
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by PhilW » 18:22 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Hmm. Another variation:

V pale col.
Murky. Spirity rather
hot
funny one but good

Med pale col.
Rich q. strong col. .
v good tasty
+ soft

(admittedly the "one" looks more like "over" and "tasty" like "easy", but there are significant variations of the same letter within these notes, so that would be my best interpretation).

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 19:12 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Definitely not funny. That is a "g". Look at the other confirmed "g"s. It's the way I write my "g"s.

Definitely not easy. Not enough characters. E a s y.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 19:14 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Mg60: “Red pale col” or “Med pale col”?

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 19:15 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Med. Incontrovertible.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 19:16 Sun 04 Jan 2015

See the "R" on following line.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 19:21 Sun 04 Jan 2015

Having read the suggestions my best understandings are:
• Mg50 — “V pale col. Musky. Spirity rather hot. Fiery one but good”.
• Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col. Light. V fwd easy & soft”. Of this, the word I think most open to challenge is the “soft”.

User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by RAYC » 19:22 Sun 04 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote: Musky
Rather than "musty"?
Rob C.

User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by RAYC » 19:31 Sun 04 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote: • Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col.
The two "col."s do not look like the same word to me
Rob C.

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20497
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by jdaw1 » 19:34 Sun 04 Jan 2015

RAYC wrote:
jdaw1 wrote: • Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col.
The two "col."s do not look like the same word to me
They do to me.
RAYC wrote:
jdaw1 wrote: Musky
Rather than "musty"?
I’m persuaded.


Having read the suggestions my new best understandings are:
• Mg50 — “V pale col. Musty. Spirity rather hot. Fiery one but good”.
• Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col. Light. V fwd easy & soft”. Of this, the word I think most open to challenge is the “soft”.

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 19:43 Sun 04 Jan 2015

No. I can only say that you are all misreading the "g"s.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 19:47 Sun 04 Jan 2015

I attach this sample to prove my point.
Image
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by RAYC » 19:47 Sun 04 Jan 2015

jdaw1 wrote: • Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col. Light. V fwd easy & soft”. Of this, the word I think most open to challenge is the “soft”.
For reasons Daniel states, I also think "V good" rather than "V fwd" (and to me the word looks the same as the last word in the previous note on Morgan 60)
Rob C.

User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8153
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Belfast
Contact:

Re: Quint. do Noval 1919: a question of handwriting

Post by djewesbury » 19:57 Sun 04 Jan 2015

The two "o"s in "good" could not be a "w", even though the loop of one is almost completely closed.
Daniel J.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...

Post Reply