ThePortForum.com

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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


and Morgan 1960:

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

Med. Incontrovertible.

See the "R" on following line.

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”.

jdaw1 wrote: Musky

Rather than "musty"?

jdaw1 wrote: • Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col.

The two "col."s do not look like the same word to me

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”.

No. I can only say that you are all misreading the "g"s.

I attach this sample to prove my point.

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)

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