Standardised House Names

[jdaw1]

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith

Bickering to cease? You cannot be serious.

How are you expecting to present this?

I can present it: don’t you worry about that. I can present all the data you give me.

[Edit: at least, I have a model for how to present, for each ‘house’, its declared and unofficial vintages, its history of ownership, and an approximation to some numerical measure that might be Uncle Tom’s estimate of current price. All of which would look clear and uncluttered. Though this assumes a A0ish paper size, and colour printing.]

[uncle tom]

Would you be happy to share your data so that we can merge our two datasets together and then link them to the TN threads?

No problem - if you can match it your own lists and let me have the ones I've missed, that would be appreciated!

I understand Alex's concerns entirely, and suggest we deal with them by inserting reference entries into the list:

For example, the listing for Passadouro might run:

Passadouro 1992 - 2001 - See Niepoort Passadouro
Passadouro 2003 - See Niepoort Secundum
Passadouro 2004
Passadouro 2005

I use some fairly complex systems for computing and updating prices. I am also pretty brutal in my valuation of young vintage ports from houses of little note - for example Borges 2003 currently stands at £7.33/bottle, fair value (I think) - but well below the trade price Borges would expect!

I could assign letters to each wine, ranging from A (Under £8) to W (£130-£150) with X reserved for values over £150. All prices being current auction prices for sound bottles, inclusive of buyer's premium. The value of each price band could then be adjusted each year to reflect market moves.

Over time, some edits to the band allocations would need to be made, but this should not prove too onerous.

Incidentally, the value of bottles worth more than £150 is quite hard to set, as they do not come to auction very often, fluctuate widely, and often have significant condition issues.

Tom

[jdaw1]

Great all round.

For example, the listing for Passadouro might run:

Passadouro 1992 - 2001 - See Niepoort Passadouro
Passadouro 2003 - See Niepoort Secundum
Passadouro 2004
Passadouro 2005

Which isn’t so different from my suggestion.

So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

I could assign letters to each wine, ranging from A (Under £8) to W (£130-£150) with X reserved for values over £150. All prices being current auction prices for sound bottles, inclusive of buyer's premium. The value of each price band could then be adjusted each year to reflect market moves.

Please send numbers — they won’t be shown. Instead the size or colour or something of something will be proportional to a monotonic function of the numbers.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I still seem to have a mental block. Can someone explain (in simple terms since I seem to be strggling with this) what the extra value is from having Quinta output names associated with the owners at the time of declaration?

For example, why is it important to know:
Quinta de Napoles (Ferrira) declared in 1759
Quinta de Napoles (Manoel) declared in 1886
Quinta de Napoles (Barbosa) declared in 1941
Quinta de Napoles (McKenzie) declared in 1953
Quinta de Napoles (Magalhaes) declared in 1987
Quinta de Napoles (Niepoort) declared in 1989

Would we not get the same information simply from a combination of:
(a) Napoles declared in 1759, 1886, 1941, 1953, 1987, 1989
and
(b) Alex Liddell's book on the history of the Quintas of the Douro or perhaps from Stage 2 of Project Derek?

If the additional data where we link owner's name to Quinta name is not of immediate use, could we not choose to make life as easy as possible for ourselves and simply use the Quinta name. For me, this is the most valuable piece of information - when did the owner of a Quinta declare and ship wine under the name of the Quinta.

Alex

PS - I'm not bickering, just trying to make life easy for the people who have to do the hard work.

[DRT]

1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith

Bickering to cease? You cannot be serious.

You're right. I wasn't being serious. AHB has demonstrated above that is impossible for the bickering to stop. Bickering is, in fact, what is driving us forward as a team.

Back on the Quinta thing, Tom and Jdaw seem to have almost agreed on something. AHB and I do not yet understand what that something is. I think that is fine, because I trust Tom's pragmatism to be keeping Jdaw's pedantry under control and vice-versa. So, I will vote to agree with both Tom and Jdaw, even though I don't know precisely what I am agreeing to. AHB, are you with us?

Tom, can you please email your data to me so that I can look at it and try to assess how best to combine what we have between us.

Thanks

Derek

[jdaw1]

For example, why is it important to know:
Quinta de Napoles (Ferrira) declared in 1759
Quinta de Napoles (Manoel) declared in 1886
Quinta de Napoles (Barbosa) declared in 1941
Quinta de Napoles (McKenzie) declared in 1953
Quinta de Napoles (Magalhaes) declared in 1987
Quinta de Napoles (Niepoort) declared in 1989

This name is a movable feast: it’s Tuesday, so this must be Paris. Hence this should be called “Quinta de Napoles†. Of course, if we have the extra data, we might wish to show it, but the name is “Quinta de Napoles†. The end.

Back on the Quinta thing, Tom and Jdaw seem to have almost agreed on something. AHB and I do not yet understand what that something is. I think that is fine,

But what about Malvedos? Graham have used all Malvedos’s grapes since dragons roamed middle earth (I approximate): Malvedos isn’t just a stand-alone SQVP, it is a variant of Graham, and has been since …. Hence I think it is helpful, and simultaneously accurate, so label it something like Graham Malvedos.

I trust Tom's pragmatism to be keeping Jdaw's pedantry under control and vice-versa. So, I will vote to agree with both Tom and Jdaw, even though I don't know precisely what I am agreeing to.

Whenever Tom and I agree, you should agree with us.

Tom: Derek to buy the next round? N31 please!

[DRT]

Jdaw,

Just to avoid anyone cutting their head off with a spoon in some kind of mentally deranged state whilst trying to work out where we are with standardised names, can you please set out some comments and examples illustrating (a) what you think has already been agreed and (b) what still requires some collective thought and decision making.

Thanks

Derek

[DRT]

Offley and Offley Boa Vista - are they different?

All of Offley's vintage ports originate from the company's Quinta Boa Vista... The exception was 1987, when Offley made both a Boa Vista and a vintage port blended from various estates in the Cima Corgo... According to to Jorges Guimaraens, Offley's export manager, his company decided to make two different vintage wines due to the increasing worldwide demand for their vintages, particularly in the United States.

I think that one is now settled.

Derek

[jdaw1]

Yes, I will build a list of questions.

Offley versus OBV. We could show this as two columns, one having been declared in only one year. IMHO, a waste of space. Or we could agree on a multi-declaration symbol, and use it rarely. More mess in the data.

[jdaw1]

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

[Andy Velebil]

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

i do know that Sibio produced a 1900 COlheita, but I don't know about a VP. No idea on the other ones.

[DRT]

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

i do know that Sibio produced a 1900 COlheita, but I don't know about a VP. No idea on the other ones.

I have found a couple of examples of this kind of inconsistency in Broadbents book. I think I need to check through the early vintages again to look for signs of the wines being something other than VP.

Barros has the same issue. The shipper confirmed to Jdaw that they started producing VP in 1960 but Broadbent had a note of a 1937 which, on more detailed reading of the note, turns out to be a Colheita.

Jdaw, can you please add these to the list of questions/issues?

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

For example, why is it important to know:
Quinta de Napoles (Ferrira) declared in 1759
Quinta de Napoles (Manoel) declared in 1886
Quinta de Napoles (Barbosa) declared in 1941
Quinta de Napoles (McKenzie) declared in 1953
Quinta de Napoles (Magalhaes) declared in 1987
Quinta de Napoles (Niepoort) declared in 1989

This name is a movable feast: it’s Tuesday, so this must be Paris. Hence this should be called “Quinta de Napoles†. Of course, if we have the extra data, we might wish to show it, but the name is “Quinta de Napoles†. The end.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Back on the Quinta thing, Tom and Jdaw seem to have almost agreed on something. AHB and I do not yet understand what that something is. I think that is fine,

But what about Malvedos? Graham have used all Malvedos’s grapes since dragons roamed middle earth (I approximate): Malvedos isn’t just a stand-alone SQVP, it is a variant of Graham, and has been since …. Hence I think it is helpful, and simultaneously accurate, so label it something like Graham Malvedos.

I'm happy to concede on this, although I would note that for consistency that I believe that we should retain the "Graham Malvedos" nomenclature even after the point when these wines become "Graham, Quinta dos Malvedos"

I trust Tom's pragmatism to be keeping Jdaw's pedantry under control and vice-versa. So, I will vote to agree with both Tom and Jdaw, even though I don't know precisely what I am agreeing to.

Whenever Tom and I agree, you should agree with us.

I agree that Tom and JDAW agree that Derek agrees he should agree with Tom and JDAW agreeing with each other. Is that now agreed?

Tom: Derek to buy the next round? N31 please!

Wossat you say? Can't make it out so I'll ignore it - unless it involves N31, of course!

Yes, I will build a list of questions.

Excellent. I will build a list of answers.

Offley versus OBV. We could show this as two columns, one having been declared in only one year. IMHO, a waste of space. Or we could agree on a multi-declaration symbol, and use it rarely. More mess in the data.

I would suggest we keep the data clean and have Offley sit in its own little column all on its own with just the one declaration. This retains the integrity of the data and allows us to add to it more easily in the future if there are later declarations by Offley from purchased grapes. I know this wastes space, but this table that is being developed is potentially a really interesting piece of history for port students. When we come to print out our poster, I assume that we can choose to print only a subset of the data?

Did Quinta do Síbio declare 1900 and 1963? And Quinta do Corval the 1977?

I have no idea. I will try to do some digging around in the hope that I can find out.

[DRT]

For the record: I agree that AHB agrees that when Tom and Jdaw agree that I agree that Jdaw and Tom agree then AHB and I should agree to agree with Tom and Jdaw.

I vote to keep Offley separate for the same reasons as AHB has stated above. The note that I took from Suckling's book can be paraphrased in the notes field to explain the anomoly.

Derek

[Alex Bridgeman]

I have found a couple of examples of this kind of inconsistency in Broadbents book. I think I need to check through the early vintages again to look for signs of the wines being something other than VP.

Barros has the same issue. The shipper confirmed to Jdaw that they started producing VP in 1960 but Broadbent had a note of a 1937 which, on more detailed reading of the note, turns out to be a Colheita.

Broadbent does include notes on what he terms "Vintage Tawny Ports" and it is not always apparent when his notes refer to one of these.

I believe that historically, there has also been a blurring of the distinction between what we would now term Vintage Port, Late Bottled Vintage Port and Colheita Port. I don't know when the IVDP (previously the IVP) first imposed the rules that create the distinctions that we now recognise. Perhaps they simply codified rules that were being followed at the time.

For example, consider the 1815 ports that were drunk at Roy's birthday party last year. Today, who will ever know whether these were bottled after 2-3 years in wood, or after 4-6 years, or after 7+ years. Equally, when a producer "declared" 150 years ago, was he declaring that he had a harvest of sufficient quantity and quality to fill and ship a few pipes of port, or to fill and ship a few dozen cases of bottles?

This is probably going to be an area of discussion and debate in the future for vintages that pre-date the formation of the IVP. More fun for all!

[jdaw1]

Some outstanding questions

List updated.

Outstanding questions
…
• “São Pedro das Aguias† or “Quinta do Convento de São Pedro das Aguias†? Which I’m guessing are different to Senhora do Convento.
…
• “Quinta do Noval Silval†? “Silval†? “Quinta do Noval Quinta do Silval†? “Noval Quinta do Silval†? Yuck. The best version of what’s on the one bottle I have is “Quinta do Noval Silval†. Objections?
…
• Van Zeller:

Is Van Zeller the same as JMF & Van Zeller? Have there been previous and different Van Zeller ports, that should be distinguished from this new partnership?

Please could somebody write a simple list, explaining all uses of the term “Silval†?

Berrys do and did not blend any wines of their own, merely selected the wine of a single shipper and put their own label on the bottle. I would recommend that they are removed from the list.

Just phoned BBR (0870 900 4300) and spoke to Jake. Who might or might not be able to email me a list of the original suppliers. Absent such a list, I’m tempted to keep BBR.

Add Harvey's in their own right, as I note that in some years they produced a blend under their own name based on the wines of two or more shippers in the same way as Avery did.

To be called “Harvey of Bristol†? Are they the www.harveys-usa.com?

How do we differentiate between Portal and Portal+?

Carvalhas is only a marketing name of Royal Oporto. Carvalhas is used as the marketing name in Iberia and Royal Oporto in Northern Europe. I suggest we treat in a similar way as for Dalva (Presidential).

It’s also a vineyard. Are you sure that the bottlings under the name Carvalhas are actually identical to Royal Oporto?

As the name “Graham Malvedos† has been agreed, we come back to this question:

So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:

• Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
• Churchill Quinta do Fojo
• [Edit: not Cockburn Quinta dos Canais]
• Croft Quinta da Roeda
• Delaforce Quinta da Corte
• Dow Quinta do Bomfim
• Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
• Fonseca Quinta de Santo António
• Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
• Fonseca Guimaraens
• Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
• Graham Quinta das Lages
• Graham Malvedos
• Kopke Quinta São Luiz
• Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
• Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha
• Sandeman Vale de Mendiz
• Messias Quinta do Cachão
• Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta do Bom Retiro
• Ramos Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
• Robertson Quinta da Roncao
• Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
• Smith Woodhouse Madalena
• Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
• Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
• Warre Quinta da Cavadinha

Do we have a decision on shippers who blended combinations of officially-declared ports?

Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)

OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]

Derek tried to shrink the project to make this go away. Is that shrinkage the team consensus?

[jdaw1]

Berrys' Own Selection Vintage Ports

Supplied by:

1960 Rebello Valente
1963 Taylor Fladgate
1966 Warre
1970 Warre
1975 Gould Campbell
1977 Quarles Harris
1980 Warre
1983 Warre
1985 shipped by Smith Woodhouse
1991 bottled by Smith Woodhouse
1994 produced & bottled by Smith Woodhouse
1997 produced & bottled by Warre
2000 produced by Smith Woodhouse
2003 produced by Quinta de la Rosa

THC/ 2008

It isn’t clear whether there is a real difference between “supplied by†, “shipped by†, “bottled by†, and “produced by†, or just writerly variation. Except that ≤1970 BBR might have done their own bottling.

Moral: if you want to know something, there’s nowt like asking.

Thank you very much indeed. That's very helpful. Great. One extra question: was 1960 the first year of Berry's Own Selection?

If you're interested, our project to gather a list of all port declarations is being co-ordinated from viewtopic.php?p=11998#11998

I've never seen an older Berrys VP than 1960 so I've always assumed that was the first but I will ask our past Chairman and see if he recalls anything. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

Tom

Anyway, I now agree to crediting Berrys’ Selections to their original manufacturer.

[DRT]

I have been told categorically by a member of staff at BBR that the 1994 was exactly the same wine as that sold under the Smith Woodhouse brand. I therefore consider it highly likely that all BBR BOBs are simply re-labelled and not different blends to those of the particular shipper chosen in any year.

Perhaps a follow-up question will confirm this?

Derek

[jdaw1]

On that bulletin board a follow-up question has been asked. Are Berrys' Selections a relabelling of the original blender's wine, or are they -- in some way -- different wines?

Again, thank you for your help with this historical digging.

[DRT]

I don't have access to wine-searcher right now.

Can someone please do a worldwide search on "Berry" + "1963" just in case there are some bottles out there and the owner doesn't know what is actually in them

Derek

[uncle tom]

Please could somebody write a simple list, explaining all uses of the term “Silval†?

Silval is to Noval what Secundum is to Niepoort - a second wine, normally made with grapes from both the quinta and also from grapes bought in.

Quinta do Silval has (I believe) no association with Noval and is principally a Hotel. As far as I know they have never made a vintage port. I seem to recall they make some table wines.. ..but I'm not sure?

Tom

[uncle tom]

To be called “Harvey of Bristol†? Are they the http://www.harveys-usa.com?

Just Harvey should suffice.

There's a fair number of bottlers who only put their own name on the bottle - some put the shipper's name on the cork, but some didn't...

To make things really complicated, one of these bottlers was called Cockburn - but were unrelated to the shipper (I think they're still in business)

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Quinta do Silval has (I believe) no association with Noval and is principally a Hotel. As far as I know they have never made a vintage port. I seem to recall they make some table wines.. ..but I'm not sure?

Tom

It does have a past with Noval, as they are next to each other. IIRC, Noval now owns some property, which originally belonged to Quinta do Silval. But that was purchased many many years ago, long before Chrstiano Van Zeller and AXO. It was on the northwest edge of the Noval vineyards (if I had my directions correct)

Quinta do Silval does make a VP and LBV, but it is sold under the Magalhese (spelling??) label. As Noval owns the rights to use the name "Silval", which it bought from Quinta do Silval many years ago. Confusing huh!

[jdaw1]

Quinta do Silval has (I believe) no association with Noval and is principally a Hotel. As far as I know they have never made a vintage port. I seem to recall they make some table wines.. ..but I'm not sure?

Tom

It does have a past with Noval, as they are next to each other. IIRC, Noval now owns some property, which originally belonged to Quinta do Silval. But that was purchased many many years ago, long before Chrstiano Van Zeller and AXO. It was on the northwest edge of the Noval vineyards (if I had my directions correct)

Quinta do Silval does make a VP and LBV, but it is sold under the Magalhese (spelling??) label. As Noval owns the rights to use the name "Silval", which it bought from Quinta do Silval many years ago. Confusing huh!

Magalhães Vintage Porto 2000 exists. So we have:

• Quinta do Noval;
• Quinta do Noval Nacional;
• Quinta do Noval Silval;
• Magalhães.

Please would everybody agree. Noval’s (annoying flash) website says that Silval 1998 “was made with grapes from Quinta do Silval (60%) and Quinta do Noval (40%)†.

[Andy Velebil]

But that is a different Quinta do Silval than the one that makes Magalheas Ports. Noval has a property that is also called Quinta do Silval...told you it was confusing