Page 4 of 18

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 23:34 Sat 29 Nov 2008
by Alex Bridgeman
Time for me to take a look and make sure I've posted all my recent notes!

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 23:35 Sat 29 Nov 2008
by jdaw1
Congratulations to AHB: that was the twenty-thousandth post on :tpf:.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 09:28 Sun 30 Nov 2008
by DRT
:D

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 20:41 Wed 03 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
Done. Due to diligent drinking and note-taking by members of :tpf: each of the two TN indexes (alphabetical, date) has grown to four posts.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 05:24 Thu 04 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
Careful perusal has found some problems.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 05:48 Thu 04 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
And Vesuvio leads with 68 TNs, of which 24 are from Mr V. himself.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 14:18 Thu 04 Dec 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:
  • Is Adams the same as Adam?
Yes.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 11:57 Mon 22 Dec 2008
by RonnieRoots
jdaw1 wrote:Careful perusal has found some problems.
Petre's was a second label by Niepoort that they sometimes produced (mostly on request I guess) but never actively marketed. I don't think the label is used anymore, as they now have "Secundum".

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 16:13 Mon 22 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
Should they be merged? ‟Secundum (Petre’s)”?

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 20:48 Mon 22 Dec 2008
by Alex Bridgeman
Personally, I would not merge these ports, but keep them separate. From what I have learnt, Petre was an experiment over a handful of vintages by Dirk to see if he could make a decent but low cost house vintage port for the restaurant trade - effectively a competitor to the Buyer's Own Brands. Secundum is different. It is a Niepoort Port which carries the Niepoort name and is blended to be in the Niepoort house style, even if more approachable when young.

My vote is to keep them separate anbd to show Petre's Port as just that.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 22:19 Mon 22 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
AHB wrote:My vote is to keep them separate anbd to show Petre's Port as just that.
As ‟Petre’s Port” or as ‟Niepoort (Petre’s)”? I think the latter more useful, but will defer to instruction.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 23:12 Mon 22 Dec 2008
by Alex Bridgeman
I would suggest as "Petre's Port (Niepoort)" if we want to link the two together. The reason for suggesting this is that nowhere on the label is there a reference to the fact that this port comes from the Niepoort stable. Anyone finding a bottle and wanting to look it up will be searching the internet purely on the string "Petre's Port".

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 23:19 Mon 22 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
The sort order is separate from the name, but it looks more natural if the visual is close to the logical. Would ‟Niepoort: Petre’s Port” work perhaps with different punctuation? And you wouldn’t have to type this: just ‟Petre” would identify it to my software.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 09:21 Tue 23 Dec 2008
by RonnieRoots
Secundum and Petre's are indeed two different types of port. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my previous post.

Alex' suggestion of Petre's Port (Niepoort) sounds most logical to me, but it really doesn't matter that much to me as long as the link with Niepoort is clearly shown.

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 09:23 Tue 23 Dec 2008
by Alex Bridgeman
I'm sure I could live with something along the lines of Niepoort - Petre's Port (or the punctuation that you believe is appropriate). I'm happy for you to try it and for us to see what it looks like in the next sort. Incidentally, there have been a lot of new tasting notes added recently - is it time for another update?

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 16:24 Tue 23 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
I can’t do my part of the update until 26th December. Perhaps Chief Admin would do his part at the last convenient moment before Boxing Day afternoon?

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 23:01 Sun 28 Dec 2008
by jdaw1
TN index re-made.

We lacks TNs from: ’93; ’81; ’73; ’69; only a colheita for ’61; ’59; ’56; ’54; ’51; ’49; ’46; ’43; ’39; ’36; ’28 to ’30, and too many earlier years. There are even whole decades where we have failed (e.g., the 1880s and 1840s).

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 17:37 Mon 29 Dec 2008
by DRT
jdaw1 wrote:We lacks TNs from: ’93...
I plan to open a Quinta das Licieras 1993 on 28th September 2011 so will plug that gap then, unless Tom opens his bottle first :wink:

Derek

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 21:16 Mon 29 Dec 2008
by benread
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:We lacks TNs from: ’93...
I plan to open a Quinta das Licieras 1993 on 28th September 2011 so will plug that gap then, unless Tom opens his bottle first :wink:

Derek
Your son's 18th birthday perhaps?!

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 12:47 Tue 30 Dec 2008
by DRT
benread wrote:
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:We lacks TNs from: ’93...
I plan to open a Quinta das Licieras 1993 on 28th September 2011 so will plug that gap then, unless Tom opens his bottle first :wink:

Derek
Your son's 18th birthday perhaps?!
Correct :wink:

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 11:58 Tue 06 Jan 2009
by DRT
Something horrid has happened to the Smith Woodhouse vintage port entries in the Alphabetical TN Index

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 12:12 Tue 06 Jan 2009
by JacobH
ditto Warre

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 15:48 Tue 06 Jan 2009
by jdaw1
Ooops. Will fix later today.

Perhaps chief admin would update my data?

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 20:18 Fri 09 Jan 2009
by jdaw1
Chief admin updated data, and I have updated the indexes (alphabetical, date).

Re: Time for a TN sort?

Posted: 23:16 Sat 10 Jan 2009
by Alex Bridgeman
There is one port which is titled "Niepoort vintage port vintage port LBV
2004: MM on 14 Oct 2008"