Port Vintages, Second Edition

[jdaw1]

Ground has been broken.

As attentive readers of these pages might already know, the book Port Vintages was self-published in 2018. There have been requests, here and elsewhere, for more copies to be available, ideally in the form of a second edition incorporating the additional information that has come to light since 2018.

Today, ground has been broken on that second edition. The original master file has been duplicated, and edits to it made. (So far, correction of a subtle punctuation error, and the additional of a quotation from the Addams Family — but at least it’s a start!)

As yet, I do not have a publisher. If I must self-publish again (sigh), my sales team will be all of you. For the moment, that means encouraging potential purchasers to subscribe to the mailing list available at www.PortVintages.com.

Other threads: The Book, ‘Port Vintages’, is for sale (Sep 2018); Port Vintages: Addendum (Sep 2019).

Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

[MigSU]

Yes!

I'm in, and I'll try to find other buyers as well. Good stuff, Julian, here's to a successful 2nd edition.

[JacobH]

Wonderful news! Good luck with the second edition!

[Christopher]

Great to here
I have a whole load of Port mates who missed out the first time and I think I will need 10 to 15 please

[Alex Bridgeman]

If you do have to self-publish again, please consider going down the Crowdfunding route. It worked really well for Ryan Opaz and Simon Wolfe and their book Foot Trodden about the wines of Portugal.

[jdaw1]

If you do have to self-publish again, please consider going down the Crowdfunding route. It worked really well for Ryan Opaz and Simon Wolfe and their book Foot Trodden about the wines of Portugal.

Why? What does it offer that isn’t done by a post-writing pre-printing pre-order website (as was done before)?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Fair question.

Nothing as far as I can see, other than the fact that consumers are used to pledging to buy things which don’t yet exist on Crowdfunding. You also get a very clear idea of how many copies you’ve sold before you go to print (as you do with the pre-order system you ran before).

Perhaps the main advantage of the crowdfunding route is eased administration.

[SCP-DFF]

Fair question.

Nothing as far as I can see, other than the fact that consumers are used to pledging to buy things which don’t yet exist on Crowdfunding. You also get a very clear idea of how many copies you’ve sold before you go to print (as you do with the pre-order system you ran before).

Perhaps the main advantage of the crowdfunding route is eased administration.

Eased admin is my vote! (As you know, I did all the admin for the first round.)

Let it be known that I am not the main admin for the second round.

I think a second edition will work well and be successful!

[Doggett]

Crowd funding would also allow some special packages such as £xxxx for a stay at the Yeatman with the author… and his very good wife and tastings at x and x, and a lower level one of a tasting at the B&F for the launch party etc etc

Apart from the legal action for buying the first and only edition to be of the Book I would most definitely want to purchase the second edition and very happy to spread the word. Fingers crossed that land is firm and there are no subsidence issues!

[JacobH]

I have a sneaking suspicion that crowd funding is more hassle than it is worth, unless you either: a) cannot proceed with the project without a decent amount of capital; or b) hit the publicity jackpot and raise many times the amount of capital you need as, I think, happened with Foottrodden. But that is a pure guess. That said, if Julian is offering to commission a set of Azulejo tiles to sell to early subscribers, as happened with Foottrodden, that would be a huge benefit!

[MigSU]

I like Doggett's idea of dinner with the author

[JacobH]

I like Doggett's idea of dinner with the author

PS. That too, obviously. Although I have suspicion that arranging a dinner with the author shouldn’t be too difficult without the assistance of Kickstarter!

[nac]

Ground has been broken.

Assume you'd like us to continue sending you additional information?

[jdaw1]

Ground has been broken.

Assume you'd like us to continue sending you additional information?

Yes please.

[Glenn E.]

I like Doggett's idea of dinner with the author

I have had dinner with the author, in Paris, and just re-discovered the pictures to prove it.

Count me in for a copy of the 2nd edition!

[nac]

Will a new edition have chapters on some of the smaller/newer producers, eg Churchill? Think this would be good for completeness and to reflect how important some of them now are.

BTW, I will definitely want a copy and suspect I’d be able to shift a few through 67 Pall Mall.

[M.Charlton]

Ground has been broken.

As attentive readers of these pages might already know, the book Port Vintages was self-published in 2018. There have been requests, here and elsewhere, for more copies to be available, ideally in the form of a second edition incorporating the additional information that has come to light since 2018.

Today, ground has been broken on that second edition. The original master file has been duplicated, and edits to it made. (So far, correction of a subtle punctuation error, and the additional of a quotation from the Addams Family — but at least it’s a start!)

As yet, I do not have a publisher. If I must self-publish again (sigh), my sales team will be all of you. For the moment, that means encouraging potential purchasers to subscribe to the mailing list available at www.PortVintages.com.

Other threads: The Book, ‘Port Vintages’, is for sale (Sep 2018); Port Vintages: Addendum (Sep 2019).

Have you considered a print-on-demand approach, or is the plan to keep the number of second edition copies limited to those who preorder?

[jdaw1]

Have you considered a print-on-demand approach, or is the plan to keep the number of second edition copies limited to those who preorder?

I did. Easy for paperback. Not for this giant.

[jdaw1]

Will a new edition have chapters on some of the smaller/newer producers, eg Churchill? Think this would be good for completeness and to reflect how important some of them now are.

BTW, I will definitely want a copy and suspect I’d be able to shift a few through 67 Pall Mall.

There is an Other Shippers chapter, to hold the names for which there is not enough history or not enough data to justify a lone chapter.

This chapter contains a little of the evidence of declarations by other shippers. Only some of the shippers are here; for those shippers, some vintages might be absent; and typically for each vintage much evidence is not shown. In choosing what to include, mostly I have typically favoured sources that are interesting or unlikely to be found by reading the obvious literature.

It does not include Churchill; perhaps it should.

[jdaw1]

BTW, I will definitely want a copy and suspect I’d be able to shift a few through 67 Pall Mall.

Thank you.

[PhilW]

Still hoping for a pdf or kindle version here!

Suggestions:
- Churchill could be a worthy addition as a separate chapter, though perhaps only if you are extending the latest-vintage-included cutoff, otherwise their vintages would almost/all be too recent to be included.
- The WineSoc/BBR chapter could be split to give each its own; most of the current chapter is WineSoc, and BBR could merit its own with a lot more info IMO.
- Release a pdf/kindle version, please.

[winesecretary]

I think extending the cutoff to the 2000 vintage declaration (i.e. to the effective end of the pre-internet age) might be worthwhile.

[JacobH]

I appreciate that Julian took the view that his methodical, evidence-driven approach was disproportionate to (e.g.) confirming that a Graham’s 1994 existed which makes perfect sense. However, I do agree it would be helpful to have a list of other major shippers’ declarations somewhere, even if there is no need to cite sources in the same level of detail. I can’t imagine some of the brands that have sprung up post-1986 are going away any time soon.

As an aside, I also worry that whilst identifying which shippers declared, say, a 1991 might be quite straight-forward, due to the explosion of new producers over the last 15 to 20 years, finding out who declared some of the more recent vintages will be extremely difficult if not impossible in the future. For example, the thread tells me that Quinta Santa Izabel declared a 2019. I confess to not knowing this shipper. I think it might be a reference to Quinta Maria Izabel (which I also don’t know). Their website only listed the 2015 declaration. VintagePort.se lists the 2012 and 2015. I can’t see any trace of a 2019 by either them of Quinta Santa Izabel. Whilst some smaller companies look like they will keep going indefinitely, I think it is very likely that there will be dozens of small producers who will only make a few vintages before vanishing leaving effectively no records.

I can see this being important in the future. For example: I am sure people will be interested in who Quinta das Liceiras were since their 1993 is a unique Port which sells for an incredible premium. I also think that people will be interesting in some of the quintas which pass between shippers. For example, Quinta da Côrte is now being made independently having previously been made by Delaforce. Or those brands which have been revived after a long period of dormancy. Van Zeller might be one example. But, of course, producing a complete list of what has been produced post-1986 would be an enormous challenge. I just mention this because I think that whilst most of the sources Julian consulted to discover what was made in the 19C will be around in 100 years; digital rot may obliterate many 21C records.

[jdaw1]

The WineSoc/BBR chapter could be split to give each its own; most of the current chapter is WineSoc, and BBR could merit its own with a lot more info IMO.

Agreed. This was an error.

[jdaw1]

I think extending the cutoff to the 2000 vintage declaration (i.e. to the effective end of the pre-internet age) might be worthwhile.

(e.g.) confirming that a Graham’s 1994 existed which makes perfect sense.

I think that the decision was taken whilst adding a source for a ’94. Many modern stores listed it, and I was selecting between them. Pointless. Even digital rot won’t obliterate archive.org. So instead each chapter has a Later vintages area, in which I quote what is interesting (usually Wine Society at-release offerings) and nothing more. They are listed without evidence. This still seems correct. Later vintages will be extended, but not fundamentally changed.

[jdaw1]

I also worry that whilst identifying which shippers declared, say, a 1991 might be quite straight-forward, due to the explosion of new producers over the last 15 to 20 years, finding out who declared some of the more recent vintages will be extremely difficult if not impossible in the future. For example, the thread tells me that Quinta Santa Izabel declared a 2019. I confess to not knowing this shipper. I think it might be a reference to Quinta Maria Izabel (which I also don’t know). Their website only listed the 2015 declaration. VintagePort.se lists the 2012 and 2015. I can’t see any trace of a 2019 by either them of Quinta Santa Izabel. Whilst some smaller companies look like they will keep going indefinitely, I think it is very likely that there will be dozens of small producers who will only make a few vintages before vanishing leaving effectively no records.

I can see this being important in the future. For example: I am sure people will be interested in who Quinta das Liceiras were since their 1993 is a unique Port which sells for an incredible premium. I also think that people will be interesting in some of the quintas which pass between shippers. For example, Quinta da Côrte is now being made independently having previously been made by Delaforce. Or those brands which have been revived after a long period of dormancy. Van Zeller might be one example. But, of course, producing a complete list of what has been produced post-1986 would be an enormous challenge. I just mention this because I think that whilst most of the sources Julian consulted to discover what was made in the 19C will be around in 100 years; digital rot may obliterate many 21C records.

This is fair.

Currently the Other Shippers chapter lists interesting oddments, some of which are old records that wouldn’t otherwise be found. Do I want — and can I face the effort of — an Every small quinta and their minuscule releases chapter? Sigh: if only the IVDP were helpful.

[jdaw1]

Release a pdf/kindle version, please.

PDF is multi-gigabyte.

Kindle? Not willing to lock myself to a proprietary format. But would consider electronic publication. Not promising more than ‘consider’.

[PhilW]

Release a pdf/kindle version, please.

PDF is multi-gigabyte.

Even with B&W and/or reduced-resolution (or even omitted) images?

[jdaw1]

If I release a PDF, it will leak and become available de facto free. Reluctant.

[Alex Bridgeman]

If I release a PDF, it will leak and become available de facto free. Reluctant.

I agree. Don't release a pdf version.

As a compromise, you could put a web-accessible (but not downloadable) copy behind a paywall for Phil to access when he's out and about.

[Christopher]

I think you should not have an electronic version. It will get nicked
Thanks

[PhilW]

Good topic for discussion over (hopefully) excellent port tomorrow, perhaps?

[JacobH]

Currently the Other Shippers chapter lists interesting oddments, some of which are old records that wouldn’t otherwise be found. Do I want — and can I face the effort of — an Every small quinta and their minuscule releases chapter? Sigh: if only the IVDP were helpful.

I don’t really know what the answer is. I’m not sure a list of every VP made since 2000 is going to be much help to anyone since it feels like if you choose any random place within the demarcated zone and search for “quinta” on google maps you can find some independent shipper that has produced a couple most of which never seem to see the light of day.

If you were minded to enlarge the more recent decades’ coverage, I guess you would need to think of some criteria for which shippers you would cover and which not. Just as a few thoughts:

a) I think there might be some merit in trying to include some of the more significant new shippers. Companies like Churchill & Quevedo are probably going to be around for a time. Or, if not, will have left a sufficient historic legacy that someone might want to look them up in your book in the future. I’m not sure how you would measure “significant”, though. Maybe a minimum number of declarations. Say 5 or 10? If it were 10, I think you’d lose companies like Pintas. Are they sufficiently significant that you might want to preserve them for posterity at this stage? I don’t know!

b) I’d really appreciate if modern Ports which are continuations of old ones could be included. Examples might be Roriz or Côrte or even companies like Van Zellar. I think most of them already are.

c) There’s probably some merit in thinking hard to ensure all the notable oddities like the Liceiras are included. Perhaps also some of the charitable Ports like the one Axel was involved in (I’ve forgotten the name: apologies).

[MigSU]

O-Port-Unidade?

[jdaw1]

O-Port-Unidade?

A whole chapter?

[MigSU]

O-Port-Unidade?

A whole chapter?

No

I was answering Jacob's question, but was on my phone, got lazy, and didn't quote him.

[jdaw1]

I don’t really know what the answer is. I’m not sure a list of every VP made since 2000 is going to be much help to anyone since it feels like if you choose any random place within the demarcated zone and search for “quinta” on google maps you can find some independent shipper that has produced a couple most of which never seem to see the light of day.

It feels like a pointless copy-paste of TPF threads. Indeed, I don’t see how it could amount to much more.

I think there might be some merit in trying to include some of the more significant new shippers. Companies like Churchill & Quevedo are probably going to be around for a time. Or, if not, will have left a sufficient historic legacy that someone might want to look them up in your book in the future. I’m not sure how you would measure “significant”, though. Maybe a minimum number of declarations. Say 5 or 10? If it were 10, I think you’d lose companies like Pintas. Are they sufficiently significant that you might want to preserve them for posterity at this stage? I don’t know!

Nor do I. Indeed, part of what needs to be judged is the (im)mortality of digital information. Will archive.org live forever?

I’d really appreciate if modern Ports which are continuations of old ones could be included. Examples might be Roriz or Côrte or even companies like Van Zellar. I think most of them already are.

These are amongst the more important of the non-chapter shippers.

There’s probably some merit in thinking hard to ensure all the notable oddities like the Liceiras are included. Perhaps also some of the charitable Ports

These might be the only two.

[nac]

For completeness, and for use as a sole reference, could simple lists of the known production for some/many of the smaller houses be added as an appendix? Would be useful to have these all in one place.

Also, but assume this is a much more significant task, how about some inclusion of LBVs? For some houses these are pretty serious wines. Again, possibly list based appendix rather than the full detail (which would probably require a volume to itself)?

[jdaw1]

For completeness, and for use as a sole reference, could simple lists of the known production for some/many of the smaller houses be added as an appendix? Would be useful to have these all in one place.

Also, but assume this is a much more significant task, how about some inclusion of LBVs? For some houses these are pretty serious wines. Again, possibly list based appendix rather than the full detail (which would probably require a volume to itself)?

These are both desirable objectives. To help me assess the scale of the task, and the extra weight of the book, a new thread has been created: Port producers and brands. It lists 123 names needing contacting. Some are defunct, but that still leaves 100ish. Assume I contact them. Each submitted Vintage or LBV then needs to be checked against, at a minimum, Google. And 100ish names must come to 30ish pages.

Neil: how much of this do you want to do?

[DRT]

I think one of the things that make Port Vintages such a special and credible resource is the "with evidence" qualifier in the title. Having list of things with no evidence or statement about the source of each data item is simply repeating what wine authors have done for two centuries or more.

Does this important book deserve such dilution of its value?

[winesecretary]

I agree, wholly, with Derek. Showing one's workings/ sources is what makes this work definitive.

[jdaw1]

I think one of the things that make Port Vintages such a special and credible resource is the "with evidence" qualifier in the title. Having list of things with no evidence or statement about the source of each data item is simply repeating what wine authors have done for two centuries or more.

This is a powerful argument. Even though the end of each chapter has a ‘Later vintages’ area, which asserts without evidence.

[PhilW]

A couple of notes, perhaps just to stimulate thought rather then necessarily change.

First, as noted elsewhere I would suggest that we (generally) should be clearer when referring to "brands" vs houses or shippers; I think we have often used the latter when meaning the former. I can't remember whether the book is affected since the chapters are generally split by port house, with brands, sub-brands and single-quinta vintage releases mentioned therein, so perhaps not but something to bear in mind when reviewing.

Secondly, in revising the VPID internals I have had to deal with similar issues to the port brand abbreviation list which is also mentioned in the book; while I have mostly followed the defined list, I have three variations when naming the images files with the brand as part of the name:
1. If the brand is Quinta do/de/... <something>, then I add a small q at the front, e.g. qLR, qRo. Admittedly I have some inconsistency, as I generally use the unmodified abbreviation for some brands e.g. Noval as that is how I think of the brand (vs Quinta do Noval in full); though for many "Quinta ..." brands I can't imagine saying them without the Qd (e.g. Quinta de la Rosa), hence I use the q pre-pend. I have found the addition of the q make it easier when handling abbreviation lists, or sorting/searching files, as the "Quinta ..." brands then appear alphabetically more naturally for me. (no, I don't add the q in the middle e.g. in ChqAA, which remains ChAA, I only use it at the start).
2. For Unknowns, I use the abbreviation Unk
3. I do not use accented characters, to avoid compatibility issues.
As we have noted previously, for brands with too few vintages we have not assigned abbreviations, and similarly for these I will generally use the full name (or qName).
Am not expecting the above to necessarily influence the book, or our abbreviations list, but thought it worth mentioning in case.

[nac]

I think one of the things that make Port Vintages such a special and credible resource is the "with evidence" qualifier in the title. Having list of things with no evidence or statement about the source of each data item is simply repeating what wine authors have done for two centuries or more.

This is a powerful argument. Even though the end of each chapter has a ‘Later vintages’ area, which asserts without evidence.

To answer another question, am happy to provide some assistance, but I'm not sure the scope of the task is known yet.

On the point above, when would "later vintages" become sufficiently old that the requirement for evidence would become a consideration? I assume the rationale here was that these vintages were within the buying history of readers so the evidence wasn't necessary + Julian had to stop somewhere?

[jdaw1]

On the point above, when would "later vintages" become sufficiently old that the requirement for evidence would become a consideration? I assume the rationale here was that these vintages were within the buying history of readers so the evidence wasn't necessary + Julian had to stop somewhere?

I think extending the cutoff to the 2000 vintage declaration (i.e. to the effective end of the pre-internet age) might be worthwhile.

(e.g.) confirming that a Graham’s 1994 existed which makes perfect sense.

I think that the decision was taken whilst adding a source for a ’94. Many modern stores listed it, and I was selecting between them. Pointless. Even digital rot won’t obliterate archive.org. So instead each chapter has a Later vintages area, in which I quote what is interesting (usually Wine Society at-release offerings) and nothing more. They are listed without evidence. This still seems correct. Later vintages will be extended, but not fundamentally changed.

[JacobH]

Also, but assume this is a much more significant task, how about some inclusion of LBVs? For some houses these are pretty serious wines. Again, possibly list based appendix rather than the full detail (which would probably require a volume to itself)?

Would this not be an almost impossibly difficult project? We have a little more than 50 years’ worth of “modern” LBVs from the big producers and trying to unpick what is a filtered / unfiltered / “traditional” LBV is quite a challenge even with new releases. And presumably there was quite a lot of late-bottling in the days of shipping by pipe, too, which happened informally?

[jdaw1]

Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

I slightly regret using Times New Roman for the bulk of the text, and am considering using, for the second edition, Minion Pro. Objections? Suggestions of better (serious suggestions pls).

Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎

[M.Charlton]

Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

I slightly regret using Times New Roman for the bulk of the text, and am considering using, for the second edition, Minion Pro. Objections? Suggestions of better (serious suggestions pls).

Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎

Agreed that a serif font ought to be used for the bulk of the text. No objections to Minion, though I would also recommend Garamond for your consideration.

I think that the proposed ‘new evidence marker’ is particularly preferable to the evidence marker used in the first edition.

[jdaw1]

Agreed that a serif font ought to be used for the bulk of the text. No objections to Minion, though I would also recommend Garamond for your consideration.

I find Garamond a touch too ornate. Baskerville was used for the quotations: do comment.

I think that the proposed ‘new evidence marker’ is particularly preferable to the evidence marker used in the first edition.

If there’s even better, please suggest.

[PhilW]

Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.

I slightly regret using Times New Roman for the bulk of the text, and am considering using, for the second edition, Minion Pro. Objections? Suggestions of better (serious suggestions pls).

Dislike for Minion here; I generally find text printed/displayed in fonts where parts of the letter are very thin are much less readable (less of an issue in italic and bold variants, since the finest part of the line tends not to be so fine). Serif fonts often have more line width variation within each letter form than sans-serif, and Minion looks to be a particularly thin minimum-width variant; more stylish but less readable; I prefer readable.

Thread renamed from “Ground has been broken” to “Port Vintages, Second Edition” by jdaw1, 22:30 Mon 20 Dec 2021.
Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎

Would need to see in context if judgement wanted.