Port Vintages, Second Edition

[jdaw1]

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.

Noted. Please suggest better.

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.

Also ◉ and ◆ in image.

[Glenn E.]

I do not find ► to be too dominant, and in fact find ⇛︎ to be insufficiently dominant.

For me, ◉ and ◆ are equally suitable, though I do still prefer ►.

[PhilW]

I do not find ► to be too dominant, and in fact find ⇛︎ to be insufficiently dominant.

For me, ◉ and ◆ are equally suitable, though I do still prefer ►.

In rough agreement with Glenn; I prefer the bullets, though don't mind any of those suggested (or a standard bullet i.e. simple filled circle with no outer ring), and find ⇛︎ to be too weak, missing clarity as a marker. Perhaps you could reduce the size of the bullet slightly to decrease dominance sufficiently?

[nac]

I do not find ► to be too dominant, and in fact find ⇛︎ to be insufficiently dominant.

For me, ◉ and ◆ are equally suitable, though I do still prefer ►.

Agree.

[jdaw1]

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

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

Michael: so far, the majority is against this change. Please say more about your reasoning.

(It isn’t actually a vote, except in the sense that I get 1 whole vote and everybody else gets 10⁻⁹ votes, but my vote will be made whilst heeding wise opinions received.)

[PhilW]

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.

Noted. Please suggest better.

I was and am perfectly happy with the original Times New Roman.

[Justin K]

Times New Roman please

[DRT]

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.

Noted. Please suggest better.

I was and am perfectly happy with the original Times New Roman.

+1

[DRT]

A suggestion - when considering identifiers/markers for entries in the shipper chapters perhaps have different markers that enable the reader to easily identify:

>> entries that are unchanged from Edition 1
>> entries that have been improved
>> new entries

[jdaw1]

>> entries that are unchanged from Edition 1
>> entries that have been improved
>> new entries

I’m rejecting this for several reasons.
• Nobody remembers the book well enough to need paragraph-by-paragraph ‘is this changed’.
• Multiple paragraphs have already been changed. It would be lots of work to identify all.
• What happens with edition 3? Separate symbols for 1➝︎2 changes and 2➝︎3 changes?

[DRT]

>> entries that are unchanged from Edition 1
>> entries that have been improved
>> new entries

I’m rejecting this for several reasons.
• Nobody remembers the book well enough to need paragraph-by-paragraph ‘is this changed’.
• Multiple paragraphs have already been changed. It would be lots of work to identify all.
• What happens with edition 3? Separate symbols for 1➝︎2 changes and 2➝︎3 changes?

If this suggested geekiness is a step too far down the road of geekiness then so be it.

But loyal patrons might enjoy being able to quickly identify the enhancements and additions without having to compare page-by-page.

Perhaps worth considering that your likely biggest market is those who already have Edition 1?

[winesecretary]

TWS prints new wines, and their descriptions, in a different colour in their list. That might be sufficient to denote new content?

[uncle tom]

The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.

Indexing used to be the curse chore of the junior in publishing houses, but I suspect there's some clever technology out there today that can make it far less challenging..

[M.Charlton]

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

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

Michael: so far, the majority is against this change. Please say more about your reasoning.

(It isn’t actually a vote, except in the sense that I get 1 whole vote and everybody else gets 10⁻⁹ votes, but my vote will be made whilst heeding wise opinions received.)

My rationale is that I find the new evidence marker much more aesthetically pleasing, without diminishing its role in highlighting relevant information. To my mind, the first edition marker dominates the page too much (particularly so given the liberal, and most welcome, use of evidence), making it somewhat distracting.

Re Baskerville - I’m a fan, and see no compelling reason to change.

[jdaw1]

The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.

What for? What have you sought and been unable to find?

[MigSU]

The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.

What for? What have you sought and been unable to find?

A master index.






I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

[jdaw1]

New question. The Royal Oporto chapter is a jumble of brands, some of them being de facto synonyms of RO.

But Hooper, aka Richard Richard Hooper & Sons, had a separate life until it was bought in 1951. Should it be separated into its own chapter, Hooper? Or is it too minor to have its own chapter?

With even less enthusiasm, mutatis mutandis, Guedes?

[winesecretary]

I think both Hooper and Guedes deserve their own chapter... a slightly more difficult question is what you do with wines from the post-merger vintages. Do you know if they tended to continue to make the wines from the same vineyards as before? I have a vague recollection that that was the case with Hooper. If so it would make sense to continue to list them separately. But if they became pure brands then that dictates not.

[jdaw1]

An experiment as just been done that should have been done before asking the question. A quick duplicate-and-delete reveals that:
• A Hooper chapter would be six or seven pages;
• A Guedes chapter would likely be only one page, at most spilling onto the top part of a second page.

⟹︎ Hooper ✔; Guedes ✘ ?

If you agree with that, does Guedes remain in RO, or become another small part of Other Shippers?

[DRT]

• A Hooper chapter would be six or seven pages;

= deserving of a chapter.

• A Guedes chapter would likely be only one page, at most spilling onto the top part of a second page.

= it should stay where it is (for now).

Question: which shipper takes up the most space in Other Shippers?

[jdaw1]

• A Hooper chapter would be six or seven pages;

= deserving of a chapter.

I agree.

• A Guedes chapter would likely be only one page, at most spilling onto the top part of a second page.

= it should stay where it is (for now).

I agree not a chapter to itself. Should it move to Other Shippers, or actually not move at all? (I’m not advocating; I’m asking.)

Question: which shipper takes up the most space in Other Shippers?

Gilbey, pp538–9, is about 1½ pages. Then Andresen, pp533–4, about one page.

[DRT]

Should it move to Other Shippers, or actually not move at all? (I’m not advocating; I’m asking.)

Hence my "(for now)" qualifier and my subsequent question. Your answer suggests that Guedes should be moved to Other Shippers.

[jdaw1]

Chapter lengths, in pages:

• 5 = Butler Nephew
• 6 = Gonzalez Byass
• 6 = Mackenzie
• 7 = Krohn (Wiese &)
• 7 = Morgan
• 8 = J. W. Burmester
• 8 = Niepoort
• 9 = Cálem
• 10 = Delaforce
• 11 = Feuerheerd
• 11 = Quarles Harris
• 13 = Gould Campbell
• 13 = Ramos Pinto
• 15 = Smith Woodhouse
• 16 = Royal Oporto …
• 17 = Kopke
• 17 = Rebello Valente
• 17 = Tuke Holdsworth
• 18 = Ferreira
• 23 = Fonseca
• 23 = Warre
• 24 = Martinez
• 25 = Offley
• 26 = Cockburn
• 27 = Graham
• 31 = Croft
• 31 = Sandeman
• 34 = Quinta do Noval
• 35 = Dow
• 38 = Taylor

Which compels the Hooper decision, and part of the Guedes decision.

[winesecretary]

Agreed. 5 pages is a reasonable cut-off for a chapter of its own.

[DRT]

Should the cut-off be measured in pages or known vintages? You might have scant information on 20 vintages that takes up 3 pages, or a few interesting stories on 5 vintages that take up 5 pages/ Which is more worthy of a chapter in a book that aims to tell us "Who declared what?"

[winesecretary]

That would be an ecumenical question.

[jdaw1]

Should the cut-off be measured in pages or known vintages? You might have scant information on 20 vintages that takes up 3 pages, or a few interesting stories on 5 vintages that take up 5 pages/ Which is more worthy of a chapter in a book that aims to tell us "Who declared what?"

+ Pictures.

Pages chosen because conveniently to hand. Even though only an approximation to an ideal measure, sufficiently correlated to be relevant.

[Justin K]

That would be an ecumenical question.

On a point of order that quotation is strictly reserved for persons from the island of Ireland (have I been careful now Michael?).
You weren’t to know George but as a lawyer ignorance is no defence
Oh likewise “the money was just resting in my account”
Happy New Year to you all

[Justin K]

[Alex Bridgeman]

Does anyone else think Justin might have had an excellent Christmas?

Merry Christmas Justin!

Julian - I have a Guedes 1920 label in my collection. Remind me to send you a picture of it if you’d like it for the second (and even bigger and even heavier) edition.

[flash_uk]

That would be an ecumenical question.

On a point of order that quotation is strictly reserved for persons from the island of Ireland (have I been careful now Michael?).

[jdaw1]

¿
• Second Edition
• 2022 Edition
?

[MigSU]

Second Edition.

[Doggett]

Second Edition.

Most definitely +1

[PhilW]

Second edition (only 2022 if you were updating for all the latest releases)

[Glenn E.]

Second Edition.

Most definitely +1

+1.

"Second Edition" never feels outdated. Until a Third Edition is published, the Second Edition always feels current. Of course if one knows that the Second Edition was published in 1993 one might still know that it is outdated, but the name itself ages well.

"2022 Edition" feels outdated starting in 2023. In a way it also implies that there will be a 2023 Edition, or at least a regular new edition, which is pressure that the author presumably does not want.

[jdaw1]

"Second Edition" never feels outdated. Until a Third Edition is published, the Second Edition always feels current. Of course if one knows that the Second Edition was published in 1993 one might still know that it is outdated, but the name itself ages well.

Thank you, to Glenn and others. I’m convinced: Second Edition it is.

[JacobH]

The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.

What for? What have you sought and been unable to find?

I have to confess to being slightly defeated by the indices in the book. I’ve used the it for three main purposes: to see who declared a given vintage; to see which years a particular shipper declared; and to check the provenance of a specific unusual bottle.

The first category is pretty easy: there are very helpful tables towards the back. The second and third categories are rather more difficult. If, for example, I want to see what vintages were declared by Andresen or if a 1983 Quinta do Seixo was commercially available; I’d normally start by turning to the index and looking for “Andresen” and either “Quinta ... Seixo (do)”; or “Seixo, Quinta do”. I think none of these options are available.

My next step would be to look in the Table of Contents but this doesn’t provide details of shippers that are in the “Other Shippers” section nor of single Quintas. When in this situation previously, I’ve therefore flicked through the “Other Shippers” section which sometimes helps but sometimes does not.

I appreciate that once someone gets into the text everything is well referenced (e.g. if I thought to look in the Sandeman chapter for Quinta do Seixo, I’d find the reference to the fact that the 1983 and 1982 are actually located in the Ferreira chapter) but it is not immediately clear to me how to do that without some external knowledge.

I fully accept I may be doing something wrong and if so I apologise, but I have had the above problem a couple of times!

[Glenn E.]

Second Edition.

Most definitely +1

+1.

"Second Edition" never feels outdated. Until a Third Edition is published, the Second Edition always feels current. Of course if one knows that the Second Edition was published in 1993 one might still know that it is outdated, but the name itself ages well.

"2022 Edition" feels outdated starting in 2023. In a way it also implies that there will be a 2023 Edition, or at least a regular new edition, which is pressure that the author presumably does not want.

It pains me greatly to realize that I missed an excellent opportunity. I should not have replied with "+1" to indicate my preference. I should have replied with:

SecondEd.

[MigSU]

Second Edition.

Most definitely +1

+1.

"Second Edition" never feels outdated. Until a Third Edition is published, the Second Edition always feels current. Of course if one knows that the Second Edition was published in 1993 one might still know that it is outdated, but the name itself ages well.

"2022 Edition" feels outdated starting in 2023. In a way it also implies that there will be a 2023 Edition, or at least a regular new edition, which is pressure that the author presumably does not want.

It pains me greatly to realize that I missed an excellent opportunity. I should not have replied with "+1" to indicate my preference. I should have replied with:

SecondEd.

Oh, you.

[jdaw1]

I have to confess to being slightly defeated by the indices in the book. I’ve used the it for three main purposes: to see who declared a given vintage; to see which years a particular shipper declared; and to check the provenance of a specific unusual bottle.

The first category is pretty easy: there are very helpful tables towards the back. The second and third categories are rather more difficult. If, for example, I want to see what vintages were declared by Andresen or if a 1983 Quinta do Seixo was commercially available; I’d normally start by turning to the index and looking for “Andresen” and either “Quinta ... Seixo (do)”; or “Seixo, Quinta do”. I think none of these options are available.

My next step would be to look in the Table of Contents but this doesn’t provide details of shippers that are in the “Other Shippers” section nor of single Quintas. When in this situation previously, I’ve therefore flicked through the “Other Shippers” section which sometimes helps but sometimes does not.

I appreciate that once someone gets into the text everything is well referenced (e.g. if I thought to look in the Sandeman chapter for Quinta do Seixo, I’d find the reference to the fact that the 1983 and 1982 are actually located in the Ferreira chapter) but it is not immediately clear to me how to do that without some external knowledge.

I fully accept I may be doing something wrong and if so I apologise, but I have had the above problem a couple of times!

Tom asked for an index of every proper noun. Yikes: “Christie’s” might appear on hundred+ pages. “Cockburn” on every page in the Cockburn chapter, and every Wine Society catalogue picture. Both of those feel unhelpful.

The Table of Contents at the start could say “Graham, + Malvedos + Lages”. That has the merit of usefulness and brevity. (Indeed, should that be the chapter title?)

Please give specific guidance: what should I do?

[jdaw1]

The Addendum has a lovely two-page essay by John Crisp, a retired wine merchant and member of the Peterborough Port Club. There isn’t a chapter in which it belongs. I think it is to be omitted from the second edition. Any passionate disagreements?

[winesecretary]

I think there is a place for it; referred to somewhere in the Introduction, placed somewhere before the index. It has a particular flavour of temps perdu which I think is valuable to record.

[DRT]

The Addendum has a lovely two-page essay by John Crisp, a retired wine merchant and member of the Peterborough Port Club. There isn’t a chapter in which it belongs. I think it is to be omitted from the second edition. Any passionate disagreements?

John Crisp's essay could be placed as an introduction to the section on bottlers. I think it is worthy of inclusion.

You could also reference his last bottling (G63) in the Graham chapter to allow you to place Edward Crisp Ltd in the bottler's index.

[JacobH]

Please give specific guidance: what should I do?

An index of Shippers and Quintas would be really helpful. For me, as examples, I would really appreciate something set out in sufficient detail that it would allow me to find: a) where the list of Andresen Vintages are; b) the location of the Quinta do Seixo references in both the Sandeman & Ferreira chapters; and c) the reference to the 1896 Cockburn on page 587 (the extracts from Wyndham Fletcher’s book) which has not made it into the Cockburn chapter.

[Christopher]

I would very much like to include the details from John Crisp, real Port history and very special. I would be extremely sad if excluded, it’s the idiosyncrasies that make the book so enjoyable.

[jdaw1]

I would very much like to include the details from John Crisp, real Port history and very special. I would be extremely sad if excluded, it’s the idiosyncrasies that make the book so enjoyable.

It mentions Graham 1963, so will go there.

[jdaw1]

Please give specific guidance: what should I do?

An index of Shippers and Quintas would be really helpful. For me, as examples, I would really appreciate something set out in sufficient detail that it would allow me to find: a) where the list of Andresen Vintages are; b) the location of the Quinta do Seixo references in both the Sandeman & Ferreira chapters; and c) the reference to the 1896 Cockburn on page 587 (the extracts from Wyndham Fletcher’s book) which has not made it into the Cockburn chapter.

If I have understood correctly, this is good.

So, with fictitious page numbers, I might have an entry of the new index that resembles:

Cockburn: p12, p23, p45; 1815 p24, p200; 1820 p24; …

And likewise for “Malvedos, Quinta das”, etc. The page references will include instances in pictures of catalogues, etc.

Please confirm or correct my understanding.

To give a sense of scale, outside the Cockburn chapter the word “Cockburn” appears 680 times. Plus more instances in images. This will be non-trivial work. And the first edition had 4459 index entries, so this new index will be about 3× longer than the other indexes combined.

[JacobH]

So, with fictitious page numbers, I might have an entry of the new index that resembles:

Cockburn: p12, p23, p45; 1815 p24, p200; 1820 p24; …

And likewise for “Malvedos, Quinta das”, etc. The page references will include instances in pictures of catalogues, etc.

Please confirm or correct my understanding.

That’s precisely what I had in mind. My instinct when I look for a Quinta in a book’s index is to start at “Q” section (assuming they are arranged as “Quintas:— Malvedos, das: p1, 24, 32; Vargellas de: p2, 23, 25” etc.) but it may be that many other people go for the main word.

It also occurs to me that if you had enough time you could mark the years in the index as to whether they are declarations or not by changing the typography. E.g. “Taylor: 1992: p4, 5; 1993: p6, 7”. I only mention that in case it appeals to you: it really wouldn’t be necessary for functionality.

I’ve never prepared an index but I can understand what a substantive task it would be. I know that some people do it professionally. I wonder if with practice it becomes easier?

[jdaw1]

My instinct when I look for a Quinta in a book’s index is to start at “Q” section (assuming they are arranged as “Quintas:— Malvedos, das: p1, 24, 32; Vargellas de: p2, 23, 25” etc.) but it may be that many other people go for the main word.

The Noval chapter comes before Offley, rather than after Quarles Harris. So I have used, and still favour, main-word ordering. Does anybody strongly disagree?