Handwriting questions

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:39 Thu 31 Mar 2016

LGTrotter wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Looks like "Tried" to me...
I see 'tried' as well.

I saw that too, but thought it didn’t really fit. Maybe it does.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 19:36 Fri 01 Apr 2016

jdaw1 wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Looks like "Tried" to me...
I see 'tried' as well.
I saw that too, but thought it didn’t really fit. Maybe it does.

I thought 'tried' as in 'tasted'. The comma after 'tried' made me wonder though.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 13:33 Tue 05 Apr 2016

Tried.

The way I worked this out was to look at the individual letters. First we see a capital T. This is followed by a small r. The next three letters are i, e and d. I put these all together, making sure to keep them in the right order, and the word they spelled out was Tried.

Tried.

Glad to be helpful.

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:36 Tue 05 Apr 2016

djewesbury wrote:put these all together, making sure to keep them in the right order

Good technique. Thank you. “Tried” it must be.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:19 Wed 20 Apr 2016

This is in the Handwriting thread because it is a question about book sources, even though it isn’t about handwriting.

About five years ago the image on the right was on an East European wine merchant’s website. Is the picture real? I’m not even asking if the very white labels are new. Is the image substantially a digital creation? Were there real bottles bearing these labels?

Post by **PhilW** » 10:07 Thu 21 Apr 2016

jdaw1 wrote:Is the image substantially a digital creation? Were there real bottles bearing these labels?

Difficult to tell for certain, however several factors point to at least partial, if not whole digital creation:
- the most compelling is error-level analysis which looks like the dates on the 1952 and 1967 have been added at a different resolution, or to a previously saved image, prior to quantisation; the stencil test on the left-hand bottle shows similar potential characteristics, but the blurring makes this harder to judge.
- the chance of almost-consecutive selos on the '52 and '67 bottles would be slim.
- the hue of the wine within all three bottles, but particularly between the right-hand bottles is so close as to be suspicious (though they could be a manipulated photo of actual physical bottles, potentially all filled with "something", with dummy undated labels, and then the dates added after in photoshop as wanted).

Post by **jdaw1** » 10:13 Thu 21 Apr 2016

PhilW wrote:Difficult to tell for certain, however several factors point to at least partial, if not whole digital creation:

I agree with the conclusion.

PhilW wrote:- the most compelling is error-level analysis which looks like the dates on the 1952 and 1967 have been added at a different resolution, or to a previously saved image, prior to quantisation; the stencil test on the left-hand bottle shows similar potential characteristics, but the blurring makes this harder to judge.

Good spot.

PhilW wrote:- the chance of almost-consecutive selos on the '52 and '67 bottles would be slim.

The bottles (or the bottles to which the labels were digitally added) could have been recently ex-cellars, and so recently selo’d.

PhilW wrote:- the hue of the wine within all three bottles, but particularly between the right-hand bottles is so close as to be suspicious (though they could be a manipulated photo of actual physical bottles, potentially all filled with "something", with dummy undated labels, and then the dates added after in photoshop as wanted).

Good spot again.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 19:19 Thu 21 Apr 2016

I would say mostly if not entirely digital. It is at the very minimum a (poor) digital composition.

In particular, the 1967 in front looks completely off. The fill level isn't smooth, and doesn't appear to be level. We're looking down at the bottle and the fill doesn't jive with our angle of viewing. Furthermore, the color of the Port is completely off. That's a tawny - and a light one at that - not a VP behind that light green glass.

The blurring of the whitewash on the 1939 has been synthetically cleaned up as well. Add to that the fact that I've searched far and wide for 1939 Ports (my mother's birth year), and I've never seen that one.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:34 Sun 24 Apr 2016

“Deep with Rich nice nose”. And I think the last word is “acidity”. Please say more.

Post by **flash_uk** » 12:42 Sun 24 Apr 2016

On arrival, lacks acidity.

Post by **PhilW** » 13:01 Sun 24 Apr 2016

Deep col
Rich nice nose
On ??? lacks acidity

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:37 Sun 24 Apr 2016

PhilW wrote:col

I don’t see that. Do others?

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 21:00 Sun 24 Apr 2016

jdaw1 wrote:
PhilW wrote:col
I don’t see that. Do others?

I saw 'col' (diminutive of colour) but I also saw 'and'. 'On something lacks acidity'. The something could be 'arrival', but this doesn't seem to make sense.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:17 Sun 24 Apr 2016

LGTrotter wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
PhilW wrote:col
I don’t see that. Do others?
I saw 'col'

I saw “w/”, not favoured by others.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 21:54 Sun 24 Apr 2016

jdaw1 wrote:I saw “w/”, not favoured by others.

What would "w/" mean?

PhilW wrote:Rich nice nose

I saw 'rich big nose' here.

Post by **jdaw1** » 07:57 Mon 25 Apr 2016

LGTrotter wrote:What would "w/" mean?

I might mean “with”, which would fit.

Post by **PhilW** » 10:05 Mon 25 Apr 2016

I'm surprised by the disagreement here; I thought the text was quite clear except for the antepenultimate word.
I should however have included a period or comma (not sure which) after "Rich".
The missing word might be one or two words, perhaps "????end" or "???? end"

Post by **flash_uk** » 10:37 Mon 25 Apr 2016

How about
"on bin end
lacks acidity"

Post by **jdaw1** » 17:50 Sat 14 May 2016

I want the penultimate word to be “until”, but it stubbornly persists in looking like “with”. He’s not the Messiah.

Post by **PhilW** » 17:56 Sat 14 May 2016

Might "witt" help at all (can't see how, but... and it's definitely not "woger")

Post by **DRT** » 00:22 Sun 15 May 2016

The context suggests it could be "bott", but only the last two letters fit that.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 15:17 Sun 15 May 2016

Based on the word "wood" the first letter is a "w", then looks like an "i", then the "t", the last being possibly an "h" as it has a distinctive bump in it and is not a smooth upturn like the other T's in the words.

Looks like "With" which would not be uncommon to use one to top up/refresh the other. So would make sense

DaveRL · Post by **DaveRL** » 18:16 Sun 15 May 2016

It looks like "with" to me. I wonder if there is an older use, or perhaps a dialect, where "with" can mean "until"?

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:12 Mon 16 May 2016

Mixed-vintage tawny it is.

Do peeps agree that the last word in this reprehensible Port is “bad”?

“Rather smelly nose. Light very shallow and rather short & bad” — hasn’t sold it to me.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:23 Mon 16 May 2016

“Poor nose and very pleasant wine. Will last, but really also is drinkable now”?

Post by **DRT** » 22:45 Mon 16 May 2016

jdaw1 wrote:“Poor nose and very pleasant wine. Will last, but really also is drinkable now”?

Yes.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 22:58 Mon 16 May 2016

Now or Wow at the end? One needs to work on their Port consumption writing skills.

Post by **PhilW** » 07:29 Tue 17 May 2016

Yes, bad (hot considered, but bad looks right to me).
Yes, now (and the rest) looks correct to me.

JWEW · Post by **JWEW** » 21:59 Fri 20 May 2016

"Poor nose and very pleasant" does not seem to make too much sense.

Could the first word perhaps be good?

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:30 Fri 20 May 2016

JWEW wrote:"Poor nose and very pleasant" does not seem to make too much sense.

Could the first word perhaps be good?

That makes sense. I had not seen that at all.

Pleased I asked.

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:34 Tue 27 Sep 2016

Richard who?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 09:51 Thu 29 Sep 2016

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 10:26 Thu 29 Sep 2016

I want to go with Truss. Titter ye not.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 12:01 Mon 17 Oct 2016

A slight variation on a theme, but if anyone can help to decipher the text on this wax seal, it would be greatly appreciated. JDAW's sleep is rather disturbed as a result of his inability to clearly imagine what it says.

: 1896.jpg (159.13 KiB) Viewed 15935 times

PopulusTremula · Post by **PopulusTremula** » 15:59 Mon 17 Oct 2016

Alas, i am stumped. If only jdaw, before dreaming about opening the bottle, had also imagined a pencil and drawing paper with which to transfer the embossed details, however faint, onto the paper.

Post by **DRT** » 18:14 Mon 17 Oct 2016

I have checked back through my extensive database of tasting notes from the past four weeks and am thoroughly convinced that it says "1896 Port (probably Dow) Bottled by This Tastes Bloody Gorgeous & Co."

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:05 Mon 17 Oct 2016

Is the topmost character an upside-down T? If yes, then the image should be rotated (and, while I’m at it, cropped).

That clearly reveals — dramatic drum roll — “Limited”. So it was bottled by a merchant, not at a home.

Did that help?

Post by **DRT** » 21:17 Mon 17 Oct 2016

"Ltd." Hmmm? Was that designation widely used in the late 19th century?

Can't say I've ever noticed it on a capsule of any age.

Post by **flash_uk** » 21:45 Mon 17 Oct 2016

I think the "Limited" is written in full, rather than abbreviated to "Ltd".

Looking at the photo JDAW posted, to the right of limited, and facing inwards to the centre (as opposed to the direction of Limited, which is outwards), I think I can see
---C-ETY
which could be Society.

Post by **DRT** » 22:04 Mon 17 Oct 2016

I wasn't clear. "Limited" or "Ltd" - I can't recall seeing either on a capsule.

Post by **flash_uk** » 22:11 Mon 17 Oct 2016

DRT wrote:I wasn't clear. "Limited" or "Ltd" - I can't recall seeing either on a capsule.

Ah, got it.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:14 Mon 17 Oct 2016

Whole word, all capitals: LIMITED

Post by **PhilW** » 06:46 Tue 18 Oct 2016

The bottom right I agree with Mike is almost certainly ETY.
The top left looks like CO OP?? (with ?? possibly ER) which could be Co Oporto, or Co Operative.
I'm unconvinced by LIMITED, though I agree it looks vaguely like MIT, possibly MIT?O, but noting that the other lettering looks to be facing out rather than inward, so this is odd.

My best guess would be a Wine Society bottle (since they are/were a co-operative) of 1896 port, perhaps Dow (since they did this, and because you told it was Dow in the first place

Anything on the (crumbling) cork?

I'll just go and dig out my case of Wine Society Dow 1896 and check the capsules... no, wait, I'm dreaming

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 17:28 Tue 18 Oct 2016

PhilW wrote:The bottom right I agree with Mike is almost certainly ETY.
The top left looks like CO OP?? (with ?? possibly ER) which could be Co Oporto, or Co Operative.
I'm unconvinced by LIMITED, though I agree it looks vaguely like MIT, possibly MIT?O, but noting that the other lettering looks to be facing out rather than inward, so this is odd.

My best guess would be a Wine Society bottle (since they are/were a co-operative) of 1896 port, perhaps Dow (since they did this, and because you told it was Dow in the first place Anything on the (crumbling) cork?

I'll just go and dig out my case of Wine Society Dow 1896 and check the capsules... no, wait, I'm dreaming

Sadly, when JDAW described the cork of his dreams to me it was shapely and attractive but unbranded.

Post by **flash_uk** » 18:01 Tue 18 Oct 2016

PhilW wrote:The bottom right I agree with Mike is almost certainly ETY.
The top left looks like CO OP?? (with ?? possibly ER) which could be Co Oporto, or Co Operative.
I'm unconvinced by LIMITED, though I agree it looks vaguely like MIT, possibly MIT?O, but noting that the other lettering looks to be facing out rather than inward, so this is odd.

My best guess would be a Wine Society bottle (since they are/were a co-operative) of 1896 port, perhaps Dow (since they did this, and because you told it was Dow in the first place Anything on the (crumbling) cork?

I'll just go and dig out my case of Wine Society Dow 1896 and check the capsules... no, wait, I'm dreaming

Yes I also so CO--OP.
Why not THE CO OPERATIVE WINE SOCIETY LIMITED? Wikipedia notes that the Co Operative Wine Society Limited (now The Wine Society) started out with products from Portugal...

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:37 Tue 18 Oct 2016

1896s sold by the Wine Society: Cockburn (first listed in the catalogue dated February 1899); Croft (June 1907); Dow (March 1908); Martinez (March 1921); Offley (March 1909); Quinta do Roriz (March 1914); Rebello Valente (February 1899); Smith Woodhouse (July 1915); and Taylor (March 1912).

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:43 Thu 07 Sep 2017

The first word in red?

Post by **PhilW** » 10:09 Fri 08 Sep 2017

Not enough information; is there any further writing in the same hand to help?

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:15 Fri 08 Sep 2017

A horizontal of still-young 1887s: alas, no tasting notes.

Post by **PhilW** » 19:29 Fri 08 Sep 2017

Looks like the rest of the writing is in a different hand, unfortunately

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk