Less grammar, more marketing
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:45 am
This really comes down to trademark, marketing and branding, less about grammar.
Until contemplating this, I have been citing the Ports created by Taylor Fladgate as "1927 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port".
I can see why Taylor Fladgate would want to shorten their name, but I don't think "1927 Taylor Port" would work - I believe there was some trademark nastiness with Taylor New York Port about that name.
I just glanced as some Taylor Fladgate labels online, and it is listed as "Taylor's" (possessive).
So...to be accurate (irrespective of grammar), we should be referring to Taylor Fladgate Ports as "1927 Taylor's Vintage Port".
now back to your regularly scheduled program....
Until contemplating this, I have been citing the Ports created by Taylor Fladgate as "1927 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port".
I can see why Taylor Fladgate would want to shorten their name, but I don't think "1927 Taylor Port" would work - I believe there was some trademark nastiness with Taylor New York Port about that name.
I just glanced as some Taylor Fladgate labels online, and it is listed as "Taylor's" (possessive).
So...to be accurate (irrespective of grammar), we should be referring to Taylor Fladgate Ports as "1927 Taylor's Vintage Port".
now back to your regularly scheduled program....