Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
from Chile to take with us..

I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
bottle.

Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
before the event to decant it? Thanks.

In article >,
"john brooks" > wrote:

> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
> from Chile to take with us..
>
> I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> bottle.
>
> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> before the event to decant it? Thanks.

I would not decant it until about 1/2 hour before you drink it. Not all
red wines need long periods of time to "open up". Since you don't go
into detail on what wine you purchased (varietal, vintage, etc.), it
would be hard to predict the optimum time between decanting and serving.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

"john brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red
> wine from Chile to take with us..
>
> I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> bottle.
>
> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> before the event to decant it? Thanks.
>

Unlike years ago, most wines are filtered and sediment free. If you have no
sediment or just want it to breath, I'd do it at the recipient's home and
pour from the decanter at the table.

If there is sediment, I'd do it the day of the meal. Travelling with the
bottle would shake it up too much.
..

On 19/03/2011 11:14 AM, john brooks wrote:
> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
> from Chile to take with us..
>
> I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> bottle.
>
> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> before the event to decant it? Thanks.
>

Chilean wine? The liquor stores here carry a number of inexpensive
Chilean wines, none of which would require decanting.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:12:32 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Unlike years ago, most wines are filtered and sediment free. If you have no
>> sediment or just want it to breath, I'd do it at the recipient's home and
>> pour from the decanter at the table.
>>
>> If there is sediment, I'd do it the day of the meal. Travelling with the
>> bottle would shake it up too much.
>
>Either that, or decant through a coffee filter.
>Those work just fine for removing sediment.

If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it
wasn't worth more than $2/liter to begin with... just keep in mind
that when you toss that empty bottle into the trash you disposed of
that wine's best part.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Unlike years ago, most wines are filtered and sediment free. If you have no
> sediment or just want it to breath, I'd do it at the recipient's home and
> pour from the decanter at the table.
>
> If there is sediment, I'd do it the day of the meal. Travelling with the
> bottle would shake it up too much.

Either that, or decant through a coffee filter.
Those work just fine for removing sediment.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:03:11 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it
>> wasn't worth more than $2/liter to begin with... just keep in mind
>> that when you toss that empty bottle into the trash you disposed of
>> that wine's best part.
>
>Nonsense. Many very fine wines do have sediment.
>And most fine wines benefit from decanting. It makes
>a big difference, even if you can't tell. I can tell.
>Letting the wine breathe is trying to catch it at the
>right moment in its collapse after exposure to air.
>About 15 minutes after decanting is a good point to
>start tasting.

Who are you trying to kid, besides you're a registered TIADer!

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it
> wasn't worth more than $2/liter to begin with... just keep in mind
> that when you toss that empty bottle into the trash you disposed of
> that wine's best part.

Nonsense. Many very fine wines do have sediment.
And most fine wines benefit from decanting. It makes
a big difference, even if you can't tell. I can tell.
Letting the wine breathe is trying to catch it at the
right moment in its collapse after exposure to air.
About 15 minutes after decanting is a good point to
start tasting.

On Mar 19, 11:14*am, "john brooks" > wrote:
> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
> from Chile to take with us..
>
> I would *like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> taking it there. *I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> bottle.
>
> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> before the event to decant it? *Thanks.

Just take a chance and hand it to em. If they see that you've opened
it etc, they might wonder why. Better to risk a dud than look like
you had a snort before re-bottling.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:14:17 -0000, "john brooks"
> wrote:

> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
> from Chile to take with us..
>
> I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> bottle.
>
> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> before the event to decant it? Thanks.
>
You didn't give us any information other than it's red and it's from
Chili. It's probably a "drink now" type of wine, so I think you're
making too much work for yourself.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:37:11 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 19/03/2011 11:14 AM, john brooks wrote:
> > Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
> > from Chile to take with us..
> >
> > I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> > taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> > bottle.
> >
> > Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> > before the event to decant it? Thanks.
> >
>
> Chilean wine? The liquor stores here carry a number of inexpensive
> Chilean wines, none of which would require decanting.

He's probably a non wine drinker trying to impress other non wine
drinkers and making a mountain out of a molehill. Pop the cork and
let it breath for a few minutes, if that long.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

(Crossposts removed.)

Kalmia > wrote:

>On Mar 19, 11:14*am, "john brooks" > wrote:

>> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of
>> red wine from Chile to take with us..

>> I would *like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
>> taking it there. *I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
>> bottle.
>>
>> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
>> before the event to decant it? *Thanks.

>Just take a chance and hand it to em. If they see that you've opened
>it etc, they might wonder why. Better to risk a dud than look like
>you had a snort before re-bottling.

Formally one should always let the hosts attend to wine service. This
means, in this case, if it's a bottle that needs more decanting/breathing
than the event will allow in real-time, you should send it to them
or bring it to them ahead of time.

A bottle of wine is a gift to the host, who freely may choose whether or
not to open it on the same evening.

(I will stop short of saying that arriving and just assuming that the bottle
of wine you have brought should be opened is the height of rudeness; but
it's best avoided. It may not match with the food. The host may have
some special bottle of their own they want to serve. etc.)


Steve

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 19, 11:14 am, "john brooks" > wrote:
>> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red
>> wine
>> from Chile to take with us..
>>
>> I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
>> taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
>> bottle.
>>
>> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
>> before the event to decant it? Thanks.
>
> Just take a chance and hand it to em. If they see that you've opened
> it etc, they might wonder why. Better to risk a dud than look like
> you had a snort before re-bottling.

We alway take wine when visiting friends to eat and we have never opened a
bottle before giving it!

They may, depending on the food they have prepared, have provided their own
wine to compliment it and the gift can be kept for another time.

--
--

https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

"john brooks" > wrote in
:

> Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red
> wine from Chile to take with us..
>
> I would like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> taking it there. I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in
> the bottle.
>
> Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> before the event to decant it? Thanks.
>
>



I doubt if there are many Chilean wines that need decanting. Pop it open
at the friends house about 20-30 mins before you are going to drink it,
and that should be fine.



--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

"As we weep for what we have lost, and as we grieve for family and friends
and we confront the challenge that is before us, I want us to remember who
we are.

We are Queenslanders.

We're the people that they breed tough, north of the border.

We're the ones that they knock down, and we get up again."

Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz blathered:

> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it wasn't
> worth more than $2/liter to begin with...

Never even heard of vintage port, have you?

Bob

On Mar 19, 9:43*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:14:17 -0000, john brooks wrote:
> > Going to some friends for luch tomorrow. Today i bought a bottle of red wine
> > from Chile to take with us..
>
> > I would *like it to be at its best so thought i would 'decant' it before
> > taking it there. *I will. pour it into a jug and then pour it back in the
> > bottle.
>
> > Should i do that today or wait until tomorrow. In other words how long
> > before the event to decant it? *Thanks.
>
> Just take some Boone's Farm from 7-11 and stop the necessary
> crossposting.
>

I thought Boone's Farm was a malt beverage these days.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:27:07 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz blathered:
>
>> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it wasn't
>> worth more than $2/liter to begin with...
>
>Never even heard of vintage port, have you?

Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy, I posted
about it a few times because it's one of my hobbies... someone educate
this keyboard kook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_wine

http://www.portwine.com/products/product1-1.htm

http://www.portwine.com/products/product1-2.htm

On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:

>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>
>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>
> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.

It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.

A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude surprise.

On 3/20/2011 12:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:
>
>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>
>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>
>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>
> It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.
>
> A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
> wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
> idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
> estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude surprise.
>
>
Is any harm done by filtering out the dregs?

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

"Paul Arthur" > wrote
>>
>>>> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it
>>>> wasn't
>>>> worth more than $2/liter to begin with...
>>>
>>>Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>
>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>
> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>

The OP was talking about a wine from Chile though. Most of their stuff is
modest priced filtered wine. Nothing to decant.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Paul Arthur" > wrote
>>>
>>>>> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it
>>>>> wasn't
>>>>> worth more than $2/liter to begin with...
>>>>
>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>
>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>
>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>
>
> The OP was talking about a wine from Chile though. Most of their stuff
> is modest priced filtered wine. Nothing to decant.

I separate the types of wines that benefit from "breathing" into
two categories.

1. Good/great wines that are made even better by giving them some air

2. Wines with at least some amount of off flavor(s) that can
alleviated from breathing

There are many low cost wines (like Chilean) that fit into category two


--
Mort

> wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:27:07 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:
>>
>>>> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it wasn't
>>>> worth more than $2/liter to begin with...
>>>
>>>Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>
>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>
>Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.

There is never a reason to decant any wine, if there is sediment just
don't shake it up... oh, I see now... yoose decant into a fancy
schmancy bottle so your guests won't know you're serving
Boone's Farm. Maybe I'll buy some $50 bottle of vodka so I can decant
too! LOL-LOL

What a buncha phony baloney pretentious schmucks!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:39:54 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:
>
>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>
>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>
>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>
>It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.
>
>A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
>wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
>idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
>estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude surprise.

Liar.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:53:07 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Arthur" > wrote
>>>
>>>>> If wine needs decanting and filtering to make it drinkable then it
>>>>> wasn't
>>>>> worth more than $2/liter to begin with...
>>>>
>>>>Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>
>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>
>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>
>
>The OP was talking about a wine from Chile though. Most of their stuff is
>modest priced filtered wine. Nothing to decant.

It's very rare to find dregs in any commerially bottled wine, all are
filtered... if you buy direct from a winery before bottling then there
can be dregs... don't shake the bottle. Some pretentious snobs like
to pretend that wine has to breathe so they make a big phony show of
decanting. If someone brought me any commercially bottled spirits
with the seal broken I'd flush it down the toilet.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:00:49 -0700, Mort > wrote:

> There are many low cost wines (like Chilean) that fit into category two

A nice Malbec from Chili won't need to breathe.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:49:05 -0400, James Silverton
> wrote:

>On 3/20/2011 12:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:
>>
>>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>>
>>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>>
>>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>
>> It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.
>>
>> A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
>> wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
>> idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
>> estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude surprise.
>>
>>
>Is any harm done by filtering out the dregs?

Get it through your head that there are no dregs in commercially
bottled wines, they've already been filtered when bottled... what you
see at the bottom of the bottle are crystals/sufites, you cannot
filter that out because if disturbed it immediately go back into
solution. I used to make my own wine, still had no dregs because I
siphoned it out of the carboys from above the dregs, it didn't need
filtering except for the last bit at the bottom and I used that for
cooking... the dregs are nothing more than small bits of fruit, can't
hurt anything. Anyone who brews coffee/tea there are dregs, no one
filters those bits out, just don't pour the last dregs into your cup.

On 20/03/2011 12:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>
>
> The OP was talking about a wine from Chile though. Most of their stuff
> is modest priced filtered wine. Nothing to decant.

Exactly. Most Chilean wines are what you might consider to be good wine
for the money. It's not great wine, but it is cheap wine. It does not
need to be decanted. The OP troll may have known this when he specified
that it was a cheap wine and talked about opening it a day or two early
and taking it there pre-decanted. It was one of the better trolling jobs.

On 20/03/2011 12:49 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/20/2011 12:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:
>>
>>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>>
>>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>>
>>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>
>> It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.
>>
>> A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
>> wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
>> idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
>> estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude
>> surprise.
>>
>>
> Is any harm done by filtering out the dregs?
>
We ended up pouring it through a fine sieve. It was fine, but I was
amazed at the volume of the dregs.

On 20/03/2011 1:27 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>> A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
>> wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
>> idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
>> estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude surprise.
>
> Liar.

Moron.

On 20/03/2011 1:38 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> It's very rare to find dregs in any commerially bottled wine, all are
> filtered... if you buy direct from a winery before bottling then there
> can be dregs... don't shake the bottle. Some pretentious snobs like
> to pretend that wine has to breathe so they make a big phony show of
> decanting. If someone brought me any commercially bottled spirits
> with the seal broken I'd flush it down the toilet.

That would be an appropriate place for you to drink wine from. Your
taste is in your ass and you know squat about wine. A cheap Chilean wine
does not need to be decanted. Higher quality vintage red wines should
allowed to breathe to soften the flavour of the tannins.

On 3/20/2011 2:46 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:49:05 -0400, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2011 12:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>>>
>>>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>>>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>>>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>>
>>> It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.
>>>
>>> A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
>>> wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
>>> idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
>>> estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude surprise.
>>>
>>>
>> Is any harm done by filtering out the dregs?
>
> Get it through your head that there are no dregs in commercially
> bottled wines, they've already been filtered when bottled.

OK, semantics! What is the sediment in the bottom of a bottle of port?
It does not redissolve, AFAICT.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

sf wrote:
>
> He's probably a non wine drinker trying to impress other non wine
> drinkers and making a mountain out of a molehill. Pop the cork and
> let it breath for a few minutes, if that long.

If you're letting wine breathe, don't just pop
the cork. Decant it into another container.
That will give it enough exposure to air to take
away the harsh edge. For most wines, let it sit
for about 15 minutes after decanting before tasting.

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 20/03/2011 12:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> > The OP was talking about a wine from Chile though. Most of their stuff
> > is modest priced filtered wine. Nothing to decant.
>
> Exactly. Most Chilean wines are what you might consider to be good wine
> for the money. It's not great wine, but it is cheap wine. It does not
> need to be decanted. The OP troll may have known this when he specified
> that it was a cheap wine and talked about opening it a day or two early
> and taking it there pre-decanted. It was one of the better trolling jobs.

Maybe it was a troll, maybe it wasn't. No way to tell. There was
almost no information in the OP. No mention of price or quality.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:58:48 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > He's probably a non wine drinker trying to impress other non wine
> > drinkers and making a mountain out of a molehill. Pop the cork and
> > let it breath for a few minutes, if that long.
>
> If you're letting wine breathe, don't just pop
> the cork. Decant it into another container.
> That will give it enough exposure to air to take
> away the harsh edge. For most wines, let it sit
> for about 15 minutes after decanting before tasting.

Decanting wine is too pretentious for me, Mark; even with wines worth
over $100 a bottle (my SIL buys and sells collectible wines so I've
sipped some fairly expensive wines). We only decant wine if it has
perceptible sediment in the bottom.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

>It's very rare to find dregs in any commerially bottled wine, all are
>filtered... if you buy direct from a winery before bottling then there
>can be dregs... don't shake the bottle.

Unless you're someone like Kermit Lynch who likes to shake the
bottle to mix in the sediment before drinking it.

A handful of table wines are deliberately bottled with sediment. A larger
fraction will drop sediment after years of bottle aging. Some subset
of there (I'd say far less than half) are still improving at the point
they drop sediment, and you really do want to drink them when they're
at an age where they need to be poured off the sediment (this does
not necessarily mean you need a decanter). A very good Bordeaux or
California cab *might* be in this category, but it's nowhere near the
norm, at least not to the extent many people believe it is. Most
wines are better before they physically fall apart.

Some of them become "interesting", but not better in an absolute sense,
in their aged, post-sediment state. It's certainly informative to
a wine drinker to learn what too-old Bordeaux tastes like, and there
are unusual flavors that come in 10, 15 years past its prime that
could have value to an enthusiast. ("Wet lettuce" is one description
of old Bordeaux.

Steve

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:58:48 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>
>> He's probably a non wine drinker trying to impress other non wine
>> drinkers and making a mountain out of a molehill. Pop the cork and
>> let it breath for a few minutes, if that long.
>
>If you're letting wine breathe, don't just pop
>the cork. Decant it into another container.
>That will give it enough exposure to air to take
>away the harsh edge. For most wines, let it sit
>for about 15 minutes after decanting before tasting.

You really ought not bother doing anything special with your Ripple,
it won't get any better.

At the finast 5 Star restaurants that sell wines at no less than $100
a bottle they bring it to the table corked, remove the cork in front
of the diner, pour some immediately for a taste and then fill the
glass... there is no decanting/no filtering or there'd be no paying.
Anyone brings me wine uncorked they can shove it up their ass to
breathe.

The only time I'll accept already opened is when I ask for house wine.

If there happens to be some "dregs" at the bottom of a bottle it's
supposed to be there, same way some spirits are bottled with fruits or
even a worm. Yoose don't know it but all beer used to contain dregs,
from the wooden barrels... none of yoose under 60 years old have ever
tasted real beer, yoose chugalug that synthetic swill brewed in
stainless steel.

Yoose nutz are all dregs... it'd be a major embarrassment to go out to
a fine eatery with yoose phony boloney pretentious slutz... yoose
probably decant Champagne and discard the rind from brie... I bet yer
mommy still slices away the crusts from your wonder bread.

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>If you're letting wine breathe, don't just pop
>the cork. Decant it into another container.

This all depends. If you're drinking the wine over
the course of a few hours, it's often best to leave
it in the bottle and watch how it evolves. If you need to pour wine
for fifteen people 20 minutes after opening it, you probably
want to decant it, assuming it needs air.


Steve

On 20/03/2011 5:59 PM, Stu. wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:22:52 -0400, Dave >
> wrote:
>
>> On 20/03/2011 12:49 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2011 12:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 20/03/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Arthur wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Never even heard of vintage port, have you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually there is vintage port and it can be quite pricy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, duh. That was his point. That pricy vintage port often requires
>>>>> decanting due to sediment, which rather argues against the claim that
>>>>> wines worth more than $2/liter don't need decanting.
>>>>
>>>> It was Sheldon. Don't expect it to make sense.
>>>>
>>>> A few years ago my wife bought me a bottle of vintage port. It was
>>>> wonderful stuff. I confess to being naive about vintage port. I had no
>>>> idea there would be so much dregs in the bottom of the bottle. I would
>>>> estimate that 10-15% of the volume of the bottle was dregs. Rude
>>>> surprise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is any harm done by filtering out the dregs?
>>>
>> We ended up pouring it through a fine sieve. It was fine, but I was
>> amazed at the volume of the dregs.
>
> Obviously they pulled it from the bottom of the vat, any wine I made was pulled
> from about an inch and a half above the carboy's bottom and filtered through a
> electric filter (eight paper filters).
>
> Most Chilean wines I've ever drank never had sediments, so I'm not sure what
> you bought.

The only thing obvious is that you didn't read much of my post. It
wasn't Chilean wine. It was vintage port. I doubt that any Chilean wine
sold here would have sediment. It is basically cheap wine made to be
consumed soon after bottling. They may make some quality wines intended
to be aged, but the stuff I see in the liquor store is budget wine,
sometimes heavy tasting, but not complex.

On 20/03/2011 11:28 PM, Stu. wrote:

>>
>> There are other types of Port -- tawny Port, Port with Indication of Age --
>> that are not bottled and sold until many years after they were grown.
>> But vintage Port is sold at a relatively young age.
>>
>>
>> Steve
>
> Ok so we'll agree to disagree. I don't consider a two year old wine vintage by
> any stretch of the imagination. I have wine stored that was produced in the
> early 70's, this I would consider vintage.


I would consider that to be old wine. In order to be vintage wine it has
to be made from a single year, usually a single vineyard, and the wine
has to be made to be cellared, as opposed to being made to be consumed
young. Cellared wines has to be stored under the proper conditions to
last. A properly cellared wine can be a real treat. An improperly
stored bottle of old wine can be pretty nasty.

On 21/03/2011 10:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>
>> I think that goes a little too far. It *might* mean old or antique.
>> Words do have multiple meanings, that's one of the fun parts of
>> the English language.
>>
>> S.
>
> Improper use by a lot of people does not make it right.

Sometimes it goes far beyond improper use. Remember a few years ago some
politician or municipal administrator was the subject of a lot of
controversy for using the word "niggardly". It seems that someone of a
particular racial group thought it was a slur against his people. It
seems that there have been numerous complaints, all in the US, over the
use of the word, all from people of the race for whom a racial slur
sounds similar to it.