 |
|
| Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Scarpitti" > wrote in message om... > What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. I've argued a similar point with Ian. I contend that each taste of the wine (especially reds) preconditions the palate to some degree for the _next_ taste. Food doesn't really enter into the process in any helpful way; in fact, some foods can actually _diminish_ the appreciation of wine. I realize that this is a contentious issue, complicated somewhat by the fact that wines often do improve with aeration - particularly young red wines. Still. I don't think it's easy - and may be impossible - to separate the aeration and palate conditioning effects from each other. Tom S |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salut/Hi Michael Scarpitti,
le/on 6 Sep 2004 18:56:36 -0700, tu disais/you said:- Dana said >> try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >> 15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >> be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. Rubbish. The whole world is out of step except you. You deny the validity of all theose who have politely suggested that you might be mistaken and you come up with nonsense statements. In case you didn't know, the tongue has nothing to do with the subtleties of wine tasting. All you can _taste_ as opposed to smell, is salt, sweet, acid and bitter. Or will you now say that alcohol cleans off the smell cells at the back of the nose? Not to me. You've just joined my twit filter. -- All the Best Ian Hoare http://www.souvigne.com mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salut/Hi Michael Scarpitti,
le/on 6 Sep 2004 18:56:36 -0700, tu disais/you said:- Dana said >> try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >> 15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >> be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. Rubbish. The whole world is out of step except you. You deny the validity of all theose who have politely suggested that you might be mistaken and you come up with nonsense statements. In case you didn't know, the tongue has nothing to do with the subtleties of wine tasting. All you can _taste_ as opposed to smell, is salt, sweet, acid and bitter. Or will you now say that alcohol cleans off the smell cells at the back of the nose? Not to me. You've just joined my twit filter. -- All the Best Ian Hoare http://www.souvigne.com mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Michael Scarpitti wrote: > > > Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > > > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: > >> > >> > >>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > >>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > >>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. > >> > >>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, > >>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of > >>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would > >>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. > >> > >>Dana > > > > > > That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. > > ... and I suppose it does something to your nose to > dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? > > No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process > by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. > > Dana Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Michael Scarpitti wrote: > > > Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > > > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: > >> > >> > >>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > >>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > >>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. > >> > >>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, > >>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of > >>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would > >>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. > >> > >>Dana > > > > > > That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. > > ... and I suppose it does something to your nose to > dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? > > No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process > by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. > > Dana Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Michael Scarpitti wrote: > > > Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > > > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: > >> > >> > >>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > >>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > >>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. > >> > >>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, > >>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of > >>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would > >>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. > >> > >>Dana > > > > > > That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. > > ... and I suppose it does something to your nose to > dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? > > No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process > by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. > > Dana Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom S" > wrote in message .com>...
> "Michael Scarpitti" > wrote in message > om... > > What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > > wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > > nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. > > I've argued a similar point with Ian. I contend that each taste of the wine > (especially reds) preconditions the palate to some degree for the _next_ > taste. Food doesn't really enter into the process in any helpful way; in > fact, some foods can actually _diminish_ the appreciation of wine. > > I realize that this is a contentious issue, complicated somewhat by the fact > that wines often do improve with aeration - particularly young red wines. > Still. I don't think it's easy - and may be impossible - to separate the > aeration and palate conditioning effects from each other. > > Tom S The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom S" > wrote in message .com>...
> "Michael Scarpitti" > wrote in message > om... > > What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > > wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > > nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. > > I've argued a similar point with Ian. I contend that each taste of the wine > (especially reds) preconditions the palate to some degree for the _next_ > taste. Food doesn't really enter into the process in any helpful way; in > fact, some foods can actually _diminish_ the appreciation of wine. > > I realize that this is a contentious issue, complicated somewhat by the fact > that wines often do improve with aeration - particularly young red wines. > Still. I don't think it's easy - and may be impossible - to separate the > aeration and palate conditioning effects from each other. > > Tom S The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom S" > wrote in message .com>...
> "Michael Scarpitti" > wrote in message > om... > > What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the > > wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has > > nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. > > I've argued a similar point with Ian. I contend that each taste of the wine > (especially reds) preconditions the palate to some degree for the _next_ > taste. Food doesn't really enter into the process in any helpful way; in > fact, some foods can actually _diminish_ the appreciation of wine. > > I realize that this is a contentious issue, complicated somewhat by the fact > that wines often do improve with aeration - particularly young red wines. > Still. I don't think it's easy - and may be impossible - to separate the > aeration and palate conditioning effects from each other. > > Tom S The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the > wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. Prove it. Show us a gas chromatograph trace that shows NO chemical change in a wine upon exposure to air. In the absence of that, your statement is nothing more than an unproved assertion. Mark Lipton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the > wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. Prove it. Show us a gas chromatograph trace that shows NO chemical change in a wine upon exposure to air. In the absence of that, your statement is nothing more than an unproved assertion. Mark Lipton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>Dana Myers > wrote in message
.com>... >> Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> > Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>... >> > >> >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the >> >>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has >> >>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. >> >> >> >>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, >> >>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >> >>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >> >>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >> >> >> >>Dana >> > >> > >> > That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. >> >> ... and I suppose it does something to your nose to >> dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? >> >> No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process >> by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. >> >> Dana > > > >Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the >same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when >the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? > I'm not trying to be rude but how long have you been drinking wine? The second bottle tastes "better" because your palate has been calibrated by the first bottle. The fruit will appear to be sweeter and the tannins will be softer because your mouth has been coated with the tannins, etc. Bi!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>Dana Myers > wrote in message
.com>... >> Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> > Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>... >> > >> >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the >> >>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has >> >>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. >> >> >> >>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, >> >>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >> >>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >> >>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >> >> >> >>Dana >> > >> > >> > That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. >> >> ... and I suppose it does something to your nose to >> dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? >> >> No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process >> by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. >> >> Dana > > > >Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the >same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when >the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? > I'm not trying to be rude but how long have you been drinking wine? The second bottle tastes "better" because your palate has been calibrated by the first bottle. The fruit will appear to be sweeter and the tannins will be softer because your mouth has been coated with the tannins, etc. Bi!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark Lipton" > skrev i melding ... > Michael Scarpitti wrote: > > > The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the > > wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. > > Prove it. Show us a gas chromatograph trace that shows NO chemical > change in a wine upon exposure to air. In the absence of that, your > statement is nothing more than an unproved assertion. > > Mark Lipton Hi all There was a guy calling himself Vega something sometime ago sounding much like Mr. Scarpitti of today... Anybody care to check out these posters to see whether they are the same guy? Anders |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark Lipton" > skrev i melding ... > Michael Scarpitti wrote: > > > The alcohol cleans the palate, and with the food and aroma, makes the > > wine taste better. It has NOTHING to do with aeration. > > Prove it. Show us a gas chromatograph trace that shows NO chemical > change in a wine upon exposure to air. In the absence of that, your > statement is nothing more than an unproved assertion. > > Mark Lipton Hi all There was a guy calling himself Vega something sometime ago sounding much like Mr. Scarpitti of today... Anybody care to check out these posters to see whether they are the same guy? Anders |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been drinking wine for 24 years, and been fairly serious about it for 12.
I'm part of several regular tasting groups, and it's usually not particularly hard to spot which wines were opened and decanted in advance, and which are just opened. No serious taster I know claims that wine doesn't change with aeration. None. Dale Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been drinking wine for 24 years, and been fairly serious about it for 12.
I'm part of several regular tasting groups, and it's usually not particularly hard to spot which wines were opened and decanted in advance, and which are just opened. No serious taster I know claims that wine doesn't change with aeration. None. Dale Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:50:59 GMT, Dana Myers >
wrote: >[T]here are some aromas which are not pleasant which escape >as well. Certainly, as one gains experience with older wines, one finds >that they often come out of the bottle with a little bit of funk that >takes a few minutes to blow off. This topic came up many threads back and, IIRC, was never settled to my complete satisfaction. It's possible that it may never be, but I thought I'd use this opportunity to throw it out again for discussion. With apparently one lone exception, everyone here agrees that *in general* SOME red wines improve following *some* exposure to air. The reasons for such improvement (when it occurs) can be (and are) debated endlessly. Most of the reasons I have heard relate to beneficial changes that occur to the wine itself. I have often wondered how much, if any, of the improvement comes from the escape of undesirable compounds that were either bottled with the wine or formed after bottling. I'm not necessarily talking about the usual suspects such as SO2, mercaptans, etc. There may even be compounds that have little or no odor themselves but somehow degrade the wine. I readily admit to profound ignorance here, but I can't help but wonder. Vino To reply, add "x" between letters and numbers of e-mail address. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:50:59 GMT, Dana Myers >
wrote: >[T]here are some aromas which are not pleasant which escape >as well. Certainly, as one gains experience with older wines, one finds >that they often come out of the bottle with a little bit of funk that >takes a few minutes to blow off. This topic came up many threads back and, IIRC, was never settled to my complete satisfaction. It's possible that it may never be, but I thought I'd use this opportunity to throw it out again for discussion. With apparently one lone exception, everyone here agrees that *in general* SOME red wines improve following *some* exposure to air. The reasons for such improvement (when it occurs) can be (and are) debated endlessly. Most of the reasons I have heard relate to beneficial changes that occur to the wine itself. I have often wondered how much, if any, of the improvement comes from the escape of undesirable compounds that were either bottled with the wine or formed after bottling. I'm not necessarily talking about the usual suspects such as SO2, mercaptans, etc. There may even be compounds that have little or no odor themselves but somehow degrade the wine. I readily admit to profound ignorance here, but I can't help but wonder. Vino To reply, add "x" between letters and numbers of e-mail address. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vino wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:50:59 GMT, Dana Myers > > wrote: > > >>[T]here are some aromas which are not pleasant which escape >>as well. Certainly, as one gains experience with older wines, one finds >>that they often come out of the bottle with a little bit of funk that >>takes a few minutes to blow off. > > > This topic came up many threads back and, IIRC, was never settled to > my complete satisfaction. It's possible that it may never be, but I > thought I'd use this opportunity to throw it out again for discussion. > With apparently one lone exception, everyone here agrees that *in > general* SOME red wines improve following *some* exposure to air. The > reasons for such improvement (when it occurs) can be (and are) debated > endlessly. Most of the reasons I have heard relate to beneficial > changes that occur to the wine itself. I have often wondered how much, > if any, of the improvement comes from the escape of undesirable > compounds that were either bottled with the wine or formed after > bottling. I'm not necessarily talking about the usual suspects such as > SO2, mercaptans, etc. There may even be compounds that have little or > no odor themselves but somehow degrade the wine. I readily admit to > profound ignorance here, but I can't help but wonder. It's not unusual for some stink to "blow off" after opening. Often, it's mercaptans or volatile acidity. I've noticed this the most in older reds and heavily sulfured whites. Mark Lipton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vino wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:50:59 GMT, Dana Myers > > wrote: > > >>[T]here are some aromas which are not pleasant which escape >>as well. Certainly, as one gains experience with older wines, one finds >>that they often come out of the bottle with a little bit of funk that >>takes a few minutes to blow off. > > > This topic came up many threads back and, IIRC, was never settled to > my complete satisfaction. It's possible that it may never be, but I > thought I'd use this opportunity to throw it out again for discussion. > With apparently one lone exception, everyone here agrees that *in > general* SOME red wines improve following *some* exposure to air. The > reasons for such improvement (when it occurs) can be (and are) debated > endlessly. Most of the reasons I have heard relate to beneficial > changes that occur to the wine itself. I have often wondered how much, > if any, of the improvement comes from the escape of undesirable > compounds that were either bottled with the wine or formed after > bottling. I'm not necessarily talking about the usual suspects such as > SO2, mercaptans, etc. There may even be compounds that have little or > no odor themselves but somehow degrade the wine. I readily admit to > profound ignorance here, but I can't help but wonder. It's not unusual for some stink to "blow off" after opening. Often, it's mercaptans or volatile acidity. I've noticed this the most in older reds and heavily sulfured whites. Mark Lipton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, dwmidnt@aol.
comdamnspam says... > >I've been drinking wine for 24 years, and been fairly serious about it for 12. >I'm part of several regular tasting groups, and it's usually not particularly >hard to spot which wines were opened and decanted in advance, and which are >just opened. No serious taster I know claims that wine doesn't change with >aeration. None. > > >Dale > >Dale Williams Along that same note, Dale, I usually will smell and taste, the wine, unless I am the host and have to pass/fail on the bottle, after the pour, even when not decanted. Then, after just a swirl, or two, will repeat both aspects of my ritual. With just the aeration of the swirling, both the nose, and the taste usually change to a noticable degree. Hunt |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, dwmidnt@aol.
comdamnspam says... > >I've been drinking wine for 24 years, and been fairly serious about it for 12. >I'm part of several regular tasting groups, and it's usually not particularly >hard to spot which wines were opened and decanted in advance, and which are >just opened. No serious taster I know claims that wine doesn't change with >aeration. None. > > >Dale > >Dale Williams Along that same note, Dale, I usually will smell and taste, the wine, unless I am the host and have to pass/fail on the bottle, after the pour, even when not decanted. Then, after just a swirl, or two, will repeat both aspects of my ritual. With just the aeration of the swirling, both the nose, and the taste usually change to a noticable degree. Hunt |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> >>>Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... >>> >>> >>>>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the >>>>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has >>>>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. >>>> >>>>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, >>>>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >>>>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >>>>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >>>> >>>>Dana >>> >>> >>>That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. >> >>... and I suppose it does something to your nose to >>dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? >> >>No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process >>by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. > Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the > same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when > the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? It's a well-documented process by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. That's not nonsense. We're not splitting subjective hairs over Tmax vs. Tri-X here. Of course, your perception of a wine may change as you drink wine and eat food. So I don't know what's going on exactly with your palate - but I can say factually that wine *does* change upon exposure to air. It's possible that the second bottle of the same wine tastes better for non-chemical reasons, of course, in fact, I'd even say that's probable. Cheers, Dana |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> >>>Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... >>> >>> >>>>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the >>>>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has >>>>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. >>>> >>>>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, >>>>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >>>>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >>>>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >>>> >>>>Dana >>> >>> >>>That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. >> >>... and I suppose it does something to your nose to >>dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? >> >>No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process >>by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. > Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the > same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when > the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? It's a well-documented process by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. That's not nonsense. We're not splitting subjective hairs over Tmax vs. Tri-X here. Of course, your perception of a wine may change as you drink wine and eat food. So I don't know what's going on exactly with your palate - but I can say factually that wine *does* change upon exposure to air. It's possible that the second bottle of the same wine tastes better for non-chemical reasons, of course, in fact, I'd even say that's probable. Cheers, Dana |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >> >> >>>Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... >>> >>> >>>>Michael Scarpitti wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What I think actually happens is that as we eat the food and drink the >>>>>wine, the wine seems to taste better as the meal progresses. It has >>>>>nothing to do with the aeration of the wine, but with our tongues. >>>> >>>>Certainly food has an impact on how a wine is perceived, but, >>>>sometime for fun, try drinking a wine slowly over a period of >>>>15-30 minutes without eating food at the same time. It would >>>>be exceptional if you didn't notice a change in the wine itself. >>>> >>>>Dana >>> >>> >>>That's because the alcohol cleans off your tongue. >> >>... and I suppose it does something to your nose to >>dramatically the aroma of the wine over that time, too? >> >>No sale. It's a well-documented scientific process >>by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. > Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the > same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when > the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? It's a well-documented process by which wine is influenced by exposure to air. That's not nonsense. We're not splitting subjective hairs over Tmax vs. Tri-X here. Of course, your perception of a wine may change as you drink wine and eat food. So I don't know what's going on exactly with your palate - but I can say factually that wine *does* change upon exposure to air. It's possible that the second bottle of the same wine tastes better for non-chemical reasons, of course, in fact, I'd even say that's probable. Cheers, Dana |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vino > wrote in message >. ..
> On 7 Sep 2004 07:23:35 -0700, (Michael > Scarpitti) wrote: > > > >Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the > >same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when > >the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? > > I have generally not found this to be true. Tee-hee. You must be joking. > Mostly, I have found just > the opposite. There have been exceptions, as there always will be to > any generalization about wine, but certainly your statement above is > not the universal truth that you seem to be suggesting that it is. > > The proposition contained in your OP in this thread goes against all > of my experience in consuming wine and that of every experienced > consumer that I have ever heard express an opinion on this subject. They attribute it to the wrong cause. > > Vino > To reply, add "x" between > letters and numbers of > e-mail address. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vino > wrote in message >. ..
> On 7 Sep 2004 07:23:35 -0700, (Michael > Scarpitti) wrote: > > > >Stuff 'n' nonsense. How do you explain that the SECOND bottle (of the > >same wine) tastes better than the beginning of the first bottle, when > >the second has NOT been opened until just before it is served? > > I have generally not found this to be true. Tee-hee. You must be joking. > Mostly, I have found just > the opposite. There have been exceptions, as there always will be to > any generalization about wine, but certainly your statement above is > not the universal truth that you seem to be suggesting that it is. > > The proposition contained in your OP in this thread goes against all > of my experience in consuming wine and that of every experienced > consumer that I have ever heard express an opinion on this subject. They attribute it to the wrong cause. > > Vino > To reply, add "x" between > letters and numbers of > e-mail address. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Yes, precisely! Those who claim a second bottle tastes better because > it was opened longer are refuted by my experience that a newly-opened > second bottle of the same wine ALWAYS tastes better than the beginning > of the first bottle of the same wine. Who claimed that the second bottle tastes better because it was open longer? > My claim is that if you open two bottles of the same wine at the same > time and begin drinking the second after at least an hour, the second > will taste better than the first one did when it was first opened. If > you open the second bottle after at least an hour after the first, it > STILL will taste bertter than the beginning of the first bottle, > because of the happenings in your mouth caused by drinking the wine, > not by aeration. Sure. On this we agree. Happenings in your mouth, happenings in your head, and happenings in the glass, they're all part of the end result. > In other words, aeration has nothing to do with it. That's where we're missing world-peace. Aeration mostly certainly influences a wine, and 22 years of wine appreciation has taught me that a little exposure to air is often good, too much exposure to is usually bad - independent of the other effects you mention. These effects are not exclusive. > How do I know? I have had several bottles of the same wine many times, > and the second ALWAYS tastes batter than the first, no matter when it > is opened. Sure. I've noticed that when I taste wine without expelling it, all of the wines start tasting better as time goes on. ;-) Dana |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Yes, precisely! Those who claim a second bottle tastes better because > it was opened longer are refuted by my experience that a newly-opened > second bottle of the same wine ALWAYS tastes better than the beginning > of the first bottle of the same wine. Who claimed that the second bottle tastes better because it was open longer? > My claim is that if you open two bottles of the same wine at the same > time and begin drinking the second after at least an hour, the second > will taste better than the first one did when it was first opened. If > you open the second bottle after at least an hour after the first, it > STILL will taste bertter than the beginning of the first bottle, > because of the happenings in your mouth caused by drinking the wine, > not by aeration. Sure. On this we agree. Happenings in your mouth, happenings in your head, and happenings in the glass, they're all part of the end result. > In other words, aeration has nothing to do with it. That's where we're missing world-peace. Aeration mostly certainly influences a wine, and 22 years of wine appreciation has taught me that a little exposure to air is often good, too much exposure to is usually bad - independent of the other effects you mention. These effects are not exclusive. > How do I know? I have had several bottles of the same wine many times, > and the second ALWAYS tastes batter than the first, no matter when it > is opened. Sure. I've noticed that when I taste wine without expelling it, all of the wines start tasting better as time goes on. ;-) Dana |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:21:11 GMT, Vino > wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:50:59 GMT, Dana Myers > >wrote: > >>[T]here are some aromas which are not pleasant which escape >>as well. Certainly, as one gains experience with older wines, one finds >>that they often come out of the bottle with a little bit of funk that >>takes a few minutes to blow off. > >This topic came up many threads back and, IIRC, was never settled to >my complete satisfaction. It's possible that it may never be, but I >thought I'd use this opportunity to throw it out again for discussion. >With apparently one lone exception, everyone here agrees that *in >general* SOME red wines improve following *some* exposure to air. I would say that all wine benefits from exposure to air, and young reds particularly so. I think that old wines also benefit, I have seen this with red and white top Bordeaux from the 20's for example. These wines not only improve, but change radically in the space of 2-3 hours, it is worth tasting them every half hour to see what is happening. Anyhow, I think MS is having fun poking at us. Mike Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:21:11 GMT, Vino > wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:50:59 GMT, Dana Myers > >wrote: > >>[T]here are some aromas which are not pleasant which escape >>as well. Certainly, as one gains experience with older wines, one finds >>that they often come out of the bottle with a little bit of funk that >>takes a few minutes to blow off. > >This topic came up many threads back and, IIRC, was never settled to >my complete satisfaction. It's possible that it may never be, but I >thought I'd use this opportunity to throw it out again for discussion. >With apparently one lone exception, everyone here agrees that *in >general* SOME red wines improve following *some* exposure to air. I would say that all wine benefits from exposure to air, and young reds particularly so. I think that old wines also benefit, I have seen this with red and white top Bordeaux from the 20's for example. These wines not only improve, but change radically in the space of 2-3 hours, it is worth tasting them every half hour to see what is happening. Anyhow, I think MS is having fun poking at us. Mike Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Pretty soon, breathing is going to cause cancer | General Cooking | |||
| Breathing Italian Wine | Wine | |||
| Breathing Italian Wine | Wine | |||
| Breathing better the herbal way | Preserving | |||
| Found wine and Breathing | Wine | |||
Linear Mode
