Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
The Problem of Michael Scarpotti
I don't think that anyone who regularly contributes informed opinion
or factual information to AFW and who has been following the postings of one Michael Scarpotti can seriously dispute the fact that he is, without question, a troll (however anyone wants to define that term). Trolls thrive on replies to their postings. Please!!! Please!!! Stop replying to his postings. Eventually, he will starve and move on to some other newsgroup. Vino To reply, add "x" between letters and numbers of e-mail address. |
|
|||
|
|||
My apologies, the troll succeeded in raising my ire and I posted w/o thinking.
Indeed, the best strategy is to ignore. A post on googlegroups of "scarpitti troll" will show you how much time various newsgroups have wasted on him. Dale Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply |
|
|||
|
|||
My apologies, the troll succeeded in raising my ire and I posted w/o thinking.
Indeed, the best strategy is to ignore. A post on googlegroups of "scarpitti troll" will show you how much time various newsgroups have wasted on him. Dale Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply |
|
|||
|
|||
Vino > wrote in message >. ..
> I don't think that anyone who regularly contributes informed opinion > or factual information to AFW and who has been following the postings > of one Michael Scarpotti can seriously dispute the fact that he is, > without question, a troll (however anyone wants to define that term). > Trolls thrive on replies to their postings. > > Please!!! Please!!! Stop replying to his postings. Eventually, he will > starve and move on to some other newsgroup. > > Vino > To reply, add "x" between > letters and numbers of > e-mail address. Perhaps those who wish to continue believing myths and falsehhods need not read them. Air (oxygen) ruins wine. |
|
|||
|
|||
Vino > wrote in message >. ..
> I don't think that anyone who regularly contributes informed opinion > or factual information to AFW and who has been following the postings > of one Michael Scarpotti can seriously dispute the fact that he is, > without question, a troll (however anyone wants to define that term). > Trolls thrive on replies to their postings. > > Please!!! Please!!! Stop replying to his postings. Eventually, he will > starve and move on to some other newsgroup. > > Vino > To reply, add "x" between > letters and numbers of > e-mail address. Perhaps those who wish to continue believing myths and falsehhods need not read them. Air (oxygen) ruins wine. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Vino > wrote in message >. ..
> I don't think that anyone who regularly contributes informed opinion > or factual information to AFW and who has been following the postings > of one Michael Scarpotti can seriously dispute the fact that he is, > without question, a troll (however anyone wants to define that term). > Trolls thrive on replies to their postings. > > Please!!! Please!!! Stop replying to his postings. Eventually, he will > starve and move on to some other newsgroup. > > Vino > To reply, add "x" between > letters and numbers of > e-mail address. http://www.palantir.net/cgi-bin/file...v/stresspi.wav |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
(JEP) wrote in message om>...
> (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com>... > > > > Perhaps those who wish to continue believing myths and falsehhods need > > not read them. Air (oxygen) ruins wine. > > If this is your belief, than how do you could explain the use of > micro-oxygenation in wine making? Are wine makers purposely trying to > ruin their wine? > > Andy CONTROLLED oxidation during storage is part of aging. The amount of wine in the barrel is controlled by topping up. Once it's in the bottle, it's sealed, with only a very tiny exchange with the outside atmosphere possible. If oxygen weren't bad for wine, it would not be sealed, now would it? |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> CONTROLLED oxidation during storage is part of aging. The amount of > wine in the barrel is controlled by topping up. Once it's in the > bottle, it's sealed, with only a very tiny exchange with the outside > atmosphere possible. If oxygen weren't bad for wine, it would not be > sealed, now would it? Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. Once bottled, the wine may be stored for an indeterminate period of time, thus permitting oxidation in the bottle would not be controlled. This does not mean that a wine will not benefit from *some* additional oxidation when served. Sealing a bottle well to reduce oxidation is to *preserve* the wine until it is *served*, but oxidation at the time of serving may provides benefits just as oxidation during barrel aging. Of course, too much exposure to air and a wine ends up oxidized and burnt, but it's clear that many wines improve with exposure to air after opening, before hitting a sweet spot and deteriorating. Further, exposure to air does more than oxidize a wine, so it is perhaps an error to focus on only the oxidation. As I and others have observed, some wines come out of the bottle with funky or "off" aromas which quickly dissipate once exposed to air - so some exposure to air can improve these wines even if very little oxidation takes places. None of this is to be construed as an assertion on my part that *all* oxidation is good for a wine. Clearly it's easy to get too much, but that doesn't mean that any oxidation is bad. Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > > > CONTROLLED oxidation during storage is part of aging. The amount of > > wine in the barrel is controlled by topping up. Once it's in the > > bottle, it's sealed, with only a very tiny exchange with the outside > > atmosphere possible. If oxygen weren't bad for wine, it would not be > > sealed, now would it? > > Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging > provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. But that is BEFORE it is ready to drink. AFTER it is ready to drink, further oxidation is undesirable. > Once bottled, > the wine may be stored for an indeterminate period of time, thus permitting > oxidation in the bottle would not be controlled. This does not mean > that a wine will not benefit from *some* additional oxidation when > served. You've confused two things that happen to wine when it is opened and exposed to air: 1. Oxygen in the air begins to attack it 2. The wine's volatile parts are allowed to escape and affect our senses. #2 is good (for the most part). #1 is bad. > Sealing a bottle well to reduce oxidation is to *preserve* > the wine until it is *served*, but oxidation at the time of serving > may provides benefits just as oxidation during barrel aging. No, it doesn't. Oxidation after the wine is mature ruins the wine, which begins at once. > Of course, > too much exposure to air and a wine ends up oxidized and burnt, but it's > clear that many wines improve with exposure to air after opening, before > hitting a sweet spot and deteriorating. Again, you've confused two separate phenomena. > Further, exposure to air does more than oxidize a wine, so it is > perhaps an error to focus on only the oxidation. As I and others > have observed, some wines come out of the bottle with funky or "off" > aromas which quickly dissipate once exposed to air - so some > exposure to air can improve these wines even if very little oxidation > takes places. > > None of this is to be construed as an assertion on my part that > *all* oxidation is good for a wine. Clearly it's easy to get too > much, but that doesn't mean that any oxidation is bad. > > Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > > > CONTROLLED oxidation during storage is part of aging. The amount of > > wine in the barrel is controlled by topping up. Once it's in the > > bottle, it's sealed, with only a very tiny exchange with the outside > > atmosphere possible. If oxygen weren't bad for wine, it would not be > > sealed, now would it? > > Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging > provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. You must also realize the surface-to-volume ratio in a barrel is much different from an open bottle or even a corked one. Barrels are topped up to keep the air out. |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > >>Uranium Committee wrote: >>Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging >>provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. > > > But that is BEFORE it is ready to drink. AFTER it is ready to drink, > further oxidation is undesirable. Wine isn't like Coca-Cola, it isn't a product manufactured to some precise tolerance and "perfect" upon release. The notion of when a wine is "ready to drink" is fairly subjective and influenced by individual preferences. >> Once bottled, >>the wine may be stored for an indeterminate period of time, thus permitting >>oxidation in the bottle would not be controlled. This does not mean >>that a wine will not benefit from *some* additional oxidation when >>served. > > > You've confused two things that happen to wine when it is opened and > exposed to air: Actually, I have not. I have *explained* two things that happen when wine is opened and exposed to air. I'm not confused at all. > > 1. Oxygen in the air begins to attack it It sure does. But, something you appear unwilling to even entertain, oxidation that occurs when first opening a wine, and perhaps even for some time afterward, may be *beneficial*. The fact is, the oxidation of a wine starts back in maceration, and proceeds on a continuum until the wine is digested. It is quite possible and, in fact, quite common, for a winemaker to bottle wine long before "maturity". Just like color emulsions are often shipped before reaching "ripeness" to allow for time spent in the supply chain, wine is usually bottled before maturity. Unlike color emulsions, there's no set of objective measurements that can be made to determine if a particular wine is "ready" or not. So some of the oxidation that occurs upon opening may in fact be anticipated and planned for by the winemaker. You don't have to take my word on this, you can ask a few winemakers. It's a fact of life. Some of that oxidation may actually improve the wine. Too much oxidation and you start deteriorating. > 2. The wine's volatile parts are allowed to escape and affect our > senses. Some of the volatiles may not be pleasant and you don't want them to influence your senses. Many of the volatiles are pleasant and you want them to influence your senses. > #2 is good (for the most part). Well, once unpleasant aromas have blown off. But then the pleasant volatiles will also deteriorate. > #1 is bad. Oxidation is not uniformly bad. *Too much* oxidation is bad. Some oxidation is part of the process, even in your wine glass. The "opening up" of a wine includes all of the above, and, in the majority of cases, the wine will improve with a few minutes in the glass or sometimes more, and eventually it will deteriorate. > > >> Sealing a bottle well to reduce oxidation is to *preserve* >>the wine until it is *served*, but oxidation at the time of serving >>may provides benefits just as oxidation during barrel aging. > > > No, it doesn't. Oxidation after the wine is mature ruins the wine, > which begins at once. Well, please define for me when a wine is "mature". Here's a hint: it usually isn't when the wine is bottled, and it may be a period of several years, and the perception of maturity in a wine is prone to be subjective. Maturity doesn't necessarily before a bottle is opened; and it may occur long before a bottle is opened. I suppose your above statement would be correct if there was some precise notion of wine maturity. There simply isn't. >>Of course, >>too much exposure to air and a wine ends up oxidized and burnt, but it's >>clear that many wines improve with exposure to air after opening, before >>hitting a sweet spot and deteriorating. > > > Again, you've confused two separate phenomena. No, I haven't. You're apparently attributing a degree of precision to winemaking that simply does not exist other than in your imagination. You seem intent on asserting that a wine is at the peak of maturity when the cork is pulled and then immediately plummets into wreckage. This assertion simply doesn't stand up to educated inspection. Have you ever had the opportunity to taste a wine through the lifecycle, to taste the freshly fermented must, to taste it in the barrel over a period of time, then to taste it in the bottle over time? If so, you'd find that the notion of "maturity" is much less defined that you seem to expect. Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... >>Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging >>provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. > > > You must also realize the surface-to-volume ratio in a barrel is much > different from an open bottle or even a corked one. Barrels are topped > up to keep the air out. What have I written to indicate I do not understand winemaking? Oxidation occurs throughout the life of a wine, including when poured into a glass. Winemakers understand this and plan for it, at least the good ones do. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the makers of Velletri Rosso DOC Riserva state things like: > After botting, the "Velletri Riserva" can > be kept at least another 3-4 years before drinking If the wine was "perfect" upon release, they would say something like "drink the wine as soon as possible", like Budweiser's gimmicky "day fresh beer" program. In fact, the producer suggests a long storage of the wine. > SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle > at least two hours before tasting this wine. Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine at least *two hours* before tasting. Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... >>Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging >>provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. > > > You must also realize the surface-to-volume ratio in a barrel is much > different from an open bottle or even a corked one. Barrels are topped > up to keep the air out. What have I written to indicate I do not understand winemaking? Oxidation occurs throughout the life of a wine, including when poured into a glass. Winemakers understand this and plan for it, at least the good ones do. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the makers of Velletri Rosso DOC Riserva state things like: > After botting, the "Velletri Riserva" can > be kept at least another 3-4 years before drinking If the wine was "perfect" upon release, they would say something like "drink the wine as soon as possible", like Budweiser's gimmicky "day fresh beer" program. In fact, the producer suggests a long storage of the wine. > SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle > at least two hours before tasting this wine. Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine at least *two hours* before tasting. Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > > > Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > > >>Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging > >>provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. > > > > > > You must also realize the surface-to-volume ratio in a barrel is much > > different from an open bottle or even a corked one. Barrels are topped > > up to keep the air out. > > What have I written to indicate I do not understand winemaking? > Oxidation occurs throughout the life of a wine, including when > poured into a glass. Winemakers understand this and plan for it, > at least the good ones do. > > Perhaps you'd like to explain why the makers of Velletri > Rosso DOC Riserva state things like: > > > After botting, the "Velletri Riserva" can > > be kept at least another 3-4 years before drinking > > If the wine was "perfect" upon release, they would say > something like "drink the wine as soon as possible", like > Budweiser's gimmicky "day fresh beer" program. In fact, > the producer suggests a long storage of the wine. > > > SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle > > at least two hours before tasting this wine. > > Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" > when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine > at least *two hours* before tasting. > > Dana Then the winemaker is wrong. This is insane. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > > > Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > > >>Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging > >>provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. > > > > > > You must also realize the surface-to-volume ratio in a barrel is much > > different from an open bottle or even a corked one. Barrels are topped > > up to keep the air out. > > What have I written to indicate I do not understand winemaking? > Oxidation occurs throughout the life of a wine, including when > poured into a glass. Winemakers understand this and plan for it, > at least the good ones do. > > Perhaps you'd like to explain why the makers of Velletri > Rosso DOC Riserva state things like: > > > After botting, the "Velletri Riserva" can > > be kept at least another 3-4 years before drinking > > If the wine was "perfect" upon release, they would say > something like "drink the wine as soon as possible", like > Budweiser's gimmicky "day fresh beer" program. In fact, > the producer suggests a long storage of the wine. > > > SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle > > at least two hours before tasting this wine. > > Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" > when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine > at least *two hours* before tasting. > > Dana Then the winemaker is wrong. This is insane. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > > Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>... > > > >>Uranium Committee wrote: > > >>Oxidation itself is not always bad for wine; as mentioned, barrel aging > >>provides micro-oxygenation, from which the wine benefits. > > > > > > But that is BEFORE it is ready to drink. AFTER it is ready to drink, > > further oxidation is undesirable. > > Wine isn't like Coca-Cola, it isn't a product manufactured to > some precise tolerance and "perfect" upon release. The notion > of when a wine is "ready to drink" is fairly subjective and > influenced by individual preferences. > > >> Once bottled, > >>the wine may be stored for an indeterminate period of time, thus permitting > >>oxidation in the bottle would not be controlled. This does not mean > >>that a wine will not benefit from *some* additional oxidation when > >>served. > > > > > > You've confused two things that happen to wine when it is opened and > > exposed to air: > > Actually, I have not. I have *explained* two things that happen > when wine is opened and exposed to air. I'm not confused at all. > > > > 1. Oxygen in the air begins to attack it > > It sure does. But, something you appear unwilling to > even entertain, oxidation that occurs when first > opening a wine, and perhaps even for some time > afterward, may be *beneficial*. IMPOSSIBLE > The fact is, the > oxidation of a wine starts back in maceration, > and proceeds on a continuum until the wine is > digested. It is quite possible and, in fact, > quite common, for a winemaker to bottle wine > long before "maturity". Just like color emulsions > are often shipped before reaching "ripeness" to > allow for time spent in the supply chain, wine > is usually bottled before maturity. Unlike > color emulsions, there's no set of objective > measurements that can be made to determine if > a particular wine is "ready" or not. But WHEN it is ready, it does NOT benefit from being left open to the air for any significant amount of time. > So some of the oxidation that occurs upon > opening may in fact be anticipated and planned > for by the winemaker. You don't have to take my > word on this, you can ask a few winemakers. It's > a fact of life. > > Some of that oxidation may actually improve the wine. > Too much oxidation and you start deteriorating. > > > 2. The wine's volatile parts are allowed to escape and affect our > > senses. > > Some of the volatiles may not be pleasant and you don't want > them to influence your senses. Many of the volatiles are > pleasant and you want them to influence your senses. I said the volatiles 'affect our senses'. I didn't claim that they are all good or all bad. > > #2 is good (for the most part). > > Well, once unpleasant aromas have blown off. But > then the pleasant volatiles will also deteriorate. > > > #1 is bad. > > Oxidation is not uniformly bad. *Too much* oxidation is > bad. Some oxidation is part of the process, even in your > wine glass. No, what you are talking about is merely air TRANSPORTING the volatiles to our senses. We need to breathe oxygen to live. The oxygen has NO benefit to the wine (nor does it affect the wine negatively in the typically short span of time while in your glass), but the rest of the air (mostly nitrogen) merely acts as a transporting vehicle and does not significantly affect the wine. > > The "opening up" of a wine includes all of the above, and, > in the majority of cases, the wine will improve with a few > minutes in the glass or sometimes more, and eventually > it will deteriorate. Two phenomena to discuss: 1. Aerial transport of volatiles 2. Oxidation > > > > > >> Sealing a bottle well to reduce oxidation is to *preserve* > >>the wine until it is *served*, but oxidation at the time of serving > >>may provides benefits just as oxidation during barrel aging. > > > > > > No, it doesn't. Oxidation after the wine is mature ruins the wine, > > which begins at once. > > Well, please define for me when a wine is "mature". Here's a > hint: it usually isn't when the wine is bottled, and it may be > a period of several years, and the perception of maturity in a > wine is prone to be subjective. Agreed. > Maturity doesn't necessarily > before a bottle is opened; and it may occur long before a > bottle is opened. Of course. > > I suppose your above statement would be correct if there was > some precise notion of wine maturity. There simply isn't. The two issues are not related. > > > >>Of course, > >>too much exposure to air and a wine ends up oxidized and burnt, but it's > >>clear that many wines improve with exposure to air after opening, before > >>hitting a sweet spot and deteriorating. > > > > > > Again, you've confused two separate phenomena. > > No, I haven't. You're apparently attributing a degree of > precision to winemaking that simply does not exist other than > in your imagination. > > You seem intent on asserting that a wine is at the > peak of maturity when the cork is pulled and then > immediately plummets into wreckage. Well, not really. I'm simply saying that if it's ready to drink, and then opened, it's all downhill from there. Drink immediately upon opening and recap after opening. If it's not ready, aerating it by 'breathing' it will not improve it. > This assertion > simply doesn't stand up to educated inspection. > > Have you ever had the opportunity to taste a wine > through the lifecycle, to taste the freshly fermented > must, to taste it in the barrel over a period of time, > then to taste it in the bottle over time? If so, > you'd find that the notion of "maturity" is much > less defined that you seem to expect. I understand a wine can be drunk over a long period of time. I generally find young Barberas unsavory, despite the Piedmontese preference for enjoying them young. I like them about 4 or more years old. No, I have not tasted wine in the barrel. > Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>... [...] >>>SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle >> >> > at least two hours before tasting this wine. >> >>Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" >>when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine >>at least *two hours* before tasting. > Then the winemaker is wrong. This is insane. Ah. Now we've arrived at the crux of the issue. Of course, everyone appreciates wine differently, and some people appreciate wine in ways not intended by the winemaker. So it's perfectly valid for you to believe a wine should be consumed immediately upon opening, because that's the way you like it. No one can tell you that you are wrong to enjoy wine the way you like it. None of this has to do with oxidation, wine maturity, or any objective technology. It's just the way *you* like wine. The conflict arose was when you declared *your* preference is the only correct one and attempted to "prove" it. It appears your preference runs somewhat counter to widely accepted wisdom, including that of the makers of the wine. That doesn't make anyone wrong, it just makes you different, and all is well as long as you don't try to tell everyone else they are wrong. Cheers, Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>... >>Have you ever had the opportunity to taste a wine >>through the lifecycle, to taste the freshly fermented >>must, to taste it in the barrel over a period of time, >>then to taste it in the bottle over time? If so, >>you'd find that the notion of "maturity" is much >>less defined that you seem to expect. > > > I understand a wine can be drunk over a long period of time. I > generally find young Barberas unsavory, despite the Piedmontese > preference for enjoying them young. I like them about 4 or more years > old. No, I have not tasted wine in the barrel. Tasting from must to barrel to bottle is an amazingly eye-opening experience. I would strongly encourage you to arrange to do so at some point in your life; living in California wine country, the opportunity is easier to find. Cheers, Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
> >It's just the way *you* like wine. The conflict >arose was when you declared *your* preference is the only >correct one and attempted to "prove" it. It appears your >preference runs somewhat counter to widely accepted wisdom, >including that of the makers of the wine. That doesn't >make anyone wrong, it just makes you different, and all >is well as long as you don't try to tell everyone else >they are wrong. > >Cheers, >Dana Bullseye(sp) Dana! I've kill filed him long time ago but do get his postings second hand. You have way more patience and tolerance than many. If he decides to argue with your statement then the jig is up.....TROLL big time. Your closing statements should end this thread. Most have already silenced their keyboards. All the best, Larry Southern Ontario |
|
|||
|
|||
> >It's just the way *you* like wine. The conflict >arose was when you declared *your* preference is the only >correct one and attempted to "prove" it. It appears your >preference runs somewhat counter to widely accepted wisdom, >including that of the makers of the wine. That doesn't >make anyone wrong, it just makes you different, and all >is well as long as you don't try to tell everyone else >they are wrong. > >Cheers, >Dana Bullseye(sp) Dana! I've kill filed him long time ago but do get his postings second hand. You have way more patience and tolerance than many. If he decides to argue with your statement then the jig is up.....TROLL big time. Your closing statements should end this thread. Most have already silenced their keyboards. All the best, Larry Southern Ontario |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > OK, Dana, my taste is that I really, really, really dislike oxidized wine. A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>... > > [...] > > >>>SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle > > >> > at least two hours before tasting this wine. > >> > >>Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" > >>when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine > >>at least *two hours* before tasting. > > > > Then the winemaker is wrong. This is insane. > > Ah. Now we've arrived at the crux of the issue. > > Of course, everyone appreciates wine differently, and > some people appreciate wine in ways not intended by the > winemaker. So it's perfectly valid for you to believe > a wine should be consumed immediately upon opening, because > that's the way you like it. No one can tell you that > you are wrong to enjoy wine the way you like it. None > of this has to do with oxidation, wine maturity, or > any objective technology. > > It's just the way *you* like wine. The conflict > arose was when you declared *your* preference is the only > correct one and attempted to "prove" it. It appears your > preference runs somewhat counter to widely accepted wisdom, > including that of the makers of the wine. That doesn't > make anyone wrong, it just makes you different, and all > is well as long as you don't try to tell everyone else > they are wrong. > > Cheers, > Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Dana Myers > wrote in message . com>...
> Uranium Committee wrote: > OK, Dana, my taste is that I really, really, really dislike oxidized wine. A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > Dana Myers > wrote in message .com>... > > [...] > > >>>SERVE: At a temperature of 18° - 20° C.; uncork the bottle > > >> > at least two hours before tasting this wine. > >> > >>Even with a wine that you like and apparently think is "perfect" > >>when first opened, the producer *instructs* you to open the wine > >>at least *two hours* before tasting. > > > > Then the winemaker is wrong. This is insane. > > Ah. Now we've arrived at the crux of the issue. > > Of course, everyone appreciates wine differently, and > some people appreciate wine in ways not intended by the > winemaker. So it's perfectly valid for you to believe > a wine should be consumed immediately upon opening, because > that's the way you like it. No one can tell you that > you are wrong to enjoy wine the way you like it. None > of this has to do with oxidation, wine maturity, or > any objective technology. > > It's just the way *you* like wine. The conflict > arose was when you declared *your* preference is the only > correct one and attempted to "prove" it. It appears your > preference runs somewhat counter to widely accepted wisdom, > including that of the makers of the wine. That doesn't > make anyone wrong, it just makes you different, and all > is well as long as you don't try to tell everyone else > they are wrong. > > Cheers, > Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
I've had this wine twice, the first time after about a 2-hour decant (not
enough), and the second, this past weekend, after an 8-hour decant. The flavors really did open up more the second time, but decanting alone can't make up for aging, and this wine is still too young. I'm excited about its potential though, as I've still another 10 bottles waiting for another day. This is only one of two wines that I've had multiple (more than 2) vintages of, the other being La Lagune. The 1996 Pichon Baron is quite enjoyable after 3-4 hours, the 1986 after 2, and even the 1966 needed a little (tasted when opened; & then every 15 minutes; was satisfied at 45). Also had the 1982, but this was served to us from a decanter, though I don't know for how long it was decanting. One of the biggest surprises I've ever encountered is the 1975 La Lagune. This isn't a well-known winery, and 1975 was not known as one of the better vintages, which makes this a bargain find (though you are unlikely to stumble upon it at the local Liquorama). If I taste it right after opening, it seems as if it has faded away - can hardly taste the fruit, and the tannins are just barely present. But then I poured it into another bottle and let it settle for 2 hours (and I recorked it because I was afraid 2 hours might be to long, and I had just begun cooking). After the 2 hours, I poured a little into the glass, swirled it around, and the whole thing came alive!! Why? I don't know. Generally decanting softens the tannins, but this was almost opposite. If anyone can explain this, please do. \/ "JEP" wrote in message <snip> > I opened a bottle of 2000 Baron de Pichon Longueville (I know, > infanticide, but I couldn't resist) and I can tell you the wine > improved with a couple hours of exposure to air. It was even better > the next day. > > Andy |
|
|||
|
|||
(JEP) wrote in message . com>...
> (Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com>... > > > > A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours > > half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > > > > > And this is the type of absolute statement that will garner criticism > from this group. > > I opened a bottle of 2000 Baron de Pichon Longueville (I know, > infanticide, but I couldn't resist) and I can tell you the wine > improved with a couple hours of exposure to air. It was even better > the next day. > > Andy What can I say, except perhaps that the wine was not mature. Hinted at in your post. |
|
|||
|
|||
(JEP) wrote in message . com>...
> (Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com>... > > > > A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours > > half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > > > > > And this is the type of absolute statement that will garner criticism > from this group. > > I opened a bottle of 2000 Baron de Pichon Longueville (I know, > infanticide, but I couldn't resist) and I can tell you the wine > improved with a couple hours of exposure to air. It was even better > the next day. > > Andy What can I say, except perhaps that the wine was not mature. Hinted at in your post. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
(JEP) wrote in message om>...
> (Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com>... > > > What can I say, except perhaps that the wine was not mature. Hinted at in your post. > > Of course it wasn't mature, but what does that have to do with your > previous statement of: > > > > > > > > > A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours > > > > half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > > > > > > Andy Peel an apple and watch it turn brown. See how long it takes. The same thing is happeneing to your wine as it sits out in the air. |
|
|||
|
|||
(JEP) wrote in message om>...
> (Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com>... > > > What can I say, except perhaps that the wine was not mature. Hinted at in your post. > > Of course it wasn't mature, but what does that have to do with your > previous statement of: > > > > > > > > > A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours > > > > half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > > > > > > Andy Oxidation may conceivably 'improve' a grossly immature wine, but only because it is immature, and only for a brief period. |
|
|||
|
|||
(JEP) wrote in message om>...
> (Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com>... > > > What can I say, except perhaps that the wine was not mature. Hinted at in your post. > > Of course it wasn't mature, but what does that have to do with your > previous statement of: > > > > > > > > > A wine that has been opened and sitting out for several hours > > > > half-empty tastes noticeably inferior to the same wine freshly opened. > > > > > > > Andy Oxidation may conceivably 'improve' a grossly immature wine, but only because it is immature, and only for a brief period. |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Oxidation may conceivably 'improve' a grossly immature wine, but only > because it is immature, and only for a brief period. Perhaps long enough to drink it... :-) Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
Uranium Committee wrote:
> Oxidation may conceivably 'improve' a grossly immature wine, but only > because it is immature, and only for a brief period. Perhaps long enough to drink it... :-) Dana |
|
|||
|
|||
>Peel an apple and watch it turn brown. See how long it takes. The same
>thing is happeneing to your wine as it sits out in the air. > No it's not. Bi!! |
|
|||
|
|||
>Peel an apple and watch it turn brown. See how long it takes. The same
>thing is happeneing to your wine as it sits out in the air. > No it's not. Bi!! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Looks like the Sriracha problem wasn't a problem after all. | General Cooking | |||
Hey, Michael! | General Cooking | |||
Are Michael Scarpotti and Uranium Committee One and the Same? | Wine | |||
Tea day with Michael | Tea | |||
Where's Michael Edleman? | General Cooking |