Wine Aerator Efficacy?

[madurobob]

I was at a wine tasting event yesterday (NC has surprisingly good wines!) and between glasses the owner of the vineyard pitched a cute little aerator that he claimed "decanted a wine inside the bottle in 15 seconds just as if you had actually decanted for 30 minutes". For only $14.95 we could take on home!

The device it self was kinda cool in that it was well made, worked well, etc... much like I find quality film cameras "cool". I sits on top of the open wine bottle. A small stem pulls out from the bottom and protrudes into the bottle several inches. To activate, the top is pulled up while holding the bottom on the wine bottle. When the top is released a spring compresses the unit and air is slowly pumped through a small diffuser at the end of the stem and tiny bubbles aerate the wine.

I know (I think I know...) some wines benefit from decanting. But, is it possible to accelerate this process like that claimed of this aerator? The owner allowed us "before and after" tastes of a few bottles and many in the group of 20 or so swore they could taste a difference. I wasn't entirely convinced since, to me, the second sip ALWAYS tastes better.

So, is this quick aerator worthwhile, or is this just another variation of the wine magnet scam, targeted at impatient "cool machinery" geeks like me?

[patnray]

It wasn't a proper double blind test. However, the principle seems valid since it increases the surface area in contact with the air. OTOH, you could probably achieve the same result by vigorously pouring the wine into a wide-mouth decanter...

[madurobob]

or, vigorously pouring it into my glass? :)

[Hindmost]

You almost lost me when you said NC has surprisingly good wines---compared to what????

pantray has the right idea...chugging a young wine into a decanter will aerate the wine well...if you want the bottle presented during dinner, just pour the wine back into the bottle.

Once a wine is about 7 years old, it typically needs to be slowly decanted for sediment.

Simply opening a bottle to air a wine is useless.

glenn

[madurobob]

You almost lost me when you said NC has surprisingly good wines---compared to what????

I know, I know.... NC is to wine as... NYC is to salsa?

But seriously - the Yadkin river valley has been found to be ideal for growing certain grapes and a few NC vineyards have been making very good full-bodied reds for several years now. Try one, you might be surprised.

And I figure every bottle I buy helps plant one more grape vine in place of a few dozen tobacco plants!

[Skeptical Greg]

You almost lost me when you said NC has surprisingly good wines---compared to what????
..................................
glennHow would you know ?

[CFLarsen]

I was at a wine tasting event yesterday (NC has surprisingly good wines!) and between glasses the owner of the vineyard pitched a cute little aerator that he claimed "decanted a wine inside the bottle in 15 seconds just as if you had actually decanted for 30 minutes". For only $14.95 we could take on home!

The device it self was kinda cool in that it was well made, worked well, etc... much like I find quality film cameras "cool". I sits on top of the open wine bottle. A small stem pulls out from the bottom and protrudes into the bottle several inches. To activate, the top is pulled up while holding the bottom on the wine bottle. When the top is released a spring compresses the unit and air is slowly pumped through a small diffuser at the end of the stem and tiny bubbles aerate the wine.

I know (I think I know...) some wines benefit from decanting. But, is it possible to accelerate this process like that claimed of this aerator? The owner allowed us "before and after" tastes of a few bottles and many in the group of 20 or so swore they could taste a difference. I wasn't entirely convinced since, to me, the second sip ALWAYS tastes better.

So, is this quick aerator worthwhile, or is this just another variation of the wine magnet scam, targeted at impatient "cool machinery" geeks like me?

Unless the whole wine is aerated, it will only mean that one part will be aerated, while the bottom part won't.

I would also be suspicious of any impurities building up inside the contraption.

It wasn't a proper double blind test.

That's the big problem with tastings, especially when the vendor is there. It is very easy to stage a presentation to make the audience think that this wine is something really special (and therefore, very expensive). There is also a certain level of snobbery in the wine world.

or, vigorously pouring it into my glass? :)

It isn't even necessary to pour it vigorously. The moment it is poured, it airs pretty well, and swooshing it around in the glass (and perhaps warming the glass a bit with your hand) is in most cases quite adequate.

You almost lost me when you said NC has surprisingly good wines---compared to what????

Sahara. :)

pantray has the right idea...chugging a young wine into a decanter will aerate the wine well...if you want the bottle presented during dinner, just pour the wine back into the bottle.

Well, a "young" wine these days is pretty much "grape juice still in grape". Just 10-15 years ago, the wines would be 3-5 years at least, before you could realistically drink them (reds). Today, they have managed to make really nice wines enjoyable at a much earlier stage.

Once a wine is about 7 years old, it typically needs to be slowly decanted for sediment.

Unless you are drinking an old wine from the more famous vineyards, sediment is not nearly as big a problem as it used to be. If you get a 7 year old wine with sediment, then there's something wrong with the wine.

Simply opening a bottle to air a wine is useless.

Depends. There will be some airing, and if it sits for many hours, it will definitely be noticeable. However, it won't be the whole wine that is aerated, but only the top part.

Decanting is also very much a matter of temperament - and snobbery.

[Georg]

If you get a 7 year old wine with sediment, then there's something wrong with the wine.


Have you got a source to back up that statement? Or, to use your favourite term: some "Evidence"? :)

[CFLarsen]

Of course.

Sediments in wine. (http://www.wineanswers.com/answers.aspx?qa=31)

More here. (http://www.wineanswers.com/questionDay.aspx?ID=129)

Even more here. (http://www.wineanswers.com/questionDay.aspx?ID=302)

Look at the wines being sold in your local supermarket. They are not as old as they would have been a decade or so ago, because the wines are ready to be consumed at a much earlier age.

[Georg]

The articles do not state that sediment in younger wines are necessarily a bad sign. Only the third article states that

but cloudiness or haziness can be a sign that the wine is flawed.

There could be other reasons as well:
taken from this link:

http://bestwine-storage.com/tastebetter.htm


A quick note on decanting and sediment:
Contrary to popular beliefs, wines with sediments are not necessarily bad wines.

Rather, mass-market brands and lower-priced wines are often filtered to reduce sediments. Higher quality wines, on the other hands, are lightly (or not at all) filtered. Degree of sediment also depends on grapes: Pinot Noir and Grenache for example will have little sediment. Dark, full-bodied grapes such as Cabernet Sauvignon and Syrah can start shredding sediment in couple years.



and, taken from this link:

http://www.fineliving.com/fine/favorite_things_essentials/article/0,1663,FINE_1426_1923876,00.html

Wine expert Len Napolitano has loved wine since an early age. His writing on wine appears in many California newspapers, as well as in magazines, on the Internet and in a popular California Visitor's Guide. He is certified by Society of Wine Educators and the International Wine and Spirits Education Trust, and grows Syrah grapes on his property in Agoura Hills, Calif. Here he explains what sediment is and how to deal with it:

* Solid material. Wine sediment is the solid material that settles to the bottom of a wine bottle. It usually means that the wine is of an old vintage or that it was hand crafted and possibly not filtered.

Boldings are mine. Cheers.:)

[CFLarsen]

Boldings are mine. Cheers.:)

When you quote, you need to quote in full, and in context. It is certainly a dumb idea to stop quoting just before you get to the pertinent parts:

Indication of aged wine. Wine sediment in a bottle isn't necessarily an indication of bad wine. In fact, in many cases it's a sign that the wine is well aged, and therefore good.

Sediment is harmless. Sediment in a wine is harmless. It's okay if you happen to drink some sediment in your wine, but it's not something you want to do intentionally, as the taste can be very harsh.

Remove by decanting. To remove sediment before serving wine, simply decant the wine by pouring it slowly from the bottle into a decanter. Stop pouring when you start to see the wine sediment enter the neck of the bottle, and then allow the wine in the decanter to air out a little bit before pouring it into glasses.

Cheers.

[Cuddles]

When you quote, you need to quote in full, and in context. It is certainly a dumb idea to stop quoting just before you get to the pertinent parts:

Cheers.

And as Georg says, it does not say that sediment in young wine is a sign that there is something wrong with the wine, as you claimed.

[Georg]

In what way does this "complete quote" refute my point? You stated that

If you get a 7 year old wine with sediment, then there's something wrong with the wine.

With the links and quotes I posted I have shown that this is wrong.
What exactly is your problem with this? That you are wrong and can not take that? With more than 35000 posts you should have learned that there is nothing wrong with admitting that you were wrong. A lot of people on this board are able to do so.
Instead you start an ad hom attack with calling my way of quoting dumb? :confused:
I´m impressed. Not. Cheers.

ETA: Thanks, cuddles. I´ll have a glass of very good, unfiltered red wine on your health later on today.:)

[CFLarsen]

And as Georg says, it does not say that sediment in young wine is a sign that there is something wrong with the wine, as you claimed.

Yes, it does. Sediment is not something you would expect in a young wine.

In what way does this "complete quote" refute my point? You stated that

With the links and quotes I posted I have shown that this is wrong.

What exactly is your problem with this? That you are wrong and can not take that? With more than 35000 posts you should have learned that there is nothing wrong with admitting that you were wrong. A lot of people on this board are able to do so.
Instead you start an ad hom attack with calling my way of quoting dumb? :confused:
I´m impressed. Not. Cheers.

I am pointing out that you only present part of his arguments. The one you did present does not make me wrong, while the ones you did not present show me right.

It isn't an ad hom attack: If it were, I would not have given any reason. I did: I checked your source and found that you had not been entirely honest.

I can see from your join date and post count that you haven't been here all that long, so you may not have realized that if you want to make a case, you do not selectively quote selectively. You don't just find the first quote that seem to agree with you and leave out the ones that don't.

[Cuddles]

Yes, it does. Sediment is not something you would expect in a young wine.

No it doesn't. Your quote says that sediment can be a sign of aged wine. It does not say anything about young wine at all or whether sediment in a young wine would be considered a bad thing. All it says it that it is more likely to be in old wine.

I am pointing out that you only present part of his arguments. The one you did present does not make me wrong, while the ones you did not present show me right.

Actually you have that rather backwards. Nothing you have posted supports your claim that sediment in young wine is a bad thing. However, Georg's quotes make it perfectly clear that sediment can occur in perfectly good young wines, and that with certian types of grapes this is actually to be expected.

It isn't an ad hom attack: If it were, I would not have given any reason. I did: I checked your source and found that you had not been entirely honest.

Bollocks. His quotes were entirely honest. You are simply trying to claim they say things that they do not. Although I agree that was not an ad hom, it was simply a childish insult that had no foundation in reality.

I can see from your join date and post count that you haven't been here all that long, so you may not have realized that if you want to make a case, you do not selectively quote selectively. You don't just find the first quote that seem to agree with you and leave out the ones that don't.

On the other hand ,this certainly is an ad hom. The number of posts someone has made is utterly irrelevant to the quality of their argument. He very clearly did not find one quote that agreed with him and ignore others that didn't. He found at least two quotes that very clearly state he was right and you were wrong, and nothing you have posted has in any way contradicted them. I know you are physically incapable of ever admitting you are wrong, but in a case like this where you are reduced to posting quotes that support the other person and pretending they support you it really is pathetic. Please just have the grace and common sense to accept that you are not always right, and that this is one of those times.

It's very simple. You claimed sediment is a bad sign in young wines. This is not the case since many good young wines can have sediment. This has been supported with quotes from relevant sources. Your claim was wrong. Live with it.

[Georg]

Yes, it does. Sediment is not something you would expect in a young wine.


Shifting the goal posts a little? How is

Sediment is not something you would expect in a young wine.

the same as

if you get a 7 year old wine with sediment, then there's something wrong with the wine

A little hint: It isn´t. Your claim is still wrong.

I am pointing out that you only present part of his arguments. The one you did present does not make me wrong, while the ones you did not present show me right.

Yes, the part 'I quoted makes you wrong because it stated other reasons for a sediment beeing there than the wine beeing either old or bad. And what part of the "complete quote" exactly shows that you are right? Still didn´t find it....

It isn't an ad hom attack: If it were, I would not have given any reason. I did: I checked your source and found that you had not been entirely honest.

It is an ad hom attack since the reason you gave is nonexistent. If you do not agree, please quote the exact sentence that I didn´t quote and that shows that you are right, and that says wines with sediment are either older than 7 years or bad. I won´t hold my breath though.

I can see from your join date and post count that you haven't been here all that long, so you may not have realized that if you want to make a case, you do not selectively quote selectively. You don't just find the first quote that seem to agree with you and leave out the ones that don't.

Oh you mother of all skeptics! Thank you for informing me on how this board works......
I´m only a member since a while but have been lurking for quite a time.
I was not quotemining. But surely you can prove this by showing the part I suppressed in the articles quoted by me that says that something has to be wrong with young wine containing sediment?

ETA: Arghhhh, cuddles beat me again. O.K., another glass on your health. It´s your fault if I get totally drunk tonight. Thanks anyway.
But I still see the one part as an ad hom. Or maybe I just do not know the difference between an ad hom and a
childish insult that had no foundation in reality:)

[CFLarsen]

Cry foul all you like. You do not quote selectively. It's that simple.

[Georg]

I just quoted the relevant parts, and as far as I know, that´s the usual way to go.
Do you still claim that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years or bad?
If so, could you show the evidence? Put up or shut up. It´s that simple.

[CFLarsen]

I just quoted the relevant parts, and as far as I know, that´s the usual way to go.
Do you still claim that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years or bad?
If so, could you show the evidence? Put up or shut up. It´s that simple.

The problem is that those parts you didn't find "relevant" proved you wrong.

I hope you have discovered that you can't get away with that here.

[Cuddles]

But I still see the one part as an ad hom. Or maybe I just do not know the difference between an ad hom and a


Argument ad hominem is a specific logical fallacy where a person claims that an argument is wrong because of some belief of characteristic of the person making the argument. Simply insulting a person while arguing with them is childish, but not necessarily and ad hom. For example, "Wine with sediment in it must be bad because you're dumb" would be an ad hom argument, while "Wine with sediment in it is bad and you're dumb for saying otherwise" would not.

As for this argument, I'd just leave it if I were you. Claus has a certain reputation here. It is obvious to anyone who reads this thread what claims you both made and which of you the evidence supports. There's really no point making it into a thousand-post marathon arguing about who's right since I can guarantee Claus will never back down.

[Georg]

The problem is that those parts you didn't find "relevant" proved you wrong.



O.K., quote the sentence(s) that support your claim that young wine with sediment has to be bad. If you can´t, shut up.
I´m really surprised that you think you can get away with that here without doing so.

[CFLarsen]

O.K., quote the sentence(s) that support your claim that young wine with sediment has to be bad. If you can´t, shut up.
I´m really surprised that you think you can get away with that here without doing so.

I can only lead you to the evidence. I can't make you accept it.

In the future, will you quote in full, and in context?

[Georg]

Thanks again, cuddles. That´s the third glass so far........
I think I understand the difference now. As for Mr. Larsen, I will continue for a while because it´s funny to see him acting like a four year old. Maybe I have a strange kind of humor......
I have read a couple of hundreds of posts made by him so I know that he normally doesn´t admit that he is wrong and that he sometimes posts strange things......Sky Marshalls come to mind......

[CFLarsen]

Thanks again, cuddles. That´s the third glass so far........
I think I understand the difference now. As for Mr. Larsen, I will continue for a while because it´s funny to see him acting like a four year old. Maybe I have a strange kind of humor......
I have read a couple of hundreds of posts made by him so I know that he normally doesn´t admit that he is wrong and that he sometimes posts strange things......Sky Marshalls come to mind......

In the future, will you quote in full, and in context?

[Georg]

I can only lead you to the evidence. I can't make you accept it.

In the future, will you quote in full, and in context?

You still didn´t show the evidence. Where is it? And don´t start with your worn out "if you are not convinced, you are not convinced" style.
Show me the exact sentence(s) in the articles quoted by me that say that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years or bad, because so far you didn´t.
And in the future I will (as I have done in this thread) just quote the parts that are relevant.
Will you provide evidence that is relevant for your claims in the future?

[CFLarsen]

You still didn´t show the evidence. Where is it? And don´t start with your worn out "if you are not convinced, you are not convinced" style.
Show me the exact sentence(s) in the articles quoted by me that say that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years or bad, because so far you didn´t.
And in the future I will (as I have done in this thread) just quote the parts that are relevant.
Will you provide evidence that is relevant for your claims in the future?

I can only lead you to the evidence. I can't make you accept it.

In the future, will you quote in full, and in context?

[Georg]

I can only accept evidence that is actually provided. Show me the exact sentence(s) in the articles quoted by me that say that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years or bad. So far you didn´t.
But it´s nice that you keep this thread on page one so that everyone can enjoy your brilliant style of discussion.
And I answered your question. I just can´t make you accept it.:)

[Hindmost]

I know, I know.... NC is to wine as... NYC is to salsa?

But seriously - the Yadkin river valley has been found to be ideal for growing certain grapes and a few NC vineyards have been making very good full-bodied reds for several years now. Try one, you might be surprised.

And I figure every bottle I buy helps plant one more grape vine in place of a few dozen tobacco plants!

Ok, I will have to try some...when I visit my dad in charlotte, I can give it a try. Here in CT, the local wines are just disappointing. Anytime I taste them, they never compare well with a good merlot, cabernet or pinot noir. (which is what I primarily drink) Wine replacing tabacco--great.

glenn

[Hindmost]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE gad.

Well, I was in the posting-lite mode here.

7 years and sediment. First, I should have mentioned this occuring in red wines...I tend to drink only red. (my bad) The evidence I have is just experience when I was learning about wine in New Orleans. The person I learned from was very experienced and he told me about the 7 years--however, it is variable.

As far as airing of wine, I have read several articles over the years, but I don't have all the links etc. Take a look a this

http://www.wine.com/aboutwine/article.asp?ArticleID=12&ArticleTypeId=2

Anyhow,I read a long time ago about someone airing wines by opening them and not decanting them. The conclusion was that the diffusion rate of the O2 was so small that it did not matter...which I knew before I read the article. The testing was conducted poorly. Anyhow, decanting a young red wine will--for me--improve its taste.

In the US, many of the reds have been "designed" to drink relatively quickly after they are made as most people don't lay down wines. Decanting is rarely needed. However, I would look the bottom of any decent red wine after about 5 years to see if sediment has formed.

glenn

[Locknar]

Madurobob - I know you described the device; do you have an actual name for it, who makes it, etc.?

[madurobob]

Ok, I will have to try some...when I visit my dad in charlotte, I can give it a try. Here in CT, the local wines are just disappointing. Anytime I taste them, they never compare well with a good merlot, cabernet or pinot noir. (which is what I primarily drink) Wine replacing tabacco--great.

glenn

Ahh, yes... full-bodied reds are also my weakness (yeah, wines too)! I could give you a few recommendations, but I'm not sure its appropriate to list them on the forum. If you want, send me a PM and I'll send you a short list of my favorites.

[CFLarsen]

I can only accept evidence that is actually provided. Show me the exact sentence(s) in the articles quoted by me that say that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years or bad. So far you didn´t.
But it´s nice that you keep this thread on page one so that everyone can enjoy your brilliant style of discussion.
And I answered your question. I just can´t make you accept it.:)

Time will tell, then.

[CFLarsen]

a good merlot, cabernet or pinot noir

(winces)

I shall take ye by ye ears at TAM6 and tell ye a story...

[Georg]

Time will tell, then.

Time will tell what? Time has already told that you (at least in this case) are not able to back up your claims with evidence. Just as a little reminder, you stated that
if you get a 7 year old wine with sediment, then there's something wrong with the wine

Than you accused me of quote mining:

The problem is that those parts you didn't find "relevant" proved you wrong.

because I didn´t quote the whole article I cited, and left out this:

Indication of aged wine. Wine sediment in a bottle isn't necessarily an indication of bad wine. In fact, in many cases it's a sign that the wine is well aged, and therefore good.

Sediment is harmless. Sediment in a wine is harmless. It's okay if you happen to drink some sediment in your wine, but it's not something you want to do intentionally, as the taste can be very harsh.

Remove by decanting. To remove sediment before serving wine, simply decant the wine by pouring it slowly from the bottle into a decanter. Stop pouring when you start to see the wine sediment enter the neck of the bottle, and then allow the wine in the decanter to air out a little bit before pouring it into glasses.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your claim, that wine with sediment is either older than 7 years, or something has to be wrong with it. You could have quoted some part of the bible as well.

It would be so easy for you to prove me wrong by just bolding the part of the text that supports your claim. Care to do so? Probably not.
Will you admit that you are wrong with your statement that I´ve not been completely honest?
I checked your source and found that you had not been entirely honest.


Will you admit that that your claim regarding the sediment ist wrong? Probably not.
Time will tell........

P.S.: My apologies to the OP for derailing this thread, but I don´t like to be called dishonest with no reason.

[Joe Random]

"drumsticks"

That is all.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Of course.

Sediments in wine. (http://www.wineanswers.com/answers.aspx?qa=31)

More here. (http://www.wineanswers.com/questionDay.aspx?ID=129)

Even more here. (http://www.wineanswers.com/questionDay.aspx?ID=302)

Look at the wines being sold in your local supermarket. They are not as old as they would have been a decade or so ago, because the wines are ready to be consumed at a much earlier age.

I was going to mention the whole sediment thing. I would imagine the bubbles would stir up sediment in older wines? Liking old Spanish wines myself, I can see when I'm done with the bottle why you don't want it shaken , or stirred.................

[Georg]

"drumsticks"

That is all.

Another classic. I love it.:)

[Hindmost]

(winces)

I shall take ye by ye ears at TAM6 and tell ye a story...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. a story...a long as it is not in the style of Vogon poetry.

glenn:p

[CFLarsen]

I was going to mention the whole sediment thing. I would imagine the bubbles would stir up sediment in older wines? Liking old Spanish wines myself, I can see when I'm done with the bottle why you don't want it shaken , or stirred.................

You certainly don't want a sedimented wine stirred.