The Auswine Forum

As I recover from my surgery a little bit of idle reading has me rediscovering the following quotations.

“Only bottles which have a deposit need to be decanted.”

“If it is necessary to decant, it should be done at the last moment, just before sitting down or just before serving, never in advance.”

“Only wines suffering from some fault (for example, a lack of cleanness on the nose, the presence of some gas, a little thinness in constitution) warrant decanting sufficiently in advance to allow for plenty of contact with air.”

Who said this? The same person who wrote “I have carried out dozens of controlled decanting experiments on wines of all ages and all origins. The wines were either handled under inert gas so as to avoid any influence from oxygen, or, alternatively, I varied the amount of dissolved oxygen and the length of contact with air.” Hmmm, that might just qualify him as someone who knows more about decanting wine than most. Who is he? The author is the late Emile Peynaud and the quotes are from his book “The Taste of Wine”. Peynaud first published his book in 1980 and then published a revised second edition (from which I have quoted) in 1996.

Now all of us know that wine will evolve and change over time. Just let wine sit in your glass for 15-30 minutes and it will change in aroma, longer, say several hours, and the actual feel of the wine in your mouth may change. I experienced this recently with Penfold's 2002 Bin 389. Well wine is a living thing. Isn’t it? I read a bit more of Peynaud. He related an anecdote. A 1962 Médoc Cru had been decanted “almost four hours” before lunch. During the lunch “everyone praised the virtues of letting wines breathe”, except Peynaud. He asked that unopened bottles of the same wine be opened and a comparison be made. “The strong, estery bouquet of the undecanted wine filled the glasses with a floral, truffle-like refinement, while the other appeared totally faded by comparison. On the palate the undecanted wine was livelier, fresher, less thick but also less fleshy. Everyone agreed that decanting had made the wine lose finesse and elegance though it had made it seem fuller. It had made a lively and refined wine seem rather common and lackluster.”

I wonder if this experiment has ever been tried with recent vintages of Aussie shiraz?

Mike

I think I've got a little neck tag from a Penfolds wine I bought about 10-12 years ago which says much the same thing. Somehting like tips on decanting wine by Max Schubert. I'll try and dig it out.

Decanting (Day 2)
Described in The Oxford Companion to Wine (2nd Edition, Edited by Jancis Robinson, 1999) as an “optional and controversial step in serving wine, involving pouring wine out of its bottle into another container called a decanter.” The reasons given for decanting are to remove sediment, to aerate wine, and practical aspects of putting wine on the table before rather than during a meal, and showing off your fancy decanter. Again that name Peynaud comes up in the discussion on decanting as a way to provide air to a wine. The comment is essentially as stated by Peynaud in his book. The rebuttal? “However there are certain types of wines, Barolo most obviously, which may not have been included in Professor Peynaud’s experiments with decanting regimes, which can be so concentrated and tannic in youth that to lose some of their initial sensory impressions is a positive benefit.” Hmmm, the Barolos I tasted recently had several hours in glass before we tasted them, still seemed awfully tannic to me. They must have been absolute monsters out of the bottle! And I love how all of those experiments of Peynaud's are dismissed with a simple "may not".

Mike

Decanting Day – 3
My Wine Page-a-Day Calendar poses this question for March 18th:

Q: Which two wines would most benefit from decanting?
A. a 4-year-old Australian shiraz
B. a 20-year-old tawny Port
C. a 2-year-old Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon
D. a 20-year-old vintage Port

A: C and D. Decanting is done for two reasons: to pour older wines off their sediment and to help tight and tannic young wines open up. Because a two-year-old Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon is sure to have a hefty dose of tannin, it will undoubtedly benefit from spending some time in a decanter. And vintage Port is a powerful fortified wine. It will have a fair amount of sediment and should certainly be decanted.

Hmmm, someone else who believes that aeration will reduce the perception of tannin in a wine. Interesting!

Mike

I'm a firm believer in decanting, no matter what the age of the wine.

If it's old enough to throw any sediment at all, the reason is clear enough.

Even if it's a younger wine, aeration will be benificial, whether you decant and pour right away, or decant and let it air for an hour or four.

Air usually only hurts fragile wines, so if in doubt, decant and drink quickly.

If a younger wine falls apart with air, it's not worthy of consideration.

Toasting the memory and great works of Hunter S. Thompson with a fine glass of Xanadu Cabernet, I remain,

Don Coyote

Decanting – Day 4
Is the view on decanting expressed in The Oxford Companion to Wine the personal opinion of Jancis Robinson? Here are some of her comments on the subject from How to Taste (revised edition published in 2000).

“For a long time it has been thought that the process of aging in wine was simply one of slow oxidation, that small amounts of air either already present in the sealed bottle or entering through the cork, gradually react with the wine to make it develop into something more complex and ramified. It was thought therefore that if you poured a bottle of wine into another container such as a decanter, you would aerate it and somehow telescope the aging process into just a few minutes by putting the wine into contact with a lot of air. The bouquet would be fanned into life by all this oxygen.

This view is still widely held, but the results of comparative tastings of samples of the same wines opened and decanted at varying intervals before tasting have been suspiciously inconclusive. Furthermore, some authorities argue that the effects of aeration can only be harmful; that by exposing a delicate bouquet to air you may make it evanesce, and that the interesting reactions between oxygen and wine are too complicated to be speeded up. All that can happen, they argue, is that the wine starts to oxidize too fast, and therefore it begins to deteriorate.”

She goes on to say “It is true that the potential disadvantage of dissipating the bouquet of a wine by decanting it or allowing a half-full bottle to stand open for a while can sometimes be an advantage. Some wines, full-bodied reds particularly, can be too intensely flavored when young. Rather than gaining extra flavors, the decanter allows them to lose some of their aggressive youth and mellow into a more palatable, if more vapid, middle age. This is especially true of some rich reds from California, Australia, Italy, the Lebanon, and the odd rustic wine from Spain and the Rhône.”

Hmmm, there is nothing like a nice vapid red wine!

One thing Ms Robinson does do in “How to Taste” is suggest a variation of the Peynaud anecdote. All you need is three bottles of the same wine. Open and decant one bottle three hours before tasting, decant another one hour before tasting, and open the third immediately before tasting. Have each wine poured for you so that you do not know how long they have been exposed to air and then do a comparative tasting. Does decanting make a difference?

Mike

Mike,

As somone who has drunk a drop of three of Oz wine, I feel the need to comment.

Pernaud obviously never drank any of the modern day, big, blockbuster Australian Shiraz or Cabernet. These wines are very different to the olde worlde aged wines that he was probably used to.

Add to that, the impact of sealing wines with Stelvin and you are in a whole new ball game.

Frequently, when I'm assessing wines that have been sealed under Stelvin, without a few hours in a decanter they are locked uptight and show bugger all.

And then there are the young wines like the Warrabilla's that needed hours in the decanter to tame down. I can just imagine the dear Professor having a glass of 2004 Parolas Durif thrust into his hand from a freshly opened bottle and asked to taste it ..... the mind boggles!

Ric:

I don't want to give the punchline away just yet so I'll just note that your method is by no means incorrect. Its pretty clear that decanting can help soften an aggressive wine.

Mike

Decanting – Day 5
We have seen what one Master of Wine (MW) has to say about decanting. How about one more? Michael Broadbent devotes almost fives pages to decanting in his book Wine Tasting (my copy is the 1989 Simon and Schuster Reprint). Here is a sampling of what he has to say.

“More fatuous argument has been stimulated by this side issue than almost any other.”

"The second, and in my opinion far less important, reason for decanting is to aerate the wine. It is in this area that there is a great deal of muddled thinking……”

“By general consensus, young wines can take, possible need, plenty of breathing time older wines less, very old wines scarcely any – just extract the cork and decant carefully.
If it were only as simple as that.”

“How many times has one been told, and occasionally discovered accidentally, that a young red wine seems softer and better on the palate the next day?”

“It is my considered opinion that no noticeable oxidation occurs for a very considerable period after the cork is drawn, and, surprisingly little change occurs in the decanter. The main development takes place in the glass. The greater the wine, the more revealing and complex the bouquet and the longer it and the flavour will last.”

"My final advice on “air” is: be bold, and try decanting well in advance. Above all, with a really fine wine (and this applies as much to a top-class white burgundy as to claret) give the wine a chance to blossom in the glass: sip it, make it last, revel in its marvelous development.”

I certainly hope later editions of this otherwise excellent little book are less confusing. First we are told that he thinks that “little change occurs in the decanter” but then “be bold, and try decanting well in advance”. Maybe he has a lot of really pretty decanters that he likes to boldly show off?

Mike

Decanting – Day 6
OK, let’s serious about finding some really well documented, peer reviewed, evidence on the virtues of decanting. What does a Google search of “decanting, wine” reveal? Here is a sampling.

From The Winedoctor.com
“Young wines also benefit from decanting, although the aim is not to take the wine off its sediment (there is rarely any such sediment in young wines), but rather to aerate the wine. The action of decanting itself, and the large surface area in contact with the air in the decanter, alters the wine, softening its youthful bite and encouraging the development of more complex aromas that normally develop with years in bottle. For this reason even inexpensive wines plucked from the shelves of the local supermarket can benefit from decanting, if a first taste reveals a tannic, grippy, youthful structure.”

From RobertMondavi.com
“Decanting is great for young red wines
Young red wines with strong tannins that almost chewy, woody, astringent taste greatly benefit from decanting. As the wine is poured into the decanter and left to sit for thirty minutes or so, oxygen soften tannins and pushes the fruit forward to intensify the bouquet and delight the palate.”

From DamnGoodWine.com
“So, to sum it up – you can decant whenever you want and whatever you want. People will say that only older red wines with sediment need to be decanted, but decanting a younger red will open it up too and you may decide to decant a white wine just because you like the way it looks on the table. There are really no rules here. For us – we decant red wines, pouring the younger ones with vigor into the decanter, and pouring the older ones with a gentle touch to separate the sediment from the rest of the wine. We let it breath for 10 minutes or so (if I can handle waiting that long on that particular day) and then fill up the glasses. We don’t ever put it back into the bottle though – we drink it!”

From Wine on The Web.com
“As a rule of thumb most red wines will benefit from breathing, but it only applies to white wines that have had 12 or more months aging. If you don't have a proper decanter just use a large water jug. The aim is to expose the maximum possible surface to the air, in order to help open up the fruit flavors and develop the wine's true character.

If a wine has spent up to 12 months in small oak barrels allow one hour; if it has spent 24 months allow 2 hours and for 36 months, allow 3 hours. If there is sediment use a port filter to decant. If you don't have a port filter then use a coffee filter instead.”

From Steamer Trunk Merchants.com
“White wines can be consumed almost instantly. There are exceptions—full bodied white Burgundies, and Bordeaux, as well as the best Alsatian whites do nicely with a little breathing spell. Ports are in a class by themselves and can benefit by several hours of decanting. Decanting is particularly good for young and tannic red wines. Cabernet Sauvignon, most Zinfandels, Bordeaux, Rhone Valley wines and many Italian wines fall into this category. Tannin is a substance found in wine skins and as red wines are fermented in their skins, a slight bitterness can cling to the palate upon tasting. Aeration softens the tannins and improves the overall taste considerably. The rule of thumb is usually an hour.”


Mike

Decanting – Day 7
I can’t help myself. Just one more gem from the Google search of “decanting, wine” before we begin to get serious about seeing if anything is actually known about what decanting actually does to wine.

From The Winedoctor.com
“In addition to splashing, I personally “pour violently” into the bottle, sometimes talking to the bottle in an aggressive tone. I think it helps. This method is for opening up the bouquet in a younger wine.”

Dionysus and Bacchus have always provided the possibility of gratuitous sex along with worship of the fruits of the vine, and now we have an excuse for gratuitous violence – decanting!

Mike

KMP wrote: Well wine is a living thing. IsnÂ’t it? Mike

No

KMP wrote: Well wine is a living thing. IsnÂ’t it? Mike

No

KMP wrote:As I recover from my surgery a little bit of idle reading has me rediscovering the following quotations.

“Only bottles which have a deposit need to be decanted.”

And how, pray tell, does one determine this? It's all very well if you've been drinking Lafite all your life, and you just pull the 10th bottle of 61 from your case, but it's a bit harder for the first time, isn't it? Give it a good shake, silhouette against the light and watch for floaters? Ah, yes, there they are - it needs decanting. Excellent. Dinner will be four more hours everyone...!

(although only a few pinot's are transparent enough for this. Good luck with a Wynns cabernet...)

I do generally agree with the 'just before serving' idea, basically on utilitarian grounds...

cheers,
Graeme

MatthewW wrote:

KMP wrote: Well wine is a living thing. IsnÂ’t it? Mike

No

Now I'm sure you thought long and hard about this answer, but you can have a chance to reconsider you know.

Oh, wait I see you already did! Well in that case I won't send you my copy of the Sideways DVD. Wrong zone anyway.

Mike

Ps. FWIW MatthewW there is a scene in the movie where the female lead says "I like to think about what was going on the year the grapes were growing, how the sun was shining that summer.... I think about all those people who tended and picked the grapes... I love how wine continues to evolve, how every time I open a bottle it's going to taste different than if I had opened it on any other day. Because a bottle of wine is actually alive -- it's constantly evolving and gaining complexity.... And it tastes so f -- ing good."

Sounds like a pretty good reason to appreciate wine to me. You may view wine in a different light.

GraemeG wrote:

KMP wrote:As I recover from my surgery a little bit of idle reading has me rediscovering the following quotations.

“Only bottles which have a deposit need to be decanted.”

And how, pray tell, does one determine this? It's all very well if you've been drinking Lafite all your life, and you just pull the 10th bottle of 61 from your case, but it's a bit harder for the first time, isn't it? Give it a good shake, silhouette against the light and watch for floaters? Ah, yes, there they are - it needs decanting. Excellent. Dinner will be four more hours everyone...!

(although only a few pinot's are transparent enough for this. Good luck with a Wynns cabernet...)

I do generally agree with the 'just before serving' idea, basically on utilitarian grounds...

cheers,
Graeme

Graeme

If you are only allowing 4 hours for any sediment to settle before decanting then it may not be enough to remove it, depending upon the age of the wine. If I decant I always stand the wine for at least a day (I've never had anything old enough to require longer). I've never had a problem seeing sediment in a bottle. A point of light held on the opposite side of the bottle avoiding the label, up near the shoulder is the best place, should reveal sediment, especially if the bottle has been undisturbed and laying on its side. A candle will work (but messy), a penlight is better.

Hope this helps,
Mike

KMP wrote:

MatthewW wrote:

KMP wrote: Well wine is a living thing. IsnÂ’t it? Mike

No

Sounds like a pretty good reason to appreciate wine to me. You may view wine in a different light.

I have been collecting, drinking and enjoying wine for over 20 years. That doesn't stop me from refuting romantic nonense. Vines are living things, wine is NOT. I can enjoy the reality of wine, I do not need to cloak it in ingenuous or disingenuous romanticism. If there is something alive in your bottle of wine, it would indicate faulty winemaking and probable spoilage.

Matthew

Matthew wrote:I have been collecting, drinking and enjoying wine for over 20 years. That doesn't stop me from refuting romantic nonense. Vines are living things, wine is NOT. I can enjoy the reality of wine, I do not need to cloak it in ingenuous or disingenuous romanticism. If there is something alive in your bottle of wine, it would indicate faulty winemaking and probable spoilage.

Matthew

Matthew

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've also been drinking and collecting Aussie wine since the mid '70s. If anything I'm accused of being far too analytical in my appreciation of wine; possible an outgrowth of my profession. But even I can be reduced to waxing lyrical once in a while on wine. I can only suggest that you seek out some of the books of Walter James. Hopefully they will soften your heart toward the life in that bottle.

Mike

Anonymous wrote:

KMP wrote:

MatthewW wrote:

KMP wrote: Well wine is a living thing. IsnÂ’t it? Mike

No

Sounds like a pretty good reason to appreciate wine to me. You may view wine in a different light.

I have been collecting, drinking and enjoying wine for over 20 years. That doesn't stop me from refuting romantic nonense. Vines are living things, wine is NOT. I can enjoy the reality of wine, I do not need to cloak it in ingenuous or disingenuous romanticism. If there is something alive in your bottle of wine, it would indicate faulty winemaking and probable spoilage.

Matthew

Matthew
I am interested to know why you classify a vine as a 'living thing' - what is the definition of 'living' within this context?

thanks
John

Decanting – Day 8
A couple of days ago I provided links to various internet sites under the guise of a search for “well documented, peer reviewed, evidence on the virtues of decanting”. Nothing could, of course, be further from the truth. While the internet does pretty much cover the known universe, the links and quotes given provide little more than anecdote and personal opinion.

There are other more appropriate databases to search for studies that have been done on the effects that decanting (i.e. aeration) may have on wine. They include Ovid Technologies, Inc. which I can access at work. And should be accessible at any university library. It includes (among others) Biological Abstracts (Indexes life science research reported in nearly 5,500 journals. Coverage is international and includes biological and medical research findings, clinical studies, discoveries of new organisms, biotechnology, pharmacology and botany.) which goes back to 1980, and Agricola (Index to materials acquired by the National Agricultural Library and cooperating institutions. Includes journal articles, monographs, series, and materials in many non-print formats covering a broad range of agricultural topics. 1970-1985 international in scope. 1985+ focuses on U.S. related publications.) which goes back to about 1979.

Searching a number of literature data bases IÂ’ve come up with, how can I put this politely, less than might be expected given the opinions that are voiced on this topic. There is this one paper.

Avakyants, SP. Changes in bouquet substances during wine aeration. Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii Pishchevaya Tekhnologiya (1). (1972) 95-98.

No, I did not make this citation up. Now its possible that so few papers were identified because the searches did not go back far enough in time. Certainly no work from Peynaud was identified; his book was first published in 1980. But sensory evaluation of taste is a growing field and it includes wine. Just do a search of PubMed to see what I mean. Whoa, “decanting, wine” gives some hits! Scientific American: How does decanting red wine affect its taste? And why is it suggested for red wine, but not white?

Mike

JohnP wrote:Matthew
I am interested to know why you classify a vine as a 'living thing' - what is the definition of 'living' within this context?

thanks
John

John,

On Matthew's behalf, a vine - like any plant - is a living thing. Just like animals, fungi, bacteria and various other organisms. Just not like rocks, wire, tractors and wine - unless of course you refer to the bacteria in wine.

Was your comment tongue in cheek John and have I spoiled everyone's fun?

Cheers,

Decanting – Day 9
This topic has been allowed to breathe for too long! The previous post in this series, Day 8, on March 23rd provided a link to a Q&A in Scientific American. “How does decanting red wine affect its taste? And why is it suggested for red wine, but not white?” The answer was provided by Andrew L Waterhouse, a Professor in the Department of Viticulture and Enology at the University of California at Davis and author of the book Red Wine Color: Revealing the Mysteries. Professor Waterhouse notes “From the perspective of modifying the taste or appearance of a wine, the decision about whether or not to decant is based largely on two criteria, although the amount of published literature on the topic is very limited.” After searching far and wide for any literature I can agree with the last part of this statement!

In answering the question Professor Waterhouse makes sure that the reader is aware that his response will include several terms “that are not based on measurements, but are descriptive terms conventionally used by wine drinkers”. Those terms are “closed”, “breathing”, “softens”, and “bottle bouquet”. This is an important point. As much as you (or I) may think we experience these phenomena, our description does not provide any measurement. And even though they may seem like simple terms their (subjective) measurement may be extremely complicated to quantify.

The two criteria that Professor Waterhouse comments on are decanting to accelerate the “breathing” process to increase the wine's aromas, and decanting to “soften” the taste of the tannins that cause harshness and astringency in young wines. Let’s talk about the second point first, and we’ll get to the “breathing” issue in another post. As Professor Waterhouse notes chemical analysis has determined no changes in tannins after decanting, and yet it is often noted that a wine “softens” with time once exposed to air. So what explains the phenomena? Well let’s backtrack a little here. What actually happened with this story is that I sent out a question which asked “do you know of any published work that supports the notion that decanting for several hours softens tannins in bottled wine?” to several academics who I thought might be able to provide an answer. Professor Waterhouse was one of the individuals. He was kind enough to reply that there is “Little evidence of actual changes in tannins.” And provided a PDF of the Scientific American commentary. (I found the Scientific American piece independently during a literature search. Oddly enough the direct link to the magazine is a more extensive answer than the material in the PDF.)

I also asked Professor Bruce W. Zoecklein of the Department of Food Science and Technology at Virginia Tech. Professor Zoecklein, who oversees The Wine/Enology - Grape Chemistry Group, replied “I do not know of any publication which reports that aeration of bottled wine softens tannins. That could happen as a result of oxidative polymerization. Naturally, how much polymerization and the sensory impact would be dictated by the phenol make-up of the wine. Oxidative impact is much greater in fermenting and very young wines which contain a higher concentration of monomeric phenols-notable pigments.” So it’s a possibility that oxidation might affect tannins in very young wine, but there is no published experimental evidence for bottled wine.

OK, so let’s think about this in another way. Why does a softening of the tannins in wine have to involve an effect on components in wine? After all, astringency is detected in the mouth. What is astringency? All of the explanations I have found are essentially similar. The most interesting comes from Simon et al (Biochemistry 42 (2003) p10385-10395). “This sensation, earlier considered by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) as a taste, was described in physicochemical terms by Joslyn and Golstein in 1964 as the result of a strong interaction between tannins and salivary proteins. The formed tannin-protein complex aggregates, thus reducing the lubricating property of saliva. A dry, rough, and pucker sensation is then perceived as a diffuse stimulus in the entire mouth.” In essence polyphenols (tannins) interact with proline-rich proteins (salivary proteins).

In reviewing polyphenols, Lesschaeve and Noble (American. J. Clinical Nutrition 81 (2005) 330S-335S) make a number of interesting points. The tactile sensation of astringency is thought to be perceived through touch, while an astringent is defined chemically as a compound that precipitates protein. Alcohol levels can affect bitterness but not astringency. Astringency increases and bitterness decreases with the degree of polymerization. Adding acid to wine increases astringency. Eating chocolate increases perceived astringency of red wine, with dark chocolate producing the largest effect. Although studies are conflicting there is evidence that astringency perception may be influenced by salivary flow rate. The faster you can restore saliva (salivary protein) the less astringency you will experience. Wine consumers often confuse bitterness and astringency; bitterness is used to express dislike and often associated with acid or astringent characters.

How does any of this explain how decanting “softens” the taste of the tannins? Well I doubt that there is any experimental work that addresses the question directly but my point is quite simple. As a research scientist I’m certain I could make a much more credible case for salivary protein levels influencing tannin perception, as opposed to oxidation affecting tannin chemistry. More to the point, tasting a wine and perceiving changes in the qualities of that wine over time is more complex than just the interaction of air with the wine. There are so many variables to be considered that they render anecdotal description of the effects of aeration meaningless.

If the question is ever completely resolved it is likely that the final answer may well involve chemical (oxidation) and physiological (astringency perception) explanations, but as it stands right now there is no unequivocal evidence that aeration due to decanting “softens” the taste of the tannins.

Hmm, I wonder if the perceived increase in a wine's aroma during aeration might be explained by physiological responses as well.

I want to acknowledge the kind assistance of Professors Waterhouse and Zoecklein in taking time from their busy schedules to answer my questions and permitting me to quote from their replies.

Mike

Last night I opened a 1996 Cos Estournel, it was completely closed upon opening, only after 3 hours of air time in a big decanter did it even get close to opening up...

I really cant understand people who think that decanting doesnt help, or think that one should sit for 3-4 hours with the wine in the glass swirling to try and open it up when you could just decant it in advance....or decant it at the time and move onto a more accesible wine(s) .

Adam wrote:Last night I opened a 1996 Cos Estournel, it was completely closed upon opening, only after 3 hours of air time in a big decanter did it even get close to opening up...

I really cant understand people who think that decanting doesnt help, or think that one should sit for 3-4 hours with the wine in the glass swirling to try and open it up when you could just decant it in advance....or decant it at the time and move onto a more accesible wine(s) .

Adam

I have no doubt that you are describing what you perceived. Whether you can prove that the changes you observed were due only to the exposure to air is another matter. In fact I'll bet you can't. I'll bet I can prove that other factors are at play. (And I will in the next post on this topic - once all the information is gathered.)

FWIW. If you read any of my TNs you will note that in almost all cases I record how the wine "evolves" or "develops" over time. I even record the taste at 24 hours after opening. In fact I think I am one of the few people to consistently record this in my TNs. But I do not believe that the changes in what I taste or smell are due just to the exposure of the wine to air or oxidation.

It just ain't that simple folks.

Mike

KMP wrote:
I have no doubt that you are describing what you perceived. Whether you can prove that the changes you observed were due only to the exposure to air is another matter. In fact I'll bet you can't. I'll bet I can prove that other factors are at play. (And I will in the next post on this topic - once all the information is gathered.)

Mike

It doesnt matter, fact is the wine tasted better after 3 hours in a decanter, does it really matter how/why that was the case??

(that sounds a bit harsh, Im not trying to debunk all your hard work on this!!, its great reading)

Adam wrote:Last night I opened a 1996 Cos Estournel, it was completely closed upon opening, only after 3 hours of air time in a big decanter did it even get close to opening up...

I really cant understand people who think that decanting doesnt help, or think that one should sit for 3-4 hours with the wine in the glass swirling to try and open it up when you could just decant it in advance....or decant it at the time and move onto a more accesible wine(s) .

I'm with KMP on this. I've tested this several times - most recently two times with two bottles of 2001 henry's drive reserve shiraz (big, fruit bomb style) and in 2nd instance with two bottles of 1997 Mount Mary Quintet(elegant). In each case, one bottle was opened and and decanted for a minimum 3hrs for MM and 4 hours for Henry's. Then opened fresh bottles for comparison after decanting period (from same cellar). Without doubt the just opened bottles were better in every aspect, especially flavours and bouquet. Passed it on to my neighbours (not big wine buffs) and on blind basis on both times preferred just opened bottles and straight away without any hesitation. In fact, the difference was remarkable. You would have expected both wines to be better with airing (esp the Henry's) and the PERCEPTION was that the wine got better with decanting but it was actually muted. But testing this showed only that my perception as wrong when a fresh bottle was opened for comparison. I have done this several times over the last 10 years and never prefered the decanted wine. As a result I never decant more than one hour before drinking, and usually only for sediment-filled bottles. Not even 18% Duck Muck's or 17% Greenock Creeks. (interstingly, the Greenocks all go acidified after 4-5 hours I have found)! This decanting for 4-24 hours that you see on Arpy board makes me cringe as there is little basis in fact, only perception. Was it peynaud or Broadbent who said he had never had a wine that improved with extended (3hrs +) decanting)? I;m more of a Peynaudiste as a result. test it out yoursleves guys - you may be very surprised like I was. The fact that Australia makes big weighty styles is irrelevant vs. the limits of our perception. Just look at the world authority Michael Edwards' work on Perfumes and our perception of smells and memory retenton. And I've never known any Aussie dry white to improve with decnting vs. fresh sample. Just my 2c worth on my limited (granted) experiences - don't ambush me!

Agree with TORB though- stelvins is a entirley differemt story!

Lush fruit driven wines may be different, but I can guarantee you that last night a 1996 Cos improved over the course of the night in a decanter. I checked it every 15 minutes or so until it was blossoming...and then drank it.

Yes I could have sat at the bar with my glass for 4 hours, but then I wouldnt have had much fun.

after reading the entire thread, I came to a VERY important conclusion:
some wine will benefit from decanting,
some wine won't and some will be hurt by it.

I'll be spending the rest of my life testing those conclusions and posting new findings on the daily basis.

Day -13125 : it helped.
Day -13124 : it helped.
.................................
.................................
Day -2565 : it didn't help.
.................................
.................................
.................................
Day -65 : no change.
Yesyerday: got hurt and went flat
Today: ?
Tmorrow: ??

For young robust OZ wines, decanting is a must.

This is my lay-man analogy.I can't vouch for the accuracy but it work for me.

1Hr in the decanter equate to 1yr appx. of cellaring.
If I wanted a to see the potential of the wine in 5 yrs I decant it 5 hrs prior. IE. the Jack Mann '99 I gave it a good 12hrs and it was purr-fect. Room temp. appx. 18-20C.

Adam wrote:

KMP wrote:
I have no doubt that you are describing what you perceived. Whether you can prove that the changes you observed were due only to the exposure to air is another matter. In fact I'll bet you can't. I'll bet I can prove that other factors are at play. (And I will in the next post on this topic - once all the information is gathered.)

Mike

It doesnt matter, fact is the wine tasted better after 3 hours in a decanter, does it really matter how/why that was the case??

(that sounds a bit harsh, Im not trying to debunk all your hard work on this!!, its great reading)

Adam

I have no problem with you being harsh etc. But the fact that you were willing to let that wine sit for 3 hours and taste it over that time does suggest that you do care about what you taste. The real question is whether you care about why you taste what you taste, and whether the approach you are using is allowing you to get the most the from that bottle of wine. (And thanks for appreciating the effort it takes to get all the information together on this.)

Adam wrote:Lush fruit driven wines may be different, but I can guarantee you that last night a 1996 Cos improved over the course of the night in a decanter. I checked it every 15 minutes or so until it was blossoming...and then drank it.

Yes I could have sat at the bar with my glass for 4 hours, but then I wouldnt have had much fun.)

I don't want to be too critical of your approach here as I have used it myself in the past. But as both Baby Chickpea and the original story from Peynaud in the first post have noted, you don't have a reference point with which to make a comparison. To say that a wine that has been decanted for 3 hours is blossoming you would need to compare it with wine from a freshly opened bottle. Otherwise there are simply too many variables that may be affecting your perception of the wine. What did you do during those three hours? Were you eating? Were you tasting other wines? Did you smoke? Has the wine warmed to room temp and is now giving off more volatiles? And on, and on.

Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to do justice to this. But the best example of how subjective aeration can be is to check any thread on advice about decanting a specific wine on the eBob forum. I read one quite recently where the suggestions ranged from no decanting to something like 24 hours. I doubt very much if any of the people offering advice had performed the type of comparison that Baby Chickpea has described.

Mike