The Auswine Forum

I started reading this article by Janet Fletcher in the San Francisco Chronicle with little enthusiasm as it looked like the same old same old.

Many wine professionals also say that decanting softens the tannins in red wine, achieving in a few hours what might take years to transpire in a cellar. Barolo and Barbaresco -- the big, brawny Nebbiolo-based wines of Italy's Piedmont region -- are almost always decanted, ostensibly to mellow the tannins and release the bottle bouquet.

But then came this. According to UC Davis Enology Professor Roger Boulton, there is absolutely no evidence that decanting produces any change in wine tannins, at least over a matter of days. Tasters may perceive that the tannins have softened, but laboratory tests show otherwise.

So that is another academic to claim that there is no science to support the argument that decanting softens tannins.

And then came this. Nor does oxygen play the role that many wine professionals think.

"If (a wine) seems a little closed in, the very best thing you can do is give it some oxygen," says Ronn Wiegand, publisher of the newsletter Restaurant Wine, articulating a belief echoed frequently by his colleagues.

But Boulton says oxygen has nothing to do with the aromas that emerge when wine is poured into a decanter or glass. The same aromatic bloom happens in a nitrogen environment, with no oxygen present.

Like a soda that releases some of its carbon dioxide when opened but retains some bubbles in the drink, bottled wine holds many of its aromatic compounds in solution with some proportion of them clustered in the headspace. When the cork is pulled and the wine poured into a container with considerably more headspace -- a decanter or a glass -- those aromas in solution, good smells and bad ones, have somewhere to go.

Some compounds volatilize more quickly than others; stinky sulfides and acetic acid are among the first to blow off, which is why the initial perfume may not be a wine's best. On the other hand, the esters responsible for the fruity aromas in many white wines also evaporate early, so decanting a Sauvignon Blanc or Pinot Gris may diminish its attributes.

Depending on the age of the wine and the aromatic compounds it contains, this release of aromas into the headspace might continue for two to three hours. But for the typical 10-year-old wine, says Boulton, an hour of breathing time should do it; after that, the wine is probably losing more good aromas than bad ones. And no matter how long the taster waits, a wine with the undesirable aromas of cork taint or brettanomyces, a spoilage yeast, will never lose them.

Nor does one need a decanter to unleash the aromas in a bottle of wine. "You and I can pour the wine from the bottle into the glass and do the same thing," says Boulton. "It's only if you're a sommelier that your role in the world is to pour it into a decanter."

Yes! (fist pump). Great stuff, could not agree more with his interpretation. But just to be sure IÂ’m still working on an approach that will allow me to compare decanted and undecanted wine from the same bottle to see how much aeration does change a wine.

Final note: Interesting that “enjoyed the last glass more than the first” raises its ugly head in this article. I’ve seen this comment many times as a justification for decanting or aeration. I’ll bet there is no science to back up this claim. And if you think about the number of variables involved in comparing the first and last glass of any bottle you might come to realize that the comparison is truly meaningless.

Mike

Interesting article Mike. There's so much myth surrounding decanting and so little confirmable evidence.

Wine drinking is full of inponderable variables that make the experience better or worse for individuals in so many ways. Even each palate is just so different in its taste, so how can there be difinitives in decanting.

About the only things that I concede are that breathing will assist wines in most cases and that older wines should breathe too long because their peak is usually close to opening. Decanting of course does allow seperation of the solids from the wine.

That said, the variables are just too many and I think the article somewhat confirms that.

I'm always a little sceptical at "scientific" reports, as you never know the controls put on the testing.

Probably best to make your own comparisons with a single bottle of wine, and be happy with that!

Being a scientist doesn't equate to being always right!

Rory

Thanks,
I just bought a decanter couple of weeks ago and thought it was doing a fantastic job. What ever the reason is, I do believe that the last glass is usually always better that the first. Sometimes significantly better. I know often when I opened a bottle had a couple of glasses, was not impressed, recorked the bottle to open it the next evening and be blown away especially or always with younger wines.
Has anybody opened two identical bottles, decantered one and left the other in the bottle and done a blind taste test? Might be an interesting trial.
Never argue Politics or religion or corks or Screw caps or to decant or not decant...
Cheers,
Mick.

I still like to decant significant wines and believe a little breathing helps most wines but don't breath mature wines too long, just enough to blow off bottle stink.

THe most breathing you can give it comes by swirling it in your glass.

If you have as much time for EVERY glass to breathe, by all means forget the decanter, but if you're looking to enjoy a bottle of wine that needs, say, 8 hours to breathe, over only two hours, you'll need to decant. The best examples I can come up with have been the 1994 John Riddoch, which had after 24 hours<!> grown from a shy, tightly closed flower to a room full of aromatic heaven, and vintages of Chateau Margaux, drunk over a few hours, where the last glass, having seen time breathing in the bottle, has been the best by far. Now, why can't we just force out that aromas by swirling the glass like a maniac for 10 minutes? One, you look like a tosser and two, you may want to be doing something else at the time, three...how full a glass can be swirled whilst still effectively exposing wine to air? I think you'll find that until you're swirling fast enough for the surface to break and really rise over the fill level, you're just rotating a disc-faced cone in the glass with VERY little effect...the surface to air contact is still minimal next to a decanter. PS: Area=Pi(e mm....pie)R^2, no? If R doubles, Area REALLY grows So a decanter with where R=R(glass)*3 does a lot more work to release the good stuff. Anyway, with wines that really do need a decant, I find that they get better with both a good spell in the 'duck' and a twirl in the glass...all about total time exposed to air, hopefully some of which you get to sniff. Remember, we don't usually drink from glasses barely sprinkled with 'tasting portions' of wine.

I'm no scientist or wine expert by any means but a recent experience with 1975 Bordeaux that saw it gain flesh after 2 hours in a decanter makes me disagree with the experts - I tasted it after an hour and it wasn't as good as it tasted after 2hours. 'Nuff said.

The argument(s) regarding the perceived benefit(s) of decanting re tannins, aromas etc. aside, I must say that I ALWAYS decant my decent wine for no other reason than to separate the sediment from the clear stuff. In this regard, there can be no question that decanting does a good job.

Mike,
this was one of your best findings ever...all I can say is WOW!

GREAT JOB!

Mike,

Must agree fully with the article you found - I have at least 5 decanters which get used rarely if ever - and some of the poor old dears are over 30 yo.

One interesting thing with the 'last glass is best' phenomenon - on innumerable occassions I have been at blind tastings where a second bottle (of a wine previously tasted in the nights lineup) has been snuck into the tasting and in almost all cases it is rated higher, by all present, than the first bottle (of the same wine). Not exactly sure what this really signifies - but it is interesting and can be embarrassing esp. if you canned the first bottle. One of these days I will do a (blind) tasting in reverse order of one done previously just to see how the ratings vary.

My own belief on 'last is best' is simply that the palate has adjusted to the wine, making the angular or disjointed components less noticable than on first tasting. The senses know what to expect the second time around and make adjustments - how that is controlled is the question. Also lets face it; at the end of the bottle you are at least in some way affected by alcohol which must have some affect on the senses.

John

I've been reluctant to weight in to this as I have a heretical view that decanting is overrated. This article seems to align with it in some way.

I'm constantly amazed that no matter how long you decant a wine, people always seem to find it changes dramatically in the glass over a relatively short period. That made me wonder if decanting wasnt the factor that many would think in changing a wine from the minute the cork/screwcap is released.

I now wonder if "palate conditioning" is a bigger effect. Once you have had three glasses of something, your palate becomes "conditioned" and wines then taste different, comapred to if they had been first wine drunk.

John, this would align with the "last bottle is best" idea.

Are there any other thoughts like this out there?

cheers

AB

Don't care if you call me a flat-earther, I speak the truth. Simple experience and reasonableness (more important than scientific study) shows decanting definitely works on some wines for the better. If you don't think so, open up a young Wendouree and taste it, then taste it again in 4 hours or 24 hours time for that matter (to make sure that the above quoted "palate conditioning" phenomena" is not at work). You will find a massive difference. If you don't, you really should not be spending more than $10 a bottle for wine.

Also, many times I open a wine, find it too tight/closed, put it aside for the next day and it is better. A 1998 St. Hugo that I opened recently comes to mind.

Personally I don't think it softens the tannins, but find it allows the flavours of the wine to come out of the wine, to be more prominent for the wines that benefit (e.g. tight reds) and to come out and go away for the wines that should not have breathed (e.g. NZ Sauvignon Blanc).

Adair

Decanting is vital for some wines and it works. Full stop. Particularily with Bordeaux and also young screwcapped reds. That is my observation. Adair is 100% correct for once.


GW

Gents, I agree with what you are saying, long decanting must have some effect. Wines go through chemical changes. They oxidise. Full stop. This is 100% true. Read some of my tasting notes.

Would I notice the change in a Wendouree over 4 or 24 hours? Yes. I would. I have.

My comments relate to what happens over shorter timeframes than the ones you are discussing. I dont believe decanting over short timeframes makes the difference a lot of people want to believe. I've tried it: One bottle decanted for an hour, the other with the cork just pulled. No one in the room could tell which one got the decanting.

Mike,

I simply don't understand what this article is saying that contradicts the commonly held belief, and my belief, that decanting (or aerating, or jugging, or pouring back and forth, etc, etc...) can be of benefit to a wine... and I have no care that it is not the oxygen, nitrogen or any other element that causes the change, but simply the additional space for the wine to breathe. As the article says "Change occurs when the cork is pulled and the wine poured into a container with considerably more headspace -- a decanter or a glass -- those aromas in solution, good smells and bad ones, have somewhere to go." Yep, sounds right to be, even with my very little study of liquids, gases and equilibrium.

The line "there is absolutely no evidence that decanting produces any change in wine tannins, at least over a matter of days" has no issues for me. To me it is about releasing more flavour, which changes the balance of a wine, making the structure less strong compared to the flavour. Some would describe this as "softer" with the wine in general probably being descrbed as "bigger".

Furthermore, with the line "Oxygen does not play the role that many wine professionals think. The same aromatic bloom happens in a nitrogen environment, with no oxygen present." Okay, who cares? The air is 78% nitrigen and 21% oxygen. People use the terms oxygen and air interchangeably. I don't think decanting would work in a vacuum!

The only thing in this article that I find not in line with common belief is Emile Peynaud's view that only flawed wines benefited from early decanting as good wines reveal many of their charms soon after pouring, and these should not be missed. Another one of his interesting views that I don't agree with... but that is fine with me.

And surely the scientist does not have an issue with "decanting" the act. "Nor does one need a decanter to unleash the aromas in a bottle of wine. "You and I can pour the wine from the bottle into the glass and do the same thing," says Boulton. "It's only if you're a sommelier that your role in the world is to pour it into a decanter."" I use a jug for a lot of my decanting. Would he be happier with that?

Kind regards,
Adair

And I was silly enough to believe that the recent research - which supposedly concluded that air has nothing to do with the ageing of wine - was correct.

Wizz wrote:My comments relate to what happens over shorter timeframes than the ones you are discussing. I dont believe decanting over short timeframes makes the difference a lot of people want to believe. I've tried it: One bottle decanted for an hour, the other with the cork just pulled. No one in the room could tell which one got the decanting.

Wizz,

I agree with Guest:

Anonymous wrote:If you have as much time for EVERY glass to breathe, by all means forget the decanter, but if you're looking to enjoy a bottle of wine that needs, say, 8 hours to breathe, over only two hours, you'll need to decant. The best examples I can come up with have been the 1994 John Riddoch, which had after 24 hours<!> grown from a shy, tightly closed flower to a room full of aromatic heaven, and vintages of Chateau Margaux, drunk over a few hours, where the last glass, having seen time breathing in the bottle, has been the best by far. Now, why can't we just force out that aromas by swirling the glass like a maniac for 10 minutes? One, you look like a tosser and two, you may want to be doing something else at the time, three...how full a glass can be swirled whilst still effectively exposing wine to air? I think you'll find that until you're swirling fast enough for the surface to break and really rise over the fill level, you're just rotating a disc-faced cone in the glass with VERY little effect...the surface to air contact is still minimal next to a decanter. PS: Area=Pi(e mm....pie)R^2, no? If R doubles, Area REALLY grows So a decanter with where R=R(glass)*3 does a lot more work to release the good stuff. Anyway, with wines that really do need a decant, I find that they get better with both a good spell in the 'duck' and a twirl in the glass...all about total time exposed to air, hopefully some of which you get to sniff. Remember, we don't usually drink from glasses barely sprinkled with 'tasting portions' of wine.

Did you take some wine out of the full bottle and let it sit so it had a much greater area?

I reckon you try the experiment again, with some Stelvin capped wine, probably the 2001 Cullen CS would be a good experiment... and invite me along.

Adair

JohnP wrote:And I was silly enough to believe that the recent research - which supposedly concluded that air has nothing to do with the ageing of wine - was correct.

Hahaha... come on John, let's not use the broad paint brush.

Adair

I once opened a bottle of wine and had a glass, it was ok. I put the bottle in a cool place and had a glass the next day, it tasted much, much better, had a second glass, it was really very good. Left the same wine bottle a week only to find it wasn't better than when I first tried it!
Moral: More is not always better.
Is decanting a form of rapid aging?
I find cheaper / young wines have a small time frame from being opened to going sour (I mean in days 2-3 days tops and they're really off). This is a hard one because I've never had a more premium wine open for more than a few hours. I just can't imagune opening a really good wine and having somje left two-three days later. Anyone comment???
By the way, I'm drinking a '99 Petaluma Bridgewater Cab Sav and it hasn't really gotten better over the past 3 hrs in a decanter! (and I'm drinking the last glass).

Cheers,

Mick.

Jersey wrote:Moral: More is not always better.

How un-American of you!

Jersey wrote:Is decanting a form of rapid aging?

No. Aging involved the changing of the tannin compounds and the changing of the flavour compounds. Decanting is the releasing of the flavours in the form that they are currently present, however oxidation obviously occurs much fatser than say if your cork had a slight leak in it.

Jersey wrote:I find cheaper / young wines have a small time frame from being opened to going sour (I mean in days 2-3 days tops and they're really off).

This is because a "premium" wine has more tannins, acid, everything... which seem to make oxidation slower. These facets also enable a wine to age better so that the beneficial effects of bottle age can occur without the wine losing its balance. Others would be able to answer this better.

Adair

Adair wrote:Did you take some wine out of the full bottle and let it sit so it had a much greater area?

Were you meaning the decanted/undecanted tasting? It was one of those lab flask thingys, would have given about 80cm2 of area rather than the 2cm2 or so in a bottle neck.

Adair wrote:I reckon you try the experiment again, with some Stelvin capped wine, probably the 2001 Cullen CS would be a good experiment... and invite me along.

Adair

Well, seeing as I'm apparently a long way from conventional wisdom, I think I should follow your suggestion and conduct an extensive range of scientific experiments to determine the truth.

Wizz wrote:

Adair wrote:Did you take some wine out of the full bottle and let it sit so it had a much greater area?

Were you meaning the decanted/undecanted tasting? It was one of those lab flask thingys, would have given about 80cm2 of area rather than the 2cm2 or so in a bottle neck.

Sorry, I meant the undecanted wine. Did you take any wine out of the undecanted wine before you let it sit for the hour, or did you just pop the cork and that is it? If you did not take any wine out of the undecanted bottle, I am surprised at your findings. It definitely needs re-testing, professor.

Adair wrote:

Wizz wrote:

Adair wrote:Did you take some wine out of the full bottle and let it sit so it had a much greater area?

Were you meaning the decanted/undecanted tasting? It was one of those lab flask thingys, would have given about 80cm2 of area rather than the 2cm2 or so in a bottle neck.

Sorry, I meant the undecanted wine. Did you take any wine out of the undecanted wine before you let it sit for the hour, or did you just pop the cork and that is it? If you did not take any wine out of the undecanted bottle, I am surprised at your findings. It definitely needs re-testing, professor.

In between: the cork was removed and replaced, but no decanting.

Retesting is on the cards. I even have volunteers among my work colleagues (again!). Heroes in the name of science, brave souls.

But Adair,
Alas, I am not American...

Oh that was me by the way,
Cheers,
Mick.

Jersey wrote:But Adair,
Alas, I am not American...

But you live there. Yes?

Not a serious comment anyway.

Adair

Yes, I'm living in America. Have for several years. previous to that was in Melbourne. I was in Tumut NSW for all of 2004 and start of 2005, just returned after re-aquiring a Visa. I'm living in New Jersey and working in New York. Have a house here etc.

Cheers,
Mick.