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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, once unpleasant aromas have blown off. But then the pleasant volatiles will also deteriorate.
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.
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.
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.
But WHEN it is ready, it does NOT benefit from being left open to the air for any significant amount of time.
I said the volatiles 'affect our senses'. I didn't claim that they are all good or all bad.
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.
Two phenomena to discuss:
Aerial transport of volatiles
Oxidation
Agreed.
Of course.
The two issues are not related.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.