The Wine List

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:03 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh ahahahahahahahahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahahah ahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa(gasp) HAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahAHAhahahah!!!!!!!!!1one

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured it'd be.

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:59 am

Unless the "wine express" involves dropping tablets of sulfur compounds into the wine and/or setting it on fire, I have a hard time believing it could do anything to the flavor in just 15-20 minutes, especially by just being in some sort of close proximity to it. Feel free to disprove me though. I mean, does it involve quartz crystals and magnets? Or is it just fueled by wishful thinking, like most of these so-called "devices?"

No disproof required Fluffy...you just have to try it. I am a skeptic of all things. When I was shown this device, I scoffed like you, I said, "You are FOOLISH to think that a pedastal with a name like Wine Cellar Express is going to "age" your wine".

Seriously, I laughed. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Or the wine. I tested it on that occasion with 2 seperate bottles. Opened each, poured a glass. Placed the bottle on the WE for 20 min, poured another glass. .....

I'm telling you, there is a distinct change in the characteristics of the wine after having sat on that unit.

I can't tell you how or why, I can't explain it. I think copper bracelets and magnets in your shoes are for suckers. Pyramid shapes do NOT make my plants grow better. But the Wine Express make homemade wine taste...better.

Laugh if you will, but if you haven't tried it, consider that you might be wrong in your assumption that it's b/s....

Try it and see...

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:55 am

Peaks In Valleys wrote:Seriously, I laughed. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Or the wine. I tested it on that occasion with 2 seperate bottles. Opened each, poured a glass. Placed the bottle on the WE for 20 min, poured another glass. .....

I'm telling you, there is a distinct change in the characteristics of the wine after having sat on that unit.

Okay, first off:

- Did you try the pre-WC and post-WC glasses at the same time?
- Did you clear your palette between the two tastings?
- Did you know which was which when you tried them?
- Did you try not opening the bottle before putting it on the WC? Because that seems to be the key thing - the bottle was already opened, which starts oxidizing the wine.

What you NEED to do, for a proper test, is have at least two bottles of the identical wine, which go through the exact same steps except to not have one put on the WC pedestal, and to have the glasses poured out and tasted by someone else who doesn't know which one is which, in a random order, without you present in the room (since your body language might subconsciously give away which one is supposed to taste better). That's a bare minimum.

The test that you did, which is the same as the one in that review, is not scientific or controlled.

Also, don't underestimate the power of wishful thinking. You made the wine yourself. Of course you want it to taste better. It's the same as oxygen-free stereo interconnects or the green CD pen for preventing "light spillage" - there is absolutely no measurable difference, but people always say how much better the sound is after they've spent hundreds/thousands of dollars on pointless upgrades. Just because you think there's a difference doesn't mean there is one.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:09 am

Spud wrote:ok, and then, there's this:

http://www.dansdata.com/wineclip.htm

See, that's what I'm talking about. That's someone who actually understands the scientific method.

the article wrote:I'd uncorked the wine for a while before pouring it, to let it "breathe", but it was only breathing in the bottle; all of the testers agreed that at least some of the samples differed considerably in taste when they'd been sitting about in the tasting cups for a while longer. It was also pointed out that the first few pourings from a bottle are likely to taste somewhat different from later pourings, both because of oxidation and because there's more sediment lower down. I always did the Clipped pourings after the un-Clipped ones (to avoid Clipped backwash from the neck of the bottle contaminating the rest of the wine), so that could have accounted for some differences, too.

Exactly.

joshw · Post by **joshw** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:11 am

I'm not buying it. A few Google searches confirmed my suspicions that it seems to be imperceptible in real blind tastings.

Drink the wine at the right temperature, use the right glass, and if it needs to mellow, just let it open up for an hour or so before drinking. That's about all you can do to make the bottle of wine in front of you taste better.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:24 am

As expected, I'm fascinated by the conversation here. There's so much to know about this.
Truth to tell, I just want a wine that doesn't taste like the feet that crushed the grapes. I've started a batch with the help of Steve over at the <a href="http://www.2ferment.net">Fermentation Station</a>. My first batch is going to be a 'Baroque Rouge'. I hadn't heard of it, but the description sounded all right. I think the kit works out to about $3 per bottle (before the bottles), so hopefully I can expect something decent.
A co-worker of mine was kind enough to pass along her recipe for 'balloon wine'. I don't know if I'm brave enough to try this, but I thought you might find it interesting. NOTE: This recipe is provided for reference only, and I am not suggesting in any way that you take up booze chemistry.


Balloon Wine

1 gallon bottle
12 oz. frozen juice concentrate
1 package yeast
4 1/2 cups sugar

Dissolve yeast, put all ingredients in gallon bottle. Add cool water to shoulder of bottle, but balloon over top. Let set for 21 days. Siphon off wine into quart bottles, cap loosely until set. Makes about 3 1/2 quarts.

Sounds pretty scary to me. I guess the balloon is an indicator of when the wine is 'done'. If it deflates before 21 days, then the wine has finished doing what it's doing. If not, you just start bottling after 3 weeks.
Anybody try anything like this before?

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:05 am

sounds... dangerous.
also, will likely taste like crap.

anyway, if you want to age some wine, how about leaving it in the bottles for a while? that seems to work well, and doesn't cost anything

-bill

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:22 am

Okay, first off:

- Did you try the pre-WC and post-WC glasses at the same time?
- Did you clear your palette between the two tastings?
- Did you know which was which when you tried them?
- Did you try not opening the bottle before putting it on the WC? Because that seems to be the key thing - the bottle was already opened, which starts oxidizing the wine.

What you NEED to do, ......

LOL...hey man...what I need to do is tell you that, unlike yourself, I've TRIED it. That's all...I tasted a difference. You can call it wishful thinking, tell me there are errors in my process, blah blah blah...I'm cool widdat and totally not arguing with you. I don't care about it enough to book time at the local laboratory to get some controls on the experiment. I have consumed many many bottles of homemade wine prior to discovering this little bit of "wishful" inginuity and since using it, and after satisfying MY need for intelligent comparison (temperature and timing and cleansing the palette), I was sold enough to spend $25 on it and have found that it improves the taste of the wine.

If you haven't tried it at all, and cannot accept what can't be proved scientifically (and I haven't seen that anyone has subjected this unit to rigourous scientific testing anyhow...), that's cool. Whatever the device that improves the taste, whether it's magnets, copper, dilythium crystals, or hope, I guess it doesn't really matter. I wish I could point to some science to prove to you it works, but I can't. I'm not so sure it's my wishful thinking, 'cuz I'm fairly sceptical and objective. However to me, it works. I'm not terribly concerned with the how or why..it just does. It might be all in my head...again, no biggie. In this case, it's the end result that's good, cheaper wine that tastes better.

Hey~ science says that bumblebees can't possibly fly.....

..and lastly, (running out of hot air now,

), using Google to cite "facts" and research is a bit ironic wouldn't you say? I think anyone can use Google to support any position on anything..Hell, I could write an article on my exceptionally thorough (if fabricated) scientific process on testing this unit as though it were fact, and have it sound real. Get your heads out of the internet folks, go try stuff. 1st hand experience trumps ANYTHING Google searches turn up, ALWAYS.

That in no way means I'm right at all...just saying keep your mind open.

awright...back to work..

Great thread Jim!

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:47 am

Peaks In Valleys wrote:
Hey~ science says that bumblebees can't possibly fly.....

No, the laws of aerodynamics say that bumblebees can't glide through the air. But they don't glide through the air, they constantly flap their wings to attain their lift.

I hate that anti-science strawman.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:52 am

HeuristicsInc wrote:sounds... dangerous.
also, will likely taste like crap.

I have to agree. But it'd be so funny to bust out a bottle of my own wine and tell people it's a 2004 Cran-Raspberry. Well, funny to me, anyway.

With two kids in the house, tying a balloon to ANYTHING pretty much makes it a target. If that target is full of fermenting juice, well, that's asking for trouble. I think I'll do my winemaking at the shop.

Oh, that reminds me, I took a photo of my wine. I should post it. The wine is in a large plastic fermenting apparatus, hanging on the wall at the Fermentation Station. I have to go back there this weekend to check it, and to add a couple things to it (oak chips and such).

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:53 am

Fluffy,
LOL...touche. Ok, I retract that bit of misinformation. Found it on Google, btw...

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:59 am

Spud wrote:Two words:

Trader Joe's

I thought for sure you'd bad Mad Dog! (20/20)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I'm TEH FUNNIEZZZZ!!!!111!!!oneone!!!!11!

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:03 am

The funny thing is that I never once mentioned Google in this thread. I don't appeal to Google, I appeal to the scientific method, which is a framework for determining whether something someone says is a load of shit.

Anecdotal experience, which you appeal to, is still not particularly robust. It can't be tested, proven, or disproven. I can tell you that one time I really did see a flying pink monkey but that doesn't mean I did, even if I do totally believe that I did. Self-deception is amazingly easy. The whole point to the scientific method is to *avoid* self-deception, and to make impartial, reproducible results which help us understand the world.

Science isn't about test-tubes and beakers and cold hard facts, it's about finding out the way the world works. Without science we wouldn't even be having this conversation, even though you have no direct experience with most of the thousands of scientific processes which went into making it possible.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:04 am

jimt: i have seen a "legit" recipe for wine made from frozen concentrate. i just wouldn't trust wine made with:
1: a balloon
2: off the shelf yeast
if you want i can find that recipe. let me know.
I SAW IT ON GOOGLE (cue scary eyes effect)
-bill

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:06 am

..BUT... (sorry this posted before reading your reply)

[snipped] you answered my question. Apparently, I bring the loads of shit, you buy what other people tell you they've proven.

All good. I still have cheap, better tasting homemade wine. Scientific method is great, but science re-writes itself. I guess you won't try this device, though have no proof that it doesn't work. If you do, show it off... All you've done is quote someone else's argument about their scepticism and some very shallow scienitific proofing about why it shouldn't work. Is it definitive enough for your hard, scientific method needing view making? Guess so.

Google was referenced by someone else, didn't mean to imply it was you dood, though oddly enough, you had no trouble using that google reference to support your position, since it aligned with you nicely...hmmm....

Gimme some facts!!!! Better yet, try it yourself. You should disprove it by trying it, don't let someone else tell you it doesn't work.

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:17 am

fluffy wrote: Without science we wouldn't even be having this conversation, even though you have no direct experience with most of the thousands of scientific processes which went into making it possible.

man, I respect your mind and position, but what the hell are you talking about here? Are you trying to convince me of something? I'm not anti-science. And I definitely agree that science let us communicate this way, and that I don't know about how it works.

So?

ps: Jim T, sorry for hijacking your thread!

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:40 am

It's all monkey business, man. No worries.

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:40 am

This is a funny argument because you are both right: Fluffy is right because those magnet things don't do anything, and Peaks is right because taste is all psychological, and if you think something tastes better, then it does.

Here is my wine recommendation for the winter season: glogg is awesome stuff.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:20 am

bzl wrote: Here is my wine recommendation for the winter season: glogg is awesome stuff.

I thought: man, that bottle looks familiar, then I noticed the "Vermont" and realized that my fiancee (who lived there) has an empty bottle of that on top of her fridge.
-bill

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:24 am

Yeah, that stuff looks good. And the place is within driving distance. Weekend road trip for booze!

EDIT: Here's <a href="http://www.jimtyrrell.net/img/jimt_wine.jpg">my wine</a> doing its thing at the Fermentation Station. I can't wait!

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:45 pm

My point is just that you shouldn't spend lots of money validating the con artists' tripe, just so that you can feel free to delude yourself into thinking that things taste better. You'd might as well just say that waving your hands over the bottle makes it taste better too; it's a lot cheaper, and doesn't fund a lifestyle of lies.

j$ · Post by j$ » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:49 pm

Haha, I love that you're so passionately anti-wine tasting, Fluffy

In the little things lie the big things, eh?