Yo we're going to Paris again for a little while

  • Thread starter Thread starter BJ
  • Start date Start date
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Thank you for the enlightening discussion, and semantic touché Mark E.

And Mark, while you are on the line, some follow up questions re: "I would not call a wine spoofed it had been sterile filtered for yeast/bacterial stability."

Would you find it equally acceptable if it had been sterile filtered for aesthetic reasons? Because that is the issue here.

Since yeast/bacterial stability is also used to justify the use of SO2 right after harvesting, in the must before inoculation, and/or when bottling, and you are presumably less sanguine about these, where do you draw the line? Where do the ends stop justifying the means?

So the first question is pretty straightforward: sterile filtration would not be used for that purpose, probably some other type of filtration or perhaps letting the wine settle rather than bottling cloudy.

SO2 is trickier. (Maybe Messrs Brezeme, Dashe and Edmunds can chime in). SO2 right after harvest in the must is not for stability per se, but to select the microorganisms you want to favor and/or (in whites, in particular) to inhibit browning. But I'm not sure if tiny amounts would be considered spoof vs large amounts. I can't really answer that. I'm sure a panel of natural winemakers would give different answers.

And where do you stop? Not sure where the line is - some would say no SO2, others perhaps tiny amounts . . .
 
Sorry, by aesthetics I wasn't referring to appearance, but a preference for a more acidic wine.

Yes, SO2 also has the selection function you mention, but I believe it is also used to prevent the grapes from deteriorating too quickly because of premature yeast activity, especially if the grapes have a way to travel.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Sorry, by aesthetics I wasn't referring to appearance, but a preference for a more acidic wine.

Just depends on how risk adverse you are, but if you really want to make sure that there are no wee beasties in the wine, I guess you'd have to sterile bottle it - but then I wonder, really, if all this manipulation can be done in a SO2-free wine.

Yes, SO2 also has the selection function you mention, but I believe it is also used to prevent the grapes from deteriorating too quickly because of premature yeast activity, especially if the grapes have a way to travel.

I think better producers tend to do this at night (in warmer regions), but I never added metabisulfite in the field - then again the grapes didn't travel much. With machine harvesting there is probably too much damage and one might need to do that, but we don't generally discuss those wines here. Anyway, I think others who are more up-to-date need to comment on this.
 
You are right. What do I know of Paris restaurants in the 90s. .i had hoped it had gotten better, as I know you've enjoyed meals there this century. Ben's experience is just more in line with mine those many years ago. These days there seem to be so many good places to eat in Paris, I wouldn't personally take the risk. Unless I were going to be there for many weeks.
 
originally posted by kirk wallace:
You are right. What do I know of Paris restaurants in the 90s.

If you said to me, "In the '90s, I had red hair," I might reply: "That's nuts talk!" Though I wouldn't be doubting your inside knowledge.

However, I do think it is (at least as of my last visit in November 2013, so a hair over 3 years ago) excellent and am surprised at Ben's slight regard.

Maybe he can say more.
 
Funnily enough, we had lièvre à la royale the night we went last year. At Le Repaire de Cartouche, various hare parts are formed into a log and cooked some time ahead, before being sliced to order and sauced. It could be that the hare season was nearing its end but there wasn't much flavor to our slice, and a pork terrine tasted similarly pre-prepared. We also had a smoked andouille that we probably just didn't appreciate properly.
 
Back
Top