Decantation epiphanography

[BJ]

Y'all, decant.

I am on a new tear.

Not tear.

Otherwise you will drink mud, a muddy mucky vagueness.

Fear not the decline.

Remove the sediment and your ass will follow.

Do it.

Evidence, latest: 96 Joel Taluau StNdBVV, ridiculously good, then destroyed. (Available for a low low price from KLW).

Fear the destroyer: the sediment. Remove it.

Heed.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Sludge-master, we hear and oh boy.

 

[BJ]

Excellent response, laddie.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

 

[Jeff Grossman]

My preferred:

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Dumbo!

 

[robert ames]

only a chemex (or similar) will make it bright and shiny. screens let the little guys in.

 

[Kay Bixler]

Regarding the '96 Taluau, does it still have a future or is time to drink up? Is it still super tannic?

 

[BJ]

This is excellent commentary. Revelatory. Yes, a paper filter.

Kay, the '96 Taluau is perfect now. Surely it has a future but you might try now and see how you like it. It is certainly not super tannic.

 

[MLipton]

I like teh sludge. It reminds me of Turkish coffee. Haters will hate, though.

Mark Lipton

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by robert ames:
only a chemex (or similar) will make it bright and shiny. screens let the little guys in.

Why not have the maker do it for you? They've got better filters than paper.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

I'm all for the little guys too.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by robert ames:
only a chemex (or similar) will make it bright and shiny. screens let the little guys in.

Why not have the maker do it for you? They've got better filters than paper.

What does better mean in this context, Jeff? Is sterile filtration through a 47 micron nylon filter (a process, BTW, that requires a massive pressure differential to work) necessarily better for the wine than gravity filtration through paper or a fine metal mesh?

Mark Lipton

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by robert ames:
only a chemex (or similar) will make it bright and shiny. screens let the little guys in.

Why not have the maker do it for you? They've got better filters than paper.

What does better mean in this context, Jeff? Is sterile filtration through a 47 micron nylon filter (a process, BTW, that requires a massive pressure differential to work) necessarily better for the wine than gravity filtration through paper or a fine metal mesh?

M'k, recall that this forum has no emoticons.

 

[Brian C]

K&L had magnums of those for dirt cheap several years back. Drank through several and they were wonderful. Did you try the '89s as well, BJ?

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by robert ames:
only a chemex (or similar) will make it bright and shiny. screens let the little guys in.

Why not have the maker do it for you? They've got better filters than paper.

What does better mean in this context, Jeff? Is sterile filtration through a 47 micron nylon filter (a process, BTW, that requires a massive pressure differential to work) necessarily better for the wine than gravity filtration through paper or a fine metal mesh?

M'k, recall that this forum has no emoticons.

Capeesh. I'd meant to ask if you were serious, but lost myself in the response.

Mark Lipton

 

[Jeff Grossman]

"capisce"

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
"capisce"

There are no emoticons here, Jeff.

Mark Lipton

 

[Arjun Mendiratta]

Mark, did you really mean 47 micron? Seems a little large, and Google says that's the size of a coarse frit.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
Mark, did you really mean 47 micron? Seems a little large, and Google says that's the size of a coarse frit.

My bad. They're 47 mm diameter filters but 0.45 micron pore size.

Mark Lipton