Travel shock

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Any thoughts here on whether travel shock on wine is real and, if so, what the explanation might be?

One thought, second hand, reportedly from gallowineacademy.com - CHEMISTRY section...

The esterification of wine as it ages diminishes the PERCEPTION of a wine’s acidity (even though the wine’s total acidity remains the same). This happens because those acids are linking up with alcohols and changing form.

During travel, vibrations break apart these esters into their odorless components. With this breakdown, the wine will not taste or smell the same. If the esters were formed during fermentation with yeasts assisting the bond, they will never knit back together. If they were simple chemical esters, they will link up together in about four week’s time.
Click to expand...

. . . . . Pete
 
Pete,
The only evidence I have is experience.
I wish I knew more of the chemistry involved but I haven't read a cogent explanation of the phenomenon even by more learned folks.

For me, it's real. So similarly, is bottle shock; that ugly period just after a wine is bottled.

But how you'd go about proving it is well beyond me.
Best, Jim
 
Pete, there are so many things wrong in that quote that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, esterificatipn of acids not only reduces perceived acidity, it also increases pH and lowers TA, which is what I presume they mean by total (aka titratable) acidity. Secondly, mechanical action does not break covalent bonds, else we wouldn't stir reactions in lab. Whatever is responsible for travel shock, and I am reasonably convinced that it is real, it ain't mechanical disruption of esters or any other chemical bonds. Far more likely a culprit is the mixture of gases in the headspace of the bottle. Agitation promotes mixing, in this case of gas and liquid. That might lead to rapid oxygenation depriving various smelliest of their odor, or it could be SO2 that binds alcohols or aldehydes in the wine (are sans souffre wines any less prone to travel shock? Dunno). Thirdly, their claim that esters formed by yeast are any different than those formed "chemically" (shock, horror) is patently false and smacks of vitalism. To paraphrase my erstwhile homie Gertrude, an ester is an ester is an eater. Enzymes can make chemical reactions faster; they can't change the laws of thermodynamics.

Your friendly chemical curmudgeon,
Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
Pete, there are so many things wrong in that quote that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, esterificatipn of acids not only reduces perceived acidity, it also increases pH and lowers TA, which is what I presume they mean by total (aka titratable) acidity. Secondly, mechanical action does not break covalent bonds, else we wouldn't stir reactions in lab. Whatever is responsible for travel shock, and I am reasonably convinced that it is real, it ain't mechanical disruption of esters or any other chemical bonds. Far more likely a culprit is the mixture of gases in the headspace of the bottle. Agitation promotes mixing, in this case of gas and liquid. That might lead to rapid oxygenation depriving various smelliest of their odor, or it could be SO2 that binds alcohols or aldehydes in the wine (are sans souffre wines any less prone to travel shock? Dunno). Thirdly, their claim that esters formed by yeast are any different than those formed "chemically" (shock, horror) is patently false and smacks of vitalism. To paraphrase my erstwhile homie Gertrude, an ester is an ester is an eater. Enzymes can make chemical reactions faster; they can't change the laws of thermodynamics.

Your friendly chemical curmudgeon,
Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

SF Joe would have been proud.
 
Man, other boards may have high powered lawyers posting on only first growth bordeaux. But where else can you get chemistry like this. I look forward to having my meal analyzed on Tuesday.
 
Mark,
Since you're on the line . . .
Some reading I have done has theorized about redox potential being integral to bottle/travel shock and your quick comments above might be leading in that direction. (To the unpracticed eye . . .)
Could you speak a little about redox potential/sulphur chemistry as it relates to wine and, if you think it appropriate, how it might relate to bottle/travel shock?
Always enjoy learning . . .
Best, Jim
 
how about you take two identical bottles of wine, take one down to your local paint shop and have them shake it in their paint can shaker? then taste them side by side. better yet, to deal with potential bottle variation (and the possibility of cork taint) do it with half a case of each.

then do it with a case of 1969 romanee conti to see if the result is any different with wines with significant bottle age.

that should put paid to this eternal question.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
how about you take two identical bottles of wine, take one down to your local paint shop and have them shake it in their paint can shaker? then taste them side by side. better yet, to deal with potential bottle variation (and the possibility of cork taint) do it with half a case of each.

then do it with a case of 1969 romanee conti to see if the result is any different with wines with significant bottle age.

that should put paid to this eternal question.
Click to expand...
And the foreclosure on your house.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Mark,
Since you're on the line . . .
Some reading I have done has theorized about redox potential being integral to bottle/travel shock and your quick comments above might be leading in that direction. (To the unpracticed eye . . .)
Could you speak a little about redox potential/sulphur chemistry as it relates to wine and, if you think it appropriate, how it might relate to bottle/travel shock?
Always enjoy learning . . .
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, it's an interesting question and cuts to the heart of the fichotomy I allude to: if oxygen is the culprit then sulfite should be the cure. If, OTOH, SO2 is responsible, then sulfide should play no role in (de)sensitizing the wine. Far from a complete answer to your question, I realize, but needs must.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by robert ames:
how about you take two identical bottles of wine, take one down to your local paint shop and have them shake it in their paint can shaker? then taste them side by side. better yet, to deal with potential bottle variation (and the possibility of cork taint) do it with half a case of each.

then do it with a case of 1969 romanee conti to see if the result is any different with wines with significant bottle age.

that should put paid to this eternal question.
Click to expand...
And the foreclosure on your house.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

only pete knows for sure.
 
With still wine -- smaller scale effect...
Travel shock causes contents to be out of sync.

With Champagne -- larger scale effect...
Shaking shock causes contents to be eruptive.

Reasonable simplification? Or no?

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

With still wine -- smaller scale effect...
Travel shock causes contents to be out of sync.

With Champagne -- larger scale effect...
Shaking shock causes contents to be eruptive.

Reasonable simplification? Or no?

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Pete,
I know of no written source that discusses travel/bottle shock in any detail. If there is one, I'd love to see it.
As to your specific question, still vs. sparkling, I have never seen much difference. But that and $3.00 buys you coffee.

One source you may find of interest is The Science of Wine by Jamie Goode. It is an overview of the subject, mostly in lay terms, and I have found it valuable. Although it does not specifically discuss bottle/travel shock, it does give some insight into Mark's comments and my theory that redox potential/sulphur chemistry is somehow involved.
I think you have hit upon a subject about which little is known.
Best, Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top