Another shaker?

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
While researching something else, I came across this posting at SoYouWantToBeASommelier.
Click to expand...
It's not just Fourrier anymore. Virtually every red Burgundy I open requires a Mollydooker shake to eliminate the CO2.

When you have to give a bottle upwards of a dozen violent shakes before there's no more hiss-and-pop when you remove your thumb, and then you realize how many people *don't* know to do this, it's pretty staggering to think about how many bottles are consumed in a compromised condition. What's even worse is when you are in a restaurant and have to ask them to put it in a wide-bottomed decanter, and they can barely restrain the urge to roll their eyes.
Click to expand...

does a decant give you the same effect as shaking the bottle?
 
I don't know if this might be a corollary or not.

Back in Prodigy Wine Board days, one of the more elderly (and legitimate) Burgundy experts on the board said he always shook his Burgundies. My recollection is that he did it because he was adamant that the wine at the bottom of the bottle was markedly different from that at the top.

Thus, he shook the bottle to have uniform pours.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

I don't know if this might be a corollary or not.

Back in Prodigy Wine Board days, one of the more elderly (and legitimate) Burgundy experts on the board said he always shook his Burgundies. My recollection is that he did it because he was adamant that the wine at the bottom of the bottle was markedly different from that at the top.

Thus, he shook the bottle to have uniform pours.

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Hah! I love that explanation even though it is unalloyed BS. The mean free path of diffusion in aqueous solution (which, for our purposes, wine is) is such that your wine bottle is a homogeneous solution if it sits for longer than a few seconds. Of course, shaking can stir up the sediment, which most people feel does not improve the organoleptic properties of wine. The reason that the wine at the bottom tastes better is because, by the time you get there, it's been oxygenated for longer and developed more. Yes, the last glass is usually the best (unless some sediment sneaks in) but it's got nothing to do with inhomogeneity.

Mark Lipton
 
My favorite BS habit of a self-styled expert was a guy who insisted that certain wines need to be swirled clockwise and others counter-clockwise.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
My favorite BS habit of a self-styled expert was a guy who insisted that certain wines need to be swirled clockwise and others counter-clockwise.
Click to expand...

not in the southern hemisphere
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Jayson... hardly a fair thing to say about a 5-year-old post.

Bill... thanks for asking the question on my mind.
Click to expand...

I think this is a reference to the other thread. I was just giving VLM a hard time in the name of vinous brother-from-another-mother-type love. That, based on how you know I typically feel about Grenache, and how you may not know I feel about Chevillon Cailles (maybe my favorite Premier Cru in Burgundy).

Added later: I’m less confused now. Maybe. If this refers to the linked story, Jeff, I stand by my crotchety comment. I think someone who pours wine professionally for a living should have known five years ago that one can shake the hell out of a young wine to disperse CO2 causing spritz in the wine. It was not a *wow, isn’t that amazing?!* story or prospect five, ten, or fifteen years ago.
 
Lipton: "The reason that the wine at the bottom tastes better is because, by the time you get there, it's been oxygenated for longer and developed more."

This sounds right.

I wonder if the shaking treatment equally benefits spritzy German wines. Intuition says yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top