| Michael Pronay |
Mike Tommasi <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote:
> BTW, I was rummaging around a nice store in Catalunya last week,
> and picked up a very nice decanter from Schott Zwiesel or
> something like that, a perfect shape if you ask me, none of
> these silly flat carafes that are impossible to hold when
> pouring. Almost a chemistry lab shape, nice and round on the
> bottom, wide long neck, light weight. Cheap. Unbreakable
> crystal.
Unbreakable crystal doesn't exist.
Anyhow, I recently gave up using decanters altogether, although I
own more than half a dozen (including a 3000 ml chemistry flask I
bought for decanting my first double magnum last summer).
What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a funnel), so
that in the end the wine is back in its original (rinsed, of
course, if there was deposit) bottle.
The reason is quite simple: With bottles I can use drop-stop foils
which reduce the risk of tainting the tablecloth to near zero,
while no such device exists for decanters. With the latter I
always have to use napkins, because non-dripping decanters do not
exist. (If somebody else at the table helps himself, they never
bother to take the napkin, and there you are again with the
stains.)
Besides, double decanting into the original bottle minimizes the
risk of confusion when you serve more than one wine.
M.
|
|
|
| Mike Tommasi |
On 14 Aug 2004 17:05:48 GMT, Michael Pronay <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>Mike Tommasi <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I was rummaging around a nice store in Catalunya last week,
>> and picked up a very nice decanter from Schott Zwiesel or
>> something like that, a perfect shape if you ask me, none of
>> these silly flat carafes that are impossible to hold when
>> pouring. Almost a chemistry lab shape, nice and round on the
>> bottom, wide long neck, light weight. Cheap. Unbreakable
>> crystal.
>
>Unbreakable crystal doesn't exist.
>
>Anyhow, I recently gave up using decanters altogether, although I
>own more than half a dozen (including a 3000 ml chemistry flask I
>bought for decanting my first double magnum last summer).
>
>What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a funnel), so
>that in the end the wine is back in its original (rinsed, of
>course, if there was deposit) bottle.
>
>The reason is quite simple: With bottles I can use drop-stop foils
>which reduce the risk of tainting the tablecloth to near zero,
>while no such device exists for decanters. With the latter I
>always have to use napkins, because non-dripping decanters do not
>exist. (If somebody else at the table helps himself, they never
>bother to take the napkin, and there you are again with the
>stains.)
>
>Besides, double decanting into the original bottle minimizes the
>risk of confusion when you serve more than one wine.
Most of the wines I drink don't need decanting but rather need
aeration. In fact I have been using a spare bottle and leave the wine
for a while in two half-filled bottles, then at serving time put all
the liquid back into the original one.
But I remember your post aboutthe chemistry flask, and I still want to
try and find that elusive ideal glassware
Mike
Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail
|
|
|
| gerald |
The more lead, the softer the crystal.
On 14 Aug 2004 17:05:48 GMT, Michael Pronay <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I was rummaging around a nice store in Catalunya last week,
>> and picked up a very nice decanter from Schott Zwiesel or
>> something like that, a perfect shape if you ask me, none of
>> these silly flat carafes that are impossible to hold when
>> pouring. Almost a chemistry lab shape, nice and round on the
>> bottom, wide long neck, light weight. Cheap. Unbreakable
>> crystal.
|
|
|
| gerald |
On 14 Aug 2004 17:05:48 GMT, Michael Pronay <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a funnel), so
>that in the end the wine is back in its original (rinsed, of
>course, if there was deposit) bottle.
Sedement and all?
|
|
|
| Mike Tommasi |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:22:16 -0400, gerald <gerald@slaweck.bz> wrote:
>On 14 Aug 2004 17:05:48 GMT, Michael Pronay <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a funnel), so
>>that in the end the wine is back in its original (rinsed, of
>>course, if there was deposit) bottle.
>
>
>Sedement and all?
Again, Mike is talking aeration, not decanting
Mike
Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail
|
|
|
| Michael Pronay |
Mike Tommasi <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote:
>>> What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a
>>> funnel), so that in the end the wine is back in its original
>>> (rinsed, of course, if there was deposit) bottle.
>>Sedement and all?
> Again, Mike is talking aeration, not decanting
Which Mike is talking what?
You are talking aeration, I guess; I am talking both. In case of
sediment I pour the remainders into a glass (serves as cork taint
check) and rinse the original bottle.
M.
|
|
|
| Michael Pronay |
Mike Tommasi <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote:
> But I remember your post aboutthe chemistry flask, and I still
> want to try and find that elusive ideal glassware
That shouldn't be too difficult, I presume. A local wine lab
should know a source.
M.
|
|
|
| st.helier |
"Mike Tommasi" wrote in message
> Most of the wines I drink don't need decanting but rather
> need aeration.
Michael, most of the wine I drink were bottled yesterday - I am trying to
find a way of eliminating the middleman, and doing away with the glass
vessel altogether !!!!!!!! :-))))))
st.h
|
|
|
| Ian Hoare |
Salut/Hi Michael Pronay,
le/on 14 Aug 2004 17:05:48 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>Besides, double decanting into the original bottle minimizes the
>risk of confusion when you serve more than one wine.
And if it's good enough for Ch Lafite, it's good enough for you? ;-)))
(GD&R)
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
|
|
|
| Ian Hoare |
Salut/Hi Mike Tommasi,
le/on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 08:46:12 +0200, tu disais/you said:-
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:22:16 -0400, gerald <gerald@slaweck.bz> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Aug 2004 17:05:48 GMT, Michael Pronay <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a funnel), so
>>>that in the end the wine is back in its original (rinsed, of
>>>course, if there was deposit) bottle.
>>
>>
>>Sedement and all?
>
>Again, Mike is talking aeration, not decanting
The difference only really exists in French Mike T (and IMO is largely
exaggerated and pedantic). Decanting is a generic word in English IMO and
can just as well be applied to wines needing oxygen as to wines needing to
be separated from their deposit.
Let's face it, if you're "decanting" a wine, and it turns out not to have a
deposit, then you pour the lot anyway. Equally, if you're aerating a wine
and it turns out to HAVE a deposit you'd be pretty idiotic to continue
pouring the sediment as well. So in practice there's virtually no
difference.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
|
|
|
| Mike Tommasi |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:35:22 +0200, Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com>
wrote:
>The difference only really exists in French Mike T (and IMO is largely
>exaggerated and pedantic).
Hi Ian
I would have said that the ambiguity only exists in English ;-)
>Decanting is a generic word in English IMO and
>can just as well be applied to wines needing oxygen as to wines needing to
>be separated from their deposit.
Fine, but again I would say that 90% of the time I "decant" wine in
order to let it breathe.
Mike
Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail
|
|
|
| Peter Muto |
Michael Pronay <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<Xns9546643CDBEBDgmxat@pronay.com>...
> Mike Tommasi <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote:
>
> >>> What I do now is quite simple: I double decant (with a
> >>> funnel), so that in the end the wine is back in its original
> >>> (rinsed, of course, if there was deposit) bottle.
>
> >>Sedement and all?
>
> > Again, Mike is talking aeration, not decanting
>
> Which Mike is talking what?
>
> You are talking aeration, I guess; I am talking both. In case of
> sediment I pour the remainders into a glass (serves as cork taint
> check) and rinse the original bottle.
>
> M.
When you say rinse, do you mean with water? Or a little bit of extra
(of the same) wine reserved for that purpose?
Do you decant into another bottle, cleaned out for the purpose (a
'decanting bottle' if you will)?
Peter
|
|
|
| Michael Pronay |
megatron2k02@yahoo.com (Peter Muto) wrote:
> When you say rinse, do you mean with water?
Yes.
> Or a little bit of extra (of the same) wine reserved for that
> purpose?
No.
> Do you decant into another bottle, cleaned out for the purpose
> (a 'decanting bottle' if you will)?
Yes.
M.
|
|
|
| Ian Hoare |
Salut/Hi Mike Tommasi,
le/on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:34:52 +0200, tu disais/you said:-
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:35:22 +0200, Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The difference only really exists in French Mike T (and IMO is largely
>>exaggerated and pedantic).
>I would have said that the ambiguity only exists in English ;-)
Chuckle. But in fact, as the "two" processes are really only one and the
same, albeit for different purposes, it seems a touch superfluous to insist
(as do many of our frbv friends) on an observation of the right word.
>>Decanting is a generic word in English IMO
>Fine, but again I would say that 90% of the time I "decant" wine in
>order to let it breathe.
Agreed. And I'd say that with the possible exception of Bill, that's true
for us all.
Where I get worried is when someone asks "Do most wines benefit from being
decanted?" and they get the answer "no", which often is not qualified by the
rider "but they do benefit from being carafed". So you get a pedantic
interpretation of a word that leads to bad advice - or rather a lack of good
advice. That's really why I prefer to use the one word, which allows me to
give more helpful advice.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
|
|
|
| Mike Tommasi |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:20:26 +0200, Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com>
wrote:
>Where I get worried is when someone asks "Do most wines benefit from being
>decanted?" and they get the answer "no", which often is not qualified by the
>rider "but they do benefit from being carafed". So you get a pedantic
>interpretation of a word that leads to bad advice - or rather a lack of good
>advice. That's really why I prefer to use the one word, which allows me to
>give more helpful advice.
Agreed, and the word "carafed" seems to solve the problem, it is a
more versatile word, and one can safely say that most wines benefit
from being carafed, usually for breathing, sometimes also for
deposits...
Let's drop the word decanting altogether... :-)
Mike
Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail
|
|
|
| Bill Spohn |
>Let's drop the word decanting altogether... :-)
Indeed - the only decant thing to do.....
|
|
|
| Vincent |
"Mike Tommasi" wrote in message
> Agreed, and the word "carafed" seems to solve the problem, it is a
> more versatile word, and one can safely say that most wines benefit
> from being carafed, usually for breathing, sometimes also for
> deposits...
>
> Let's drop the word decanting altogether... :-)
>
> Mike
Sounds good! So, anyone recommend a good carafeder for under $50? :-)
|
|
|
| Young Martle |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:20:26 +0200, Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com>
wrote:
><SNIP
>Where I get worried is when someone asks "Do most wines benefit from being
>decanted?" and they get the answer "no", which often is not qualified by the
>rider "but they do benefit from being carafed". So you get a pedantic
>interpretation of a word that leads to bad advice - or rather a lack of good
>advice. That's really why I prefer to use the one word, which allows me to
>give more helpful advice.
Ian I think you've hit upon something here. However I wish we could
find a different spelling. I keep reading it as "cara" "fed"
Myron
|
|
|
| Vino |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:39:37 -0230, Young Martle <nospam@fakeip.com>
wrote:
>
>Ian I think you've hit upon something here. However I wish we could
>find a different spelling. I keep reading it as "cara" "fed"
>
There's a readily available one. When the emphasis in a word like
carafe is on the second syllable, the "f" is doubled. Hence
"caraffed". As in "preferred" and as opposed to "offered".
Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.
|
|
|
| Chuck Reid |
Hi all;
I may be a little dense but, I really can't see the net gain by substituting
carafed for decanted. If it ain't broke.......
--
Regards
Chuck
So much wine; So little time!
To reply, delete NOSPAM from return address
"Vincent" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:04tUc.3753$Y94.2234@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "Mike Tommasi" wrote in message
>
> > Agreed, and the word "carafed" seems to solve the problem, it is a
> > more versatile word, and one can safely say that most wines benefit
> > from being carafed, usually for breathing, sometimes also for
> > deposits...
> >
> > Let's drop the word decanting altogether... :-)
> >
> > Mike
>
> Sounds good! So, anyone recommend a good carafeder for under $50? :-)
>
>
|
|
|
|
