OK what a cool thread but boy am I confused.
I totally get the 24 + 4 hour method, that makes sense.
But this whole business of you guys inferring or flat out stating that decanting doesn’t do much from oxidation is really confusing.
If you leave a bottle of red wine overnight, often times the next day it’s undrinkable for me. So what happened? Some wines do much better, what’s going on there? More tannin, more structure?
as wine chemistry is still poorly understood, nobody can claim to have all the answers. Recent wine chemistry books seem to speculate that not all cépages react the to the same extent to certain exposure levels of ox.
As interesting such threads seem to evolve, they take a life of their own away from the OP’s original q.
It seems fathomable, though, that wines that we’re held captive in their vessel for multiple decades, might not react well to brutal exposure to ox. The entire point about slow ox method, whether one believes it or not, is that once such bottles are carfully opened it is important to decide, depending on scent, if one should allow negative molecules to escape or if the nose seems perfectly sound, to keep them around for as long as possible. The rate of speed this happening in a opened bottle simply standing up is unkown.
We’re not talking about decanting. We’re talking about simply pulling the cork, perhaps very carefully/gently pouring a small amount to sample, and then leaving the bottle with the cork off.
John:
While I don’t have any 100 year old wine and I expect I never will, if I ever did I would follow Francois’ method to a tee, and that would include not carefully pouring a sample. While it could just be luck or superstition, I presume that act of pouring a bit would also add some air.
I don’t tip the bottle to pour instead use a straw to pipette my taste.
Or stir up sediment. Ron’s straw method should avoid both problems.
Did the wine ever get drunk?
As I said before, I have opened by myself around 4,250 wines prior to 1970 since I have records, which means since 2000.
What I have decided to do is the fruit of my observations.
For example, I used to enlarge the surface of the wine by pouring a small glass. And when I realised that the size of the surface has no influence on the evolution of the wine, I decided to no more pour a glass, procedure which has the advantage of not disturbing the wine by a possible excess of aeration.
I did not study what happens according to the region or the grape variety, and I would say that 4 or 5 hours does not make a big difference. What is important for me is that a wine which has a ugly smell that 95% of wine amateurs or professionals would throw away has a chance to come back to life and it is spectacular how miracles happen, and to give the chance to very good wines to become largely more open and agreeable with this process.
I do not feel necessary to justify it by scientific reasons, I just want to give the testimony that it works. And works with spectacular results.
Everybody is allowed to not believe in the results. What can I do ? Nothing.
When you buy a camembert, the first day it is too early. Five days later, you have a perfect camembert. I cannot prove by scientific arguments that the camembert becomes better, but it becomes better.
If I tell you that old wines become better after 4 hours of gentle aeration, I tell you. I cannot prove it but it is a fact, witnessed by many sommeliers, many chefs, many winemakers who smell the wines with me before and after.
I have exposed examples of miracles like a Yquem 1874, a Romanée Conti 1956 which I had declared dead and which came back to life.
If some of you doubt, I can only say : it is what I have experienced thousands of times.
Of course everybody can think : he was wrong since the beginning. But against that I have no answer, and I will continue for the pleasure of people who drink wine with me and are impressed by the quality of what they drink.
As I have answered hundreds times at such questions I hope it is understandable that I do not feel so much the desire to try to convince once again. And I accept that people doubt if they want to.
i am not a chemist…but I have used the Audouze method. One prime example was a magnum of Lafite '48 that I purchased in Paris in 1970, brought back and opened in 2008 for a dinner celebrating my 60th. I opened it more than 4 hours prior and it wasn’t much to smell, but kept checking it, and approximately 3.5 hours after the aroma came through in a fabulous old Bordeaux fashion. I recorked it (newer cork although the original came out whole) and reopened at the meal a couple of hours later. Most of the guests are still talking about how glorious it was at 60. (Far more glorious than I.) I only had one so there was no control involved, but I am an Audouze acolyte indeed.
A couple years ago at a Favre-a-thon I opened up a 1964 DRC Ech…poured it in a decanter, and the people at my table quickly pronounced it rotten, as well as corked. I was the only one to sample it, and it was nasty, but didn’t really notice the corkiness. There was SO many amazing wines being poured around the room, that I just left the wine in the decanter on the table…and didn’t ever taste it again. I still kick myself for not trying it again later on in the night…who knows, i could have wasted a great wine if it came back to life???
If it was corked, it wouldn’t have come back to life. Reduction and other funky things sometimes blow off, but not TCA.
Thanks for sharing what you have!
It would be nice to taste with you sometime.
I wonder what sommeliers do to take this method into account - they must know beforehand which wines will be served.
I wonder if they will start asking in advance of the meal what wine a guest wants when the wine is not chosen beforehand.
Update: the date has been set, we’ll open the 1916 Pommard on Jan 2nd.
In the meantime, I realized that I have the perfect, absolutely-nothing-to-lose wines to try out the Audouze process on: two 1973 Bordeaux that came my way. I have reported on these previously:
I have another bottle of each, that I did not know what I was going to do with. I have stood them up in the cellar, and will have a shot at them sometime next week. Levels are mid-high shoulder on both.
I shrink myself to miniature size and rappel into the bottle.
\ ![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
The bottle has arrived at my house to stand for a couple of days before opening. The fill level is 12cm, which is very worrisome, and the cork is bulging.
So, the Cuvee de la Dames de Charite in its current form is a 1er Cru. Anybody have the slightest idea if that would have been the case in 1916?
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, that’s gonna be a no for me dawg…
Well it will be fun to try but I can’t see anyway on earth that what’s inside resembles wine…
When it’s too late to Pobega it’s time to Audouze.
Happy New Year!
Cork has now been pulled. Despite my best efforts it came out in pieces, but it was obviously a high quality cork and was in remarkably good condition given the age.
Initial nose has some nice old wine “fruitcake” aromas, and certainly isn’t offensive. Prospects seem good.
But there will be a '75 La Tour Blanche on hand as a backup.
The happy ending of this story: