Yes, imho double-decanting too early (without enough slow-oxing) can (!) make the wine tasting harsher/sharper.
Decanting is quite a “brutal” tratment of a wine, double-d more so - too much oxigen in too short a time …
Slow-oxing “prepares” the wine for more oxigen (some say: bad components can escape … that may well be so …).
In my experience the effect is more pronounced with older wines - but also noticable with many younger wines.
If double-d is absolutely necessary (very strong young wine) I would carry it out only after long slow-oxing.
Gerhard,
I know you have discussed this many times before, and I suppose I could search through countless threads if I wasn’t so lazy, but what is the theory behind slow-oxing? In what way, theoretically, does an extended period of time with so little surface area of the wine actually exposed to the atmosphere do to “prepare” the wine for later oxygen exposure?
Not theoretically (I´m no scientist but musician) - but practically: it works!
Put still simpler:
slow-oxing up to 5-6 hours imho never does any harm to the wine.*
Immediate decanting (or double-d) does sometimes!
So why not try it? If you think a longer decant is necessary for a young wine - you still can do it for 1/2/3+ hours - and AFTER slow-oxing it most probably will not produce harder structure …
(*exception: a very slightly corked wine will be more obviously corked after slow-oxing)
From Matt Kramer’s book MAKING SENSE OF BURGUNDY:
“How does the Burgundy buyer protect himself? The first step is to recognize that there never will be a guarantee of great Burgundies all the time, no matter who the producer, how reputed the village, or how much you pay. … Sometimes promising vintages turn out to be more of a lie - 1983 is a good example. … Buying Burgundy is not for those who are not prepared to accept risks.”
Ever since my first older red burgundies I had as a teenager, red burgundy has always had both the reputation and the practical effect of being ‘beautifully inconsistent.’ Bottle variation, vintage weirdness, a bottle that Sings angelically followed by a wine from the same case that is ‘fine.’ This is a truism that Google could tell anyone about, but from my 20 years of various experiences, I have found it true. And I’ve never heard/seen of a true solution besides #KeepTrudging through the mediocre bottles for the brilliant ones (A not inexpensive task).
Reminds me of what others say about Thomas. While I have been buying Thomas for over 15 years and have noticed only minor variation, it could be that pinot produced with certain traditional methods leads to bottle variation. This wouldn’t explain the variation among bigger producers, but I suspect smaller domaines don’t have the most sophisticated and absolutely sanitary bottling processes.
Like Craig Gleason who posted above, I have long been a Burg bottom feeder. This weekend I opened an '05 Jacqueson Rully “Les Cloux”. At some point when the '05’s were getting hyped on this Board someone suggested this producer and bottling as a bargain and I picked up about ten of them at $35 or so. It is drinking beautifully. Not quite intoxicating like the best, but very aromatic in a pure crushed black cherry and stone fruit way with nice but lean mid palate and long crisp finish. Like the risk of acquiring Cuban cigars-issues of legality, authenticity, rarity, price, you jump through all those hoops and think you have now earned a reward for your efforts and much to your dismay, you still have to put up with inconsistency.
