Jay-That is so true with anything sparkling, including beer. Just be sure to have food first and as always one glass of wine, one glass of water. Mike
Peter, I’m not sure I understand this perspective. If there aren’t bubbles, atleast enough to notice and/or add interest…than what’s the point? Why did the winemaker even bother? Not to mention the nuisance of putting them there. I do appreciate decanting to open up a closed/unexpressive bottle, as long as it doesn’t result in a nearly flat Champagne.
RT
I don’t understand the biology but have read it a number of times and it seems accurate from my experience. Let me google for some links…
says: “Carbonated drinks like beer and sparkling wines, for example, tend to irritate the lining of the stomach, increasing the rate of alcohol absorption”
http://shcs.ucdavis.edu/topics/alcohol.html
says "Carbonated alcoholic beverages - Sparkling wine or champagne speeds up the absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream. "
says “Finally, it is speculated that the bubbles in sparkling wine may speed up alcohol intoxication by helping the alcohol to reach the bloodstream faster. A study conducted at the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom gave subjects equal amounts of flat and sparkling Champagne which contained the same levels of alcohol. After 5 minutes following consumption, the group that had the sparkling wine had 54 milligrams of alcohol in their blood while the group that had the same sparkling wine, only flat, had 39 milligrams.”
I don’t recognize an inebriation multiplier, but it does seem to increase the heat in spicy dishes, which makes it perfect for Indian food. (I like it spicy!)
I’m sure someone else knows this more and I didn’t read the articles. My recollection from an drug and alcohol bio class is that the absorption is deinitely faster with carbonated beverages. The ethanol is primarily absorbed in the small intestine, not the stomach. The carbonation creates pressure in the stomach which pushes the contents/ethanol to the small intestine faster.
Hey RT - I was just speaking about the CO2 from a purely visual standpoint, not scientifically/historically speaking. I’m certain winemakers in Champagne would tell you the taste is what matters, if you asked them ‘what the point was’ in making any particular cuvee.
Decanting a Champagne doesn’t eliminate effervescence, though it’s certainly not as lively as a freshly uncorked bottle. Give it a whirl and see what you think. I only decant it if the wine is unyielding.
Faster is not more. Just because alcohol gets into the blood faster with bubbles (a question on which I take no position) that doesn’t mean that you get more inebriated that you would with a non-fizzy red of the same alcohol content.
Just went through this with a '96 Salon. It was decanted to the point of being nearly flat. Yes it was tasty, but it would’ve been much nicer to catch it a few hours earlier, IMHO, and enjoy atleast a couple of bubbles. Too much effervesence is a definite problem and the flavors suffer. Nose tickling not required but atleast some sensation of carbonation is a pleasing reminder that it’s Champagne.
RT
I don’t drink too much Champagne. But having a really great steak with a good Bollinger is, I think, a perfect match. Maybe one to try?
I’d agree with you RT. Do you know approximately how long it was open? I think it’s largely a palate preference, too. A friend of mine only likes recent release bubbly and won’t touch anything aged, even if impeccably, due to the difference in texture/flavors.
I don’t drink too much either, but I really don;t think it would be possible! Maybe too much in one sitting . . . .
Peter, Pretty sure the '96 Salon was decanted for “several” hours. Didn’t get the exact timing but it must’ve been a while.
I had a younger '99 Salon Mesnil in December that probably would’ve benefited from initial aeration. Nevertheless, it was captivating from the start and approx 1.5 hours after opening and pouring off several glasses, it was singing and peacefully bubbling.
RT
I know this is thread drift, but in some cases it means exactly that. Granted with the amount and the way we drink, and the fact that someof us are not the model-thin the effect is smaller. But I think you would find that if one charted it your BAC IS actually higher during the first 20 minutes of drinking a glass of champagne than a still wine of the same ABV%. You are absorbing it faster and your body is not able to metabolize it at a faster rate. If either you absorb the ethanol slower or drink the ethanol over a longer period of time, the peak BAC is going to be lower, especially in the early time-phase. Most of us typically would not stretch a glass our over 20 minutes+ anyway, are larger than Todd’s fiancee (as an eg), and are accustomed to the feel of a moderate (eg .02%) BAC. However when Todd’s fiancee downs a glass of champagne in 10 minutes the curve of BAC is certainly higher at the early phase and might be noticeable. A still wine or slower drinking would enable her to change the ratio of absorption and metabolization, so she very well could feel less early on and if she didn’t continue to drink at a fast clip might never feel drunk.
As I said it’s less of a factor to those of us that aren’t sensitive to .02% and are just going to continue to have three more over an hour anyways.
Then there’s the arriving with an empty stomach and getting to the ethanol before food factor. I think there’s also a sugar factor. I’m pretty sure that sugar/fructose actually increase total absorption. So the mimosa, kir royale, or bellini might not be a good idea.
Btw, I still drink from a flute and have seen valid reasoning for it, though I also agree there are benefits to a standard stem.
I find the carbonation an important part of the experience. I don’t think decanting kills the carbonation, but it definitely effects it which can have a significant effect if the wine is not exuding a lot of fizz.
I like to keep a bottle in the fridge for a spell before serving to cool it to 40ish. I then just pour it into a glass and let it sit to slowly aerate a little and come up in temp.
Sorry to continue the hijack…My understanding with regards to bubbles is that the CO2 relaxes the pyloric sphintcer at the bottom of the stomach and the fluids gets into the small intestine faster - you absorb ETOH in the small intestine- and so you absorb it faster. You will not get more drunk, it will just get into your bloodstream faster (and your liver will subsequently start metabolizing it sooner) and the buzz does come quicker. That said, this is what I remember from a long time ago and I am a bone doctor, not a stomach doctor.
There are many champagnes where I still don’t have the the same enjoyment as my group does. But I perfectly understand and enjoy Champagnes like 1996 Krug, Dom, or Salon.
Personally, I like the bubbles, but there is a legitimate point here. During a visit to Cedric Bouchard asked me exactly that question: “What’s the point”. He said he prefers to decant many of his Champagnes overnight so that he can be left with a fantastic bottle of still wine to drink…I believe his words were something like “Why do we go out of our way to add bubbles, whose only function is to make it difficult to taste the wine?” I believe he would tell you that historically, the bubbles (not to mention a good dosage) were tools to take a wine from a very tough growing region (cold, damp), and create a pleasing wine to drink. However, if you were able to make a truly great wine from those grapes that could stand alone, without bubbles, and which was ripe enough without dosage, and the wine and terroir had something to offer (unique from other regioins in Burgundy), then why would you want to infuse it with bubbles (or sugar) which only serve to hide the flavor.
The bubbles can detract from your ability to taste the “wine” underlying the bubbles, if it were your goal to do so. I suspect that to some extent winemakers like C. Bouchard reluctantly use the bubbles because it is a requirement for wine to be labeled Champagne (and commercially viable). He certainly experiments with still wines as well.
PERSONALLY, I think there is a place for Champagne with bubbles, and the goal there is to make a wine that works together with the bubbles, not to make a wine that fights to stand above them. I will admit, however, that the very best Champagnes I’ve ever had, were those that had enough age on them that the bubbles were faded and in the background, while the wine itself, with age, had stepped forward with increased richness and complexity…
Wow, John, interesting point - hard to swallow for a Champagne lover like me, but I can see how the bubbles were originally used to mask flaws in wine
A lot of poeple who don’t “love” Champagne have often really liked Rose Champagne and been surprised by them, especially those who don’t drink whites…
The funny part is I LOVE (excepting premox) white Burgs!!!