The myth of letting wines breathe

WINE TALK
101

The Audouze Method starts with pouring out a small amount to make sure it’s not vinegar, leaving a surface somewhere between a quarter and a half dollar in size. That modest action alone introduces more aeration than just pulling the cork.

Keep in mind that, while invariably the wine becomes “better,” it does not invariably become “great.” So while some of the old lesser-vintage wines that François opens are merely “agreeable” or “pleasant,” they are valued for the fact that they taste far different from their modern counterparts and broaden one’s knowledge of what long-aged Bordeaux or Burgundy can offer, especially with complementary food.

102

Firstly, you’ve ignored my primary point of volatile aromatic compounds leaving solution. Secondly, I think you are vastly underestimating the complexity of wine. How do you explain popping a cork to find massive stink, letting the bottle sit for a number of minutes and having it all blow off? Too much time to only be in the headspace. Obviously not something that was just on the surface. Many times I’ve seen complex solutions actively roiling. Wine has alcohols, sugars, many types of weakly bonded compounds, many hundreds of different molecules. Introduce the catalyst of a little oxygen to that and you really don’t think anything will happen? Wine isn’t anything close to water (other than Pinot Gris). How do you explain the dramatic color change anecdote upthread? Sounds like the unbonding of anthocyanin-4-bisulfite in reaction to oxygen.

103

Sigh. You’re just throwing buzz words around now. My comments were directed at the case of opening a bottle and just letting it sit there. Oxygen is not a “catalyst”, it is a reactive compound (which, if you believe Waterhouse, actually doesn’t doe much to a bottle of wine, at least most young wines). And those wines you’ve seen actively roiling in the bottle? Not sure I want to drink those. Sounds more like a scene out of the exorcist…

104

Alan,

Waterhouse is (I assume) ignoring Thiols (‘reductive’ compounds) becoming oxidized, which will generally change their perception…generally to be less or not perceptible. I don’t know much about the chemistry of a 40+ bottle of wine (does anyone), but I’d guess this (oxidizing of Thiols) is a significant part of what’s going on during a slow-ox.

105

And the memory of the first.

106

You’re kind of mixing things here. Super old wines, super young wines, and everything in between,

Really I think that’s the problem. A wine that is 15 - 20 years old is NOT an “old” wine. In fact, for a lot of wines, that’s when they start becoming interesting. A wine that is 50+ years old is a different thing entirely. You can’t treat a five year old wine the same as its great-great-great grandfather of a wine.

107

I suspect you’re right, that Waterhouse was referring more to dissipation of SO2 in younger wines than to oxidation of thiols. But when a wine has noticeable thiols, that’s typically something you perceive on the aroma early on, but does it affect the taste of the wine? The point I was making is applicable either way: just opening a bottle of wine, even if you pour out a small amount to expose more surface area, is going to be an extremely slow process of diffusing O2 into the entire bottle (I’m not even sure that exposing more surface area makes that much difference when there is still the literal bottleneck restricting gaseous diffusion to the liquid surface, but that is probably not the limiting factor). So I’m going to continue to claim (certainly for a younger wine) that decanting or just pouring into a glass is much more efficient at allowing O2 in then just opening the bottle, which will do almost nothing.

108

Alan,
can you imagine that it is not the oxygen which goes down but bad gaz or molecules which go up, escaping from the wine.

Imagine that you are in the sea, and that you begin to bleed. You do not make the slightest movement. There is a shark, one hundred meters far from you. He cannot see you directly. Do you think it will take hours until the shark smells your blood ?

Are you ready to make the experiment ?

109

From my observation, thiols do affect the taste as well. For one thing, most of ‘taste’ is ‘inner mouth’ aromatics…and thiols definitely affect that.

I agree that ‘slow-o’ has more impact on older wines than younger. For one thing, younger wines still have sulfur, so a fair amount of oxygen would be caught up by the sulfur (depending on the free so2 levels), where older wines will have none. But I think you’re underestimating the effect of the initial pour, both in the amount of O2 that gets into the wine, and the mixing involved. Getting ‘some’ oxygen into an older wine via slow-o, mostly due to the initial tiny pour, doesn’t seem like a problem to me…and even with younger wines, depending on the free sulfur it starts at.

110

Francois,
I think we’re having two slightly different conversations. In most cases, people are talking about letting younger wines breathe, while you are talking about much older wines. I think most of us have the experience that older wines are more fragile, and can change relatively quickly once opened and poured into a glass. And I don’t know anything about the chemistry that might be going on in very old wines once opened and exposed to air. I can’t argue with your own observations over thousands of bottles - though I do wonder if you’ve often tried wines after being open for an hour or two, then compared later after a day of opening.

To answer your shark question, I have a very simple experiment you can try: pour a medium size glass of water at room temperature. Let it sit for a minute or two, then carefully lower a spoon-full of sugar to the bottom of the glass. You could use some sugar cubes and just drop them in as well. Then just let the glass sit, and every now and then take a look and see how much sugar is left. Lightly dip the spoon at the surface and taste the water to see if it tastes sweet. But don’t stir or disturb the glass. You may find it interesting how long it takes the sugar to dissolve, and how much longer still it takes to perceive any sweetness at the surface of the water.

111

I was asked to write an article on this subject a couple of months ago. I did a fair bit of internet-style research and the general consensus among those writing about wine is that decanting generally improves wines, especially young, tannic wines but it can damage older wines, like the 1961 in the example.

I also found that uncorking does nothing and that methods of super-aeration were also pointless. The key things were that all the wine has access to the air and that the wine is then allowed to rest for at least an hour so that the absorbed oxygen can have time to alter the tannins.

I would argue that Decanter isn’t a particularly well-respected wine magazine among those who know wine. Their panel tastings are often way out compared to the general consensus. This “experiment” where all the wines, except the supermarket plonk of Mouton Cadet, were over 17 years old already, is hardly proof of anything.

Is there anyone else in the wine business or trade out there who does not think that wines improve over several hours when presenting red wines before their prime drinking time? Or even complex white wines?

112

I learned the slow oxigenation method from my grandmother . She always opened the bottles a few hours before " service " and claimed they needed this for breathing , just the way Francois describes . Most of these bottles were red Bordeaux or red Burgundy , aged at least 20 to 30 years old . My experience is also in favor of opening old bottles , let them breathe , but do NOT decant them . I still remember a fantastic Haut Brion 1947 , delicious at opening , that was oxidized after the sommelier had pored it in a decanter 3 to 4 hours before serving it .
So if you need to decant an old bottle , start drinking it within a reasonable time frame.
Young wines ( but only excellent ones ) benefit from decanting , no doubt about it .

1 Like
113

I love the Francois story from nearly 30 years ago. It shows the man’s passion and exuberance one can have for what many view as a ‘silly little drink’. Calling friends away from their families on Christmas Eve to ‘come taste this joy’ embodies EXACTLY what I love about wine.
Thank you sir for sharing!

114

Mike, I love the story, too, though the people were “called” at lunchtime Xmas day after the wine sat in the bottle overnight and earlier that day.

It has made me smile for several reasons since I read it, including the one you describe. It also reminds me of the first few times I had a red Burgundy with some age(not that much age as Francois’) do exactly that after sitting in a half empty bottle for some period. Early on with those results, I tried experiments as I did not believe what I was experiencing. And, I smile because the result in Francois’ case was from what I would consider full on aeration…or nearer to that than the method called “slow ox”. That is ironic that the epiphany was prompted by aeration of an ancient wine, rather than the method he is credited for. (And, I long ago gave up on that method actually doing anything for wines: I had read much and heard much that it was the case that it did nothing much, if anything.)

I have enjoyed this discussion, though…I am uconvinced that “slow ox” and “pop and pour” are much, if at all, different for any wine. (Of course, if you slow ox for week…maybe more likely different.) I thought I had read something here that convinced me to look for a wine to become a “lava lamp” with slow ox as the volcano simmers…but…after reading the responses to that claim, I’ve never seen that, so I remain where I was. I’d love an “answer” , but have been looking for one for over 30 years on this “slow ox” method…for any wine, ie, that it does anything appreciable to a wine of any age to pull the cork and let the bottle rest. (I realize age is a factor, but…am not persuaded that it makes a difference re: “slow ox”.

And, yes…there are many who do that method and whose grandmothers advocated it. It certainly doesn’t hurt. But, I’d like to be persuaded that it does much of anything. Stories and long-held practices are just that, including mine. They are all part of the possible “myth” that started this thread, though , IMO, even more so, as everyone seems to agree that aerating can impact a wine. (I think everyone agrees?). But, the question is whether slow-ox is “aerating” in any meaningful way to a wine of any age? Or is just a “why not” approach?

115

Paul,

Sorry. Yes I noticed that post but not your follow-up one.

What you describe are variable amounts of surface exposed to air (and allowed to degas, too) depending on the amount of surface exposed. IMO, this is a continuum that at some point is “slow ox” and at some point becomes the same as “decanting” or “aeration.” (Francois’ story about the Xmas wine and its epiphany effect is, for me , the product of aeration, as it is very far along that continuum and the wine was previously shaken in serving the first part, though not as vigorously as the shaking described by someone here to simulate aeration.) But, I think with “slow ox” we are generally talking about pulling the cork and letting the wine “breath” through the bottle neck. On that end of the continuum, I persist in being unconvinced that the effect is more than “pop and pour”, though…the time of “slow ox” is also a continuum…perhaps…though not a significant factor in the time context that we seem to be talking about.

So, continuing on the title of the topic…i guess I think “aeration” is not a “myth”. But, I am still unconvinced that “slow ox” is not a myth in that it has any tangible benefits. I’d love to be disabused of this, as I have been considering it LONG before I ever heard of Mr. Audouze or this board. I used to do it…why not…until credible people told me it was a “myth” (though not in those words). It was then, and particularly after having many experiences like Francois’ Xmas story…in both colors of Burgundy-- that I started to focus on “aeration” and its benefits…and dangers, both using decanters and, more often, just leaving half consumed bottles as Francois did, to try the next day. (Usually in the am, as that’s when I taste wines best , I think.

I know you are a believer, Paul. But just relating more and more anecdotes (and experience) is, for me, like a someone who is speaking a foreign language to someone who doesn’t understand it…louder and louder (a la Garrett Morris on Saturday Night Live) and not getting that that doesn’t do the job any better than whispering it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Q0cyJSs04

116

Stuart,
I get the impression that you consider some of us as being stubborn.

You give the impression that you are able to take lessons of your experiments and that we are not taking lessons, perpetuating our mistakes.

When I have exposed the experience which made me think of my method, I have clearly said that this experience was not the slow ox method, but lead me to think of the problem.

Can you imagine that I have tried many times to check if what I do is justified ?

Many times I have seen that pop and pour gives for the first sip more freshness than a slow oxygenated bottle but that the difference comes for the second part of the bottle, largely better when the wine has been opened earlier.

On hundreds and hundreds of time I have seen that slow oxygenation reinforces the wine and prevents it to collapse. Wines opened “pop and pour” can collapse during the tasting ten times more than when they are opened earlier. Who can contest this statement ?

I will make a new post about a verticale tasting of Pommard Epenots domaine Parent where my method (or method of Herwig’s grandmother) proved its efficiency.

117

I fully agree with François … and in addition I do think that to slow-ox also younger wines can definitely be for the benefit … I´ve experienced it many times since I learned this method from François - not matter if Decanter or whoever says the opposite …

Only one example: last Saturday I´ve lead a tasting of 25 wines “From the nineties” … see the thread The 90ies - Bordeaux, Burgundy, Rhone ... - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers with this title a few days ago …

I´ve opened all wines 6 to 6.5 hours in advance - then tasted a tiny glass directly from each bottle and put the rest back …
Then some 20 minutes before serving I decanted each wine carefully … to remove the sediment as well as to give further aeration (different from Francois) …

There was not ONE single wine (with the exception of the corked bottle) that didn´t show better on the evening than right after opening … and quite a number of wines did give very few to almost nothing after opening - and really shined on the evening …

That is enough proof for me … may anybody say whatever he wants … I´ve suffered enough with wines served to me pop-and-poured - and which were rather disapointing (when I knew them well enough to say that they could have performed much better …)

With very young wines slow-oxing can or cannot improve it … it depends - but it will definitely do no harm …
in opposite immediate decanting can easily make the wines more acidic and/or more tannic … so I usually decant only after several hours of opening (if time allows) …

1 Like
118

Francois…

“stubborn” is not the right word. Convinced of something without any proof is more precise.

I believe your experience…and its breadth. I just became convinced many years before I heard your name that opening a bottle and letting it sit open for a period (I am presuming less than a day) does nothing much…nothing harmful…and nothing meaningful.

And…I certainly believe that the first sip can be different; after all the tiny portion of the wine at the top that is exposed to oxygen (and outflow) is undoubtedly affected, maybe even perceptibly. But…since that bottle was not popped and poured and a popped and poured bottle was not “slow oxed”…and, by definition can’t be both, I don’t know how one tells.

I am unwilling to abandon my long held beliefs until I have reason. I don’t think that is stubborn; the opposite is “foolish”.

You believe what you believe…and I have NO doubt that you have wonderful experiences after using your methods…and that others do, too. I just question whether the “slow ox” contributes to them…or…never disturbing them by pouring them out into a decanter…or just popping and pouring…would be an equally good experience. In other words, is the slow ox even a significant variable in what it does to the wine…or is is what it doesn’t do to the wine: disturb it or, perhaps, expose it to significant aeration? I am all ears and have been for decades.

More evidence of your experiences, though, is like the guy yelling louder and louder to a deaf person…as in the video I posted. It doesn’t add anything to the communication.

You seem to feel that I doubt your views or your experiences. I don’t…

The people in ancient Greece had lots of stories about Zeus and other things from Delphi. When I was on my honeymoon there in 1983 (later that trip to Alsace and Bourgogne), I had lots of trouble distinguishing between the mythological and the concrete when our guides spoke of Zeus and his friends as if they were “facts”. Since then, I have been particularly careful to understand the distinctions-- and ironically , I “fell” for Burgundy wines on that trip…and had my first lesson on “aeration” at the end of our long trip. In Paris my wife’s close friends told me that Bordeaux need decanting and Burgundies should be poured directly from the bottle into the glass, shortly after opening them. But, no one could explain why. So, I asked for more and more Burgundy…as they seemed to honor it less…and I liked it a lot more. When I got home, I was hooked. And, it seemed Burgundy required a lot less effort, too…no decanting.

And, then there is the movie (“The Idiot”) where Steve Martin’s character thinks he is being fooled by being sold “old” wines. the jerk - wine scene - YouTube

Some people on this board seem to believe that the benefits of allowing potentially great wines to age to be “myth” even. They slaughter large numbers of infant wines at one setting to disprove the “myth”. Mon Dieu!!

119

Stuart, the movie is called “The Jerk”…

[video]the jerk - wine scene - YouTube


… and I’ll refrain from any jokes or further comments. [wink.gif]

120

Nothing personal, Dennis…but how appropriate that you picked up my error on that…

thanks