Wine Aerator Gadget

[Amethyst]

One of Mr. A.'s hobbies is finding good wines for <= $10 a bottle.
We have been reading about the benefits conferred on cheaper wines by pouring them through a wine aerator. On closer inspection, a wine aerator appears to be a funnel with seven holes in the bottom. (See link).

Couldn't one get the same benefits by punching holes in the bottom of a plastic cup and pouring the wine through that? Sure it wouldn't be as pretty as a fancy gadget, yet by not buying the gadget, we could save enough money for 2-3 more bottles of wine

Amazon.com: Metrokane Rabbit Wine Aerating Pourer: Kitchen & Dining

Amethyst

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst One of Mr. A.'s hobbies is finding good wines for >= $10 a bottle. We have been reading about the benefits conferred on cheaper wines by pouring them through a wine aerator. On closer inspection, a wine aerator appears to be a funnel with seven holes in the bottom. (See link). Couldn't one get the same benefits by punching holes in the bottom of a plastic cup and pouring the wine through that? Sure it wouldn't be as pretty as a fancy gadget, yet by not buying the gadget, we could save enough money for 2-3 more bottles of wine Amazon.com: Metrokane Rabbit Wine Aerating Pourer: Kitchen & Dining Amethyst

You can get the same benefits by pouring back and forth between 2 glasses or quart jars. Way cheaper, and less messy too. I count 1&2&3& etc, to about 10

Ha

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha You can get the same benefits by pouring back and forth between 2 glasses or quart jars. Way cheaper, and less messy too. I count 1&2&3& etc, to about 10 Ha

+1. Any means of getting the wine exposed to air will do it. I've read that just opening the bottle does little - there just isn't enough surface area exposed.

We got one as a gift and we use it. But I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one if we lost it. Before we got the gadget, I poured it into a decanter, and let it pour down the sides to expose it to air - plus the decanter gives a lot o surface area. In most red wines, the difference is very noticeable - it smooths out some of the rough edges.


And it isn't just for cheap wines. Just about any red will benefit from a bit of aeration. I've never aerated whites, and I don't think they will benefit anyhow.

Some good info here from a trusted source:

Wine Spectator Free Access | Wine Spectator

-ERD50w

[IBWino]

FWIW, we have at least five different aerators (most received as gifts) and a couple of decanters. They all do a decent job, and definitely improve some red wines. However, some are easier to use than others.

The best one that we've seen and had the opportunity to use (but we do not yet own) is this one. It's simple, easy to clean, doesn't require two hands, and meters the wine well while pouring. We're hoping a couple of well placed hints will deliver one of these for Christmas.

[RockyMtn]

I have one of the Rabbit's and think it's great. There is some process that goes on in the apparatus that aereates the wine. You can actually hear it gurgling.

I tried the paper cup with the holes in it and my date just wasn't that impressed.

[IBWino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyMtn I have one of the Rabbit's and think it's great. There is some process that goes on in the apparatus that aereates the wine. You can actually hear it gurgling. I tried the paper cup with the holes in it and my date just wasn't that impressed.

Did you forget to extend your pinky while pouring the wine into the cup?

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyMtn I have one of the Rabbit's and think it's great. There is some process that goes on in the apparatus that aereates the wine. You can actually hear it gurgling. I tried the paper cup with the holes in it and my date just wasn't that impressed.

You were probably using the white wine paper cup instead of the red wine paper cup.

[Huston55]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBWino FWIW, we have at least five different aerators (most received as gifts) and a couple of decanters. They all do a decent job, and definitely improve some red wines. However, some are easier to use than others. The best one that we've seen and had the opportunity to use (but we do not yet own) is this one. It's simple, easy to clean, doesn't require two hands, and meters the wine well while pouring. We're hoping a couple of well placed hints will deliver one of these for Christmas.

I have one of these (Rabbit); gift from DW. It works great! Very convenient too, stays right one the bottle for the, of course verrrrrrry rare, second glass.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Yes, they work. We have a couple of different design.

Ha's trick works, too. Most important, it works with box wine!

There are some really good box wines, and the fact that the plastic bag never exposes the wine you don't use to air allows red wine to be stored a lot longer without going off. Aerating when pouring gets rid of a few sour light compounds, making it taste better. Storing it with air in it (e.g., half a bottle) exposes the contents to oxygen that oxidizes the wine and spoils the taste.

[TromboneAl]

I'm always skeptical about things like this.

Leno had a segment where someone demonstrated the effects of a "flavor enhancing light." He'd have someone taste a tomato, then hold it in front of the light, which was a battery-powered closet light, and taste it again. "Oh, much better -- where can I get one of those?" was a common response.

People can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine, says psychologist Richard Wiseman after conducting a survey of 578 drinkers at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, reports The Guardian. The participants sampled a variety of red and white wines in a blind taste test with prices ranging from about $6 to $50. The results concluded that people could only tell the difference between cheap and expensive white wines 53% of the time, and 47% of the time for red wines.

In other words, it's about the same percentage as if they merely guessed.

Read more: Blind Tasters Can't Tell Cheap Wines From Expensive - Slashfood

and

Individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine. In a sample of more than 6,000 blind tastings, we fi nd that the correlation between price and overall rating is small and negative, suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines slightly less.

My advice: Try the Seacrest Syrah -- $2.50/bottle at Safeway.

[HFWR]

I never knew a rabbit was good for aerating wine...

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I can taste a small difference between raw red wine and aerated red wine. Nothing dramatic.

If you have bad sh*t, air won't help.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR I never knew a rabbit was good for aerating wine...

It brings the flavors to a climax.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed_The_Gypsy I can taste a small difference between raw red wine and aerated red wine. Nothing dramatic. If you have bad sh*t, air won't help.

Actually, aerating does more for 'bad' wines than good. The 'bad' wines have more volatile, nasty compounds that are driven off by aeration. Won't make a bad wine good, but it can make it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I'm always skeptical about things like this. ... People can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine, says psychologist Richard Wiseman after conducting a survey of 578 drinkers ...

Sure, but most people drink Bud Lite. I'm not surprised they can't tell the difference between good/better/best. Most people I know turn up their noses and frown at a really good quality beer, and I know it's the same with wine too.

My brother said he bought a $30 bottle of wine, and he hated it. Not sweet enough!

Many people can't appreciate Jazz or Classical, and couldn't tell a good performance from a poor one. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

So it's a completely different thing to ask whether someone who is somewhat knowledgeable and discriminating in their wine drinking if they can tell a difference.

Maybe I'll have DW test me over the next few weeks - a triangle test (ABX) is the best. She would assign 'aerated' to either 'type A' or 'type B'. Then she pours three glasses, two of one type, and one of the other. She keeps track, but I would not know.

So first, I have to be able to correctly identify which one is the different one, then correctly identity it as aerated or non, and describe the differences. And enough samples to be statistically significant.

-ERD50

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Many people can't appreciate Jazz or Classical, and couldn't tell a good performance from a poor one. -ERD50

Which explains Journey tribute bands...

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Maybe I'll have DW test me over the next few weeks - a triangle test (ABX) is the best. She would assign 'aerated' to either 'type A' or 'type B'. Then she pours three glasses, two of one type, and one of the other. She keeps track, but I would not know. -ERD50

You'll need to make it double-blind to convince me.

------------------------

Our daughter Jenny told me that she hated the taste of potassium salt, which we often use instead of sodium salt. So we did a taste test. But what she didn't know was that I put two piles of regular salt instead of one regular and one potassium.

She pointed to one and said, "Yuck -- that's the potassium salt."

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl You'll need to make it double-blind to convince me. ------------------------ Our daughter Jenny told me that she hated the taste of potassium salt, which we often use instead of sodium salt. So we did a taste test. But what she didn't know was that I put two piles of regular salt instead of one regular and one potassium. She pointed to one and said, "Yuck -- that's the potassium salt."

Why would it need to be double-blind? The test-giver is not interpreting the results.

I could have her leave the room as I taste them, so I don't get any visual clues from her.

-ERD50

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Why would it need to be double-blind? The test-giver is not interpreting the results. I could have her leave the room as I taste them, so I don't get any visual clues from her. -ERD50

Because the test giver can unconsciously give subtle cues.

"Today I think I liked A better."
"Really??"
"Well, let me taste them again. "

Google "clever Hans."

We used to say that our experiments were triple blind: no one knew what was going on.

[MichaelB]

With a little training most people should be able to identify a well aerated wine, along with many other characteristics. What blind tastings have shown conclusively is that people, even experts, cannot correctly identify a premium priced wine over a low priced one. When shown the price they overwhelmingly prefer the more expensive wine, but when price and bottle are not known there is no relationship between preference and price. Wine drinkers should always choose the lower priced wines that taste good to them.

[Amethyst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Wine drinkers should always choose the lower priced wines that taste good to them.

I call that "uncommon" sense!

I must say that when Mr. A.'s research doesn't pan out, we both go "yuck" at the same time. Also, I can tell when an $8 bottle of red has been aged in the basement for a few years - he doesn't need to tell me, and I haven't seen the bottle; I can just tell, and I've always been right.

In addition, I have been treated to much more expensive wine at other people's houses, and the difference is noticeable. Not enough to make me pay $40 a bottle, but noticeable.

Amethyst