In the latest video installment on 1WD TV, I channel my inner Colonel Hannibal Smith and taste a sample of Emblem’s 2006 Rutherford Cab in order to try out another sample: one of the latest wine aerators to hit the market, the cigar-shaped Nuance Wine Finer aerator – all with some surprising results. Many 80s brain cells are damaged in the ensuing antics. It will all make more sense when you watch the vid. Sort of. I think.
Oh, yeah – there’s a wine involved here as well, of course:
2006 Emblem Rutherford Cabernet Sauvignon (Napa Valley, $50)
On twitter, I called this wine a “dark fruit, spice & black licorice savings bond that hasn’t quite yet come due,” meaning that I think it will need 4 to 5 more years to integrate and soften up. But as noted in the above vid, if you’re the impatient type you can still find a lot to love here, though decanting this kick-ass, beautiful monster from the 4th generation Mondavi clan is a must. For me, the best part about this wine is that it’s kind of deceptive: the fruit comes off all dark on the nose, but opens up to a lovely, pure, juciy red currant on the palate, like eating a big ol’ handful of the stuff right off the plant. Enough acidity to pair with meaty dishes, but proceed with some caution.
Cheers!
Hilarious intro!!
Why is the natural decanting better? If it is a matter of aerating the wine, wouldn't the gadget you use theoretically provide more oxygen?
Thanks, Marcus – I'm a strange guy.
I don't know for sure why natural decanting is better (well, better to *me* that is) but I can hazard a guess.
These gadgets do supply ample oxygen, but do it quickly and go for more of a "brute force" approach in a short amount of time, hitting as many molecules of wine with oxygen as they can in a very short amount of time. Or, better put, exposing as much of the wine being poured to oxygen as they can while it's being poured.
Decanting is a slower process, but works on a larger amount of wine and uses surface area as its friend to expose a larger amount of wine to the air. Slower process, but might be gentler and therefore possibly feel more "integrated" on the palate and in the aromas as a result.
That's my guess anyway – in theory the gadgets ought to work almost as well, but as the wise sage Homer Simpson once said: "But Marge, **in theory** Communism works!" :)
Cheers!
That makes sense.
I'm wondering if it is like osmosis. 99% of what I know about Osmosis is that sleeping with your text book on your face doesn't give you a better test score. The other 1% is that there is a time element when dealing with exposure. So i would think that oxygen and wine do not instantly fuse thus making traditional decanting a better option.
Well, that's my theory to my own question that I asked you 10 minutes ago. Somehow it all makes sense.
Another thing to consider is that decanting, the Soiree, Vinturi, and Nuance all do different things. Not necessarily *better* for any given drinker, just different. Your preference trumps all, of course.
Thinking about it more, the Nuance is a pretty good buy when you consider that it does a decent aeration job AND filters out sediment, which is a good combo. in a portable package. So this one might find its way into my travel bag (it's also not glass and so might travel a bit more easily).
However, it's not as cool-looking or as "high-end-ish" as the Soiree or the Vinturi, so it's probably one for the more budget-conscious. Personally, I don't care what the things look like, as long as they work (and those three options do work in a pinch).
The best use I've found for these sort of things is at big wine geek dinners, where people are bringing bottles from all over the place and hanging out and geeking out over wine. In those forums, not only do they help soften up the younger wines but they're pretty coool conversation-starters as well. When I'm home, it's decanting as the first option, no question.
Maybe you need to get a bottle of Molly Dooker and test that thing out against "The Shake"…
Todd – great idea, and I've got a few MD samples waiting…