ThePortForum.com

Additionally I have to inform you that I can't find anyone who supplies these in the UK.

jdaw1 wrote:

AW77 wrote: http://www.cilia.eu/en/Tea-Filter-M-64.html
…
http://www.cilia.eu/en/Tea-Filter-Holder-72.html

Cilia wrote:Currently available in: Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Russia, Sweden, Belgium

Can we order by post?

PM me your adress and I will send you a sample (filter and holder). You could distribute them to the team when you next meet for a tasting and everyone can test them for themselves.

Glenn E. wrote:Hmm... to my eye it looks like the diameter of the Durand's helix is slightly wider than that of the Screwpull. But I suppose that could be an optical illusion.

Looking at the photos, the Durand looks wider in one to me, the screwpull wider in the other; In real life if I hold one above the other I can detect no difference. I do not have any vernier calipers handy to verify this more formally.

PhilW wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Hmm... to my eye it looks like the diameter of the Durand's helix is slightly wider than that of the Screwpull. But I suppose that could be an optical illusion.

Looking at the photos, the Durand looks wider in one to me, the screwpull wider in the other; In real life if I hold one above the other I can detect no difference. I do not have any vernier calipers handy to verify this more formally.

If you have a set of metric augers calibrated in millimetres you could drill a series of holes in a piece of plywood and see what fits where. Fun way to spend an evening?

AW77 wrote:With this method there is no need to stand bottles up and every drop of the wine can be savoured. And as mentioned before, broken corks are no problem at all. As the filter is not bleached, you don't taste the paper in the wine (or in your tea).

I would be surprised if the wood pulp was not treated and washed in something. If it has any shine on it it is likely to have a filler in it, usually a clay.
Have you never heard of a libation? That little splash in the bottom that you throw away is just that. You may be drawing some terrible calamity upon yourself. All the tiles will fall off your bathroom I reckon.

I've used these (courtesy of André's generosity). The paper is not shiny. I don't think it's treated the way you mention - isn't it kaolin they use for that? I seem to remember something about that from art college. It seems very neutral anyway..
Drinking the sediment from a Port Society Quevedo Finest Unfiltered Reserve now.

LGTrotter wrote:

AW77 wrote:With this method there is no need to stand bottles up and every drop of the wine can be savoured. And as mentioned before, broken corks are no problem at all. As the filter is not bleached, you don't taste the paper in the wine (or in your tea).

I would be surprised if the wood pulp was not treated and washed in something. If it has any shine on it it is likely to have a filler in it, usually a clay.
Have you never heard of a libation? That little splash in the bottom that you throw away is just that. You may be drawing some terrible calamity upon yourself. All the tiles will fall off your bathroom I reckon.

There is no shine on it, it's matt. If you're interested I could send you a sample. But no, you see the leftover splash as a libation. I wouldn't want to get you in danger. As I don't share your libation thing, I'll stick to my filter. But the remark about the tiles made me laugh.

flash_uk wrote:

PhilW wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I was a bit surprised by the report that because of the shape of the inside of the neck that you hardly moved the cork on the imperial before it was free. I suppose that the capsule does most of the work.

I think it was probably more to do with the shape of the cork rather than the neck; I think the neck was fairly straight, while the cork was heavily tapered, so only gripping with a faction of its length.

Julian brought the bottle along to the Fonseca tasting on Monday, and the neck does have a slight taper to it, but it sounds like the neck taper and cork taper were nevertheless slightly mismatched, resulting in only a partial grip on the cork.

The taper was not slight, it was quite pronounced. When I dropped the very tapered cork into the neck it was caught with only a couple of millimeters to spare - so much so that Julian warned me not to drop the cork into the bottle. The problem with the seal on this bottle had noting to do with the cork. It had everything to do with the fact that the top three inches of the neck had a waste like Betty Boo.

Waste?

I've got an old 'T' corkscrew with a wide but quite fine worm, it does a better job of keeping the cork together than the screwpull but I find it hard to pull a cork out with a straight pull without shaking the bottle. Perhaps I do need a Durand.

djewesbury wrote:Waste?

Waist. Oops.

Nothing to see here. Move along please.

Just to comment on Phil's comprehensive method, should one wish to remove a cork that one has inserted into a bottle past the neck, after emptying, once can remove the cork without breaking said bottle by inserting cling wrap. Wash bottle first. After inserting the cling wrap, tilt the bottle down and allow the cork to fall into the neck against the cling wrap. Pull the cling wrap out carefully such that the cork travels through the neck with the cling wrap.

Those of you who has used the Durand corkscrew, is it worth the money?

JB vintage wrote:Those of you who has used the Durand corkscrew, is it worth the money?

Worth every penny. I use mine a lot. Basically anything around 15-20 years or more gets the Durant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another fan here and in the same boat as Andy.

I drink a fair bit of older clarets, the durand gets used often.

Pretty much the durand is my go to opener. I used to use an ah-so most of the of the time so when the durand came out I thought it was a no brainer for me. Have had it for so many years and it has held up wonderfully thus far. Not a wine gadget guy (no aerators, nothing to help my wines open up/breathe but the durand and the coravin are two gadgets I would prefer never to be without again.