Bottle size - does it matter?

Post by **DRT** » 22:02 Sat 08 Mar 2008

I know this has been discussed elsewhere on this and other Forums but I thought it deserved it's own space.

I visited a wine merchant today and spoke to a very nice man who told me he had spent a number of years as a Somelier in London. He has been running his own wine merchant outlet for 7 years.

During my visit I purchased a half bottle of Niepoort 92. Whilst he was wrapping the bottle he said "off course, this will have aged 25% more than a full bottle would have". I didn't challenge him but it did get me thinking that this idea is very well engrained in the minds of the wine establishment. But I have yet to see any actual evidence of it.

Do we have access to any scientific information that would back up this theory?

Derek

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 23:12 Sat 08 Mar 2008

Science, SCIENCE?

Why on Earth do you want to go ruining things with science?

I think that wine doesn't just age more slowly with bigger bottles, it seems to age differently. I say this based on half bottles of Port and Sauternes; and magnums and methusela of Port and Champagne; compared with normal bottles.

Larger bottles seem to retain a freshness whilst still rounding out and giving more complexity. Smaller bottles seem to get old and wizened.

It could be perception.

Post by **DRT** » 23:26 Sat 08 Mar 2008

KillerB wrote:Science, SCIENCE?

Why on Earth do you want to go ruining things with science?

Science doesn't ruin things, it just causes opposing views. Look at Global Warming. Some scientists actually believe it's happening. Which is quite hilarious when you think about it

Derek

PS: Do you think the different age profile of smaller bottles would apply equally to fortified and dry wines?

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 23:29 Sat 08 Mar 2008

Derek T. wrote:Science doesn't ruin things, it just causes opposing views. Look at Global Warming. Some scientists actually believe it's happening. Which is quite hilarious when you think about it

Don't get started on global warming when you have a geologist in your midst. Before you know it, you're examining temperature schemes of 10,000 years ago...

Post by **DRT** » 23:36 Sat 08 Mar 2008

RonnieRoots wrote: Don't get started on global warming when you have a geologist in your midst. Before you know it, you're examining temperature schemes of 10,000 years ago...

Aah, now it's coming back to me. Geologists study temperature, not sand or desert maps.

I would love to have a GW discussion in the company of LadyR. I am quite sure she would agree with my theory that it's all complete nonsense.

Ronnie, you should start listening to LadyR and I, we know what we are talking about.

Derek

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 23:40 Sat 08 Mar 2008

I know, I'm with you on that. It's just the lecture that gets tiresome after a while.

Post by **DRT** » 23:45 Sat 08 Mar 2008

So, it's settled. LadyR, the only actual scientist on the forum agrees with me that GW does not exist. I knew it all along but it's nice to have backing from the entire scientific community.

Derek

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 23:52 Sat 08 Mar 2008

Well.... Of course, I can't speak for her, but I think she will try to convince you of the fact that global warming DOES exist, but that there is not much we can do about it.

Post by **DRT** » 23:56 Sat 08 Mar 2008

RonnieRoots wrote:Well.... Of course, I can't speak for her, but I think she will try to convince you of the fact that global warming DOES exist, but that there is not much we can do about it.

That's because it's natural climate change. Not something that a few beings slightly larger but not more numerous than ants managed to achieve in 0.0001 billionth of the life of the planet.

Derek

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 00:04 Sun 09 Mar 2008

How did this get to be a discussion on climate change between Derek's Mum and two tabby cats?

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 00:05 Sun 09 Mar 2008

With this, and with the addition of your new avatar, we have succeeded in turning a perfectly good port related question into meaningless drivel. Cheers!

Post by **DRT** » 00:06 Sun 09 Mar 2008

KillerB wrote:How did this get to be a discussion on climate change between Derek's Mum and two tabby cats?

Because only those three will survive the current Ice Age.

Derek

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 00:11 Sun 09 Mar 2008

Derek T. wrote:
KillerB wrote:How did this get to be a discussion on climate change between Derek's Mum and two tabby cats?
Because only those three will survive the current Ice Age.

Derek

Sadly not so. Both of these cats have shuffled off this mortal coil.

Post by **DRT** » 00:15 Sun 09 Mar 2008

KillerB wrote: Sadly not so. Both of these cats have shuffled off this mortal coil.

To quote Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessop in A Few Good Men:

"Don't I feel like the f***in' a**hole"