ThePortForum.com

So we all know to stand our bottles up for "some time" before decanting to allow the sediment to settle, but do people have a feel for the benefit vs time ratio of this, and what other conditions if any matter? Consider:

- How long do you typically stand a bottle for, before removing the cork?
- Is there a limit to the standing time which will provide benefit?
- Is there a more practical limit to the standing time which will provide benefit, given the bottle will be moved during cork extraction?
- Does it matter whether the bottle is stood in the cellar (at cellar temperature) or in room (potentially varying) temperature?

n.b. I've avoided the discussion of the benefit of standing after cork removal to avoid switching this into an Audouze discussion. The above should be practically independent of whether we use Audouze or not.

Although I routinely stand bottles up, I don't think it achieves much more than reducing wastage.

A robust mature VP tends to have heavy sediment that falls clear of the wine in a matter of minutes. Weaker wines seem more prone to cloudiness, and need more time to fall clear.

However, if you use cheesecloth or gauze when decanting, standing up isn't needed at all. (IMO)

I tend to agree - if the wine has been resting in the horizontal position without being disturbed, I have not noticed an observeable difference when opening bottles from my own cellar between those that are stood and those that are carefully removed from rack shortly prior to decanting.

By contrast, there have been numerous occasions where my impatience has caused me to open a bottle shortly after shipping, and subsequent bottles following following some months of rest have shown much better. I feel this is observeable.

That said, I was very impressed by the number of "particularly good" showings of wines at the 1980 tasting in Leverkeusen last year. It could have simply been down to good fortune (and no doubt owed something as well to careful bottle selection), but i have certainly not ruled out the fact that Axel / Wolfgang had been meticulous in ensuring that all bottles had been stood in situ for approximately 3 months prior to opening.

FWIW, I have cleared a corner of my wine fridge to allow me to stand bottles for a week or so when i know that a tasting is coming up. I would not stand bottles in my living room (where there is variable temperature).

RAYC wrote:there have been numerous occasions where my impatience has caused me to open a bottle shortly after shipping, and subsequent bottles following following some months of rest have shown much better. I feel this is observeable.

Absolutely.

I tend to decant from the horizontal, but this is more to do with the practicalities of my storage than anything else.

I think that filtering with muslin catches the bits but wont help a sludgy wine. It can also be difficult to tell if a sediment is fine or a crust or some combination of the two until you start decanting by which time it is too late to change horses.

I am convinced that 'as cool as possible for as long as possible' should be the maxim. The number of muddled soupy zero's I have had from warm rooms is warning enough.
Having realised I have wandered off the point a bit I would answer the above four questions with; I don't; less time than it takes the cork to dry out; less time than it takes the cork to dry out (and how much movement the bottle is subjected to in decanting) and; yes the cooler the better.

RAYC wrote:FWIW, I have cleared a corner of my wine fridge to allow me to stand bottles for a week or so when i know that a tasting is coming up. I would not stand bottles in my living room (where there is variable temperature).

I find it difficult to believe that a couple of days at (variable) room temperature could be harmful. And a couple of days is all you need unless the bottle was recently shipped. Even then a week should be sufficient unless we're talking about a very old Tawny with that exceptionally fine sediment in it... those can take months.

I'm sure it wouldn't be harmed in the long term but i've no idea whether temperature swings affect the way a bottle shows in the short term (particularly if you are then going to cool it back down again before serving).

In general, i'd prefer to serve a port at or around cellar temperature and which had previously been kept stable at cellar temperature. Where possible, i'd always want to avoid leaving it in a warm room to heat up before then cooling it again to serve - particularly if it is rapidly cooling it in the fridge (or on ice).

I don't have anything concrete to back this up other than a desire to eliminate variables and unknowns. Of course, it could be that standing at room temperature, or rapid cooling, is actually beneficial! I have no idea.

Rob, you mentioned that you noticed a difference with recently transported bottles. I think they are separate again from those lying horizontal for an extended period. I subscribe to the travel shock theory although it is contentious.

I subscribe to the travel shock theory although it is contentious.

Only contentious in so much as it is very hard to scientifically explain it.

That rested bottles show better, especially very old ones, is beyond dispute in my experiance.

uncle tom wrote:Although I routinely stand bottles up, I don't think it achieves much more than reducing wastage.

Presumably not true if decanting without gauze/muslin; Does anyone here not use some form of filter material?

uncle tom wrote:A robust mature VP tends to have heavy sediment that falls clear of the wine in a matter of minutes. Weaker wines seem more prone to cloudiness, and need more time to fall clear.

Is this true only of weaker wines; I get the impression - perhaps completely erroneously, so I would be interesting on other's impressions - that more recent vintages seem (in general, not always) to have finer sediment; put the other way round, bottle with fine/cloudy sediment always seem to be more recent ones; I wondered whether this was even true, but if so whether it might have been a consequence of changes in modern production methods.

RAYC wrote:I tend to agree - if the wine has been resting in the horizontal position without being disturbed, I have not noticed an observeable difference when opening bottles from my own cellar between those that are stood and those that are carefully removed from rack shortly prior to decanting.
...
FWIW, I have cleared a corner of my wine fridge to allow me to stand bottles for a week or so when i know that a tasting is coming up. I would not stand bottles in my living room (where there is variable temperature).

This is exactly what I was wondering about; I do not currently have room without moving the shelves around, and was wondering if it was really worth it, given that I decant through (sterile medical) gauze. However, I have room to put a bottle at around 30 degrees from upright, and have been doing that, but wondering if there was really any value to it, or whether I should simply stand at room temp instead, and if so whether there was a useful limit to how long...

PhilW wrote:Presumably not true if decanting without gauze/muslin; Does anyone here not use some form of filter material?

I pour freehand until muck is seen, then through an unbleached coffee filter. So typically 75%+ of a bottle is freehand.

For home consumption I will almost always decant a bottle which was lying in a cabinet prior to being opened. It is pretty rare that I am organised enough to stand a bottle prior to openeing, but if I do it is usually in a cool, north facing room and not during hot weather. I think 1-2 days is sufficient to allow the sediment to settle on old, mature port. Young port is still developing its sediment, and this sediment tends to be very fine and needs a long time to settle. Right now even some of the 2011s are starting to throw a sediment, but this is like tiny grains of iodine in size and shape - and is almost impossible to decant clean.

For home consumption I tend to empty the bottle into a decanter through unbleached coffee filter paper. These seems to deliver a crystal clear port. Where we are drinking as a group, I do the same as JDAW - 95% of the bottle contents get freehand decanted and the rest goes through coffee filter paper once the sediment is about to go down the funnel.

AHB wrote:For home consumption I tend to empty the bottle into a decanter through unbleached coffee filter paper. These seems to deliver a crystal clear port. Where we are drinking as a group, I do the same as JDAW - 95% of the bottle contents get freehand decanted and the rest goes through coffee filter paper once the sediment is about to go down the funnel.

Any particular reason for the difference? (minimising any taste-effect risk of the unbleached coffee paper?)

PhilW wrote:

AHB wrote:For home consumption I tend to empty the bottle into a decanter through unbleached coffee filter paper. These seems to deliver a crystal clear port. Where we are drinking as a group, I do the same as JDAW - 95% of the bottle contents get freehand decanted and the rest goes through coffee filter paper once the sediment is about to go down the funnel.

Any particular reason for the difference? (minimising any taste-effect risk of the unbleached coffee paper?)

I know from experimentation that I can't tell the difference between filtered and unfiltered vintage port but others believe they can. Rather than present someone with a bottle which has been flattened in flavour by my choice of preparation, I'm happy to take just slightly longer to get a bottle ready for drinking.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:Presumably not true if decanting without gauze/muslin; Does anyone here not use some form of filter material?

I pour freehand until muck is seen

+1

I'd estimate that I typically manage to free pour over 90% of each bottle, as determined by the fact that the last little bit goes into a Port glass to settle while the bottle is decanting, and there's never a full serving in the "leftovers" glass. I take sips over the next couple of hours from the "leftovers" glass to, you know, perform quality control.

Filtering all of it is less mental work: no watching for sediment; just pour.

But pouring most of it freehand is quicker.

And I am more impatient than lazy. YMMV.

I am a little suprised about the number of people who filter their port. I like Alex am not sure I would spot the difference with a filtered and not filtered wine. However we need to give them their best shot. Do it freehand and ditch the sludge. 'An old wine deprives us of the full bottle' as whoever it was said backalong.

LGTrotter wrote:I am a little suprised about the number of people who filter their port. I like Alex am not sure I would spot the difference with a filtered and not filtered wine. However we need to give them their best shot. Do it freehand and ditch the sludge. 'An old wine deprives us of the full bottle' as whoever it was said backalong.

I use gauze. The decanting funnel has a gauze insert. Never use muslin or coffee filters. Never seem to need to.

djewesbury wrote:I use gauze. The decanting funnel has a gauze insert. Never use muslin or coffee filters. Never seem to need to.

Surely not sludge and all? Also I am a little trepidatious of steel gauze which I fear may taint the wine. I invested in a copy of a silver C18 funnel, but I stop near the sludge (if there is any) it catches the flakes.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I use gauze. The decanting funnel has a gauze insert. Never use muslin or coffee filters. Never seem to need to.

Surely not sludge and all? Also I am a little trepidatious of steel gauze which I fear may taint the wine. I invested in a copy of a silver C18 funnel, but I stop near the sludge (if there is any) it catches the flakes.

Not sludge and all. I usually save the last half-glass for cooking. Steel won't taint anything, it's food grade and neutral. My funnel is one of those reproduction French pewter ones with the bent stem that sprays the wine against the side of the decanter. It catches what I need it to. If the sediment looks very fine and dispersed, I have clean muslin but these days I rarely use it. I always stand bottles though..

LGTrotter wrote:'An old wine deprives us of the full bottle' as whoever it was said backalong.

A phrase unknown to google.

jdaw1 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:'An old wine deprives us of the full bottle' as whoever it was said backalong.

A phrase unknown to google.

I am torn between Meredith and Trollope. Probably neither knowing my brain, I think I saw it quoted in another text. I shall have a look, this is likely to be a long look.

I like the book-larnin' that Owen does be bringin' us on the forum, regular an all!

Found it! I am a little suprised that I was right that it is George Meredith's 'The Egoist'. An excrutiating read but find the chapter entitled 'An aged and a great wine' and half way in, just before the lovely interplay between guest and host ('Another bottle is to follow', 'No', 'it is ordered', 'I protest', 'It is uncorked', 'I entreat', 'It is decanted', 'I submit')

So there it is; George Meredith's 'The Egoist' page 243 in my edition.

djewesbury wrote:I like the book-larnin' that Owen does be bringin' us on the forum, regular an all!

Beggin yer pardon zur, I do be gettin ideas above me station. Thankee kind master Daniel zur.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I like the book-larnin' that Owen does be bringin' us on the forum, regular an all!

Beggin yer pardon zur, I do be gettin ideas above me station. Thankee kind master Daniel zur.

Good boy. Stop reading books and more importantly stop remembering whole chunks of them and which books they're from.

Don't you be listenin' to Danny-Bob. You be proud uf yur learnin' an' bein' abel ta read an awl.

AHB wrote:Don't you be listenin' to Danny-Bob. You be proud uf yur learnin' an' bein' abel ta read an awl.

Aye, baint no sense in the man!

Good job Derek's taken the night off or we would all be packed off to meaningless drivel.

Taken the night off when he's set a question as well, and answers pending! How'd you like them apples?

In fairness it sounds like it was a busy weekend followed by a late night. I felt unusual this morning. But down with fairness, where is the slacker? (psst I think Julian may have committed a you-know-what on the thread about decanting crusted port, I daren't say in case I'm wrong but you look at the word 'crusteds')

LGTrotter wrote: (psst I think Julian may have committed a you-know-what on the thread about decanting crusted port, I daren't say in case I'm wrong but you look at the word 'crusteds')

Nay, remain silent. Plural form is correct.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote: (psst I think Julian may have committed a you-know-what on the thread about decanting crusted port, I daren't say in case I'm wrong but you look at the word 'crusteds')

Nay, remain silent. Plural form is correct.

Yes I see that but it looks odd. Perhaps omission is what I am thinking of, the omission of the word port. But as someone who ought to know has said;

jdaw1 wrote:Move along folks. Nothing to see here.