RAYC wrote:The question I have in relation to WS1's proposal is how we will be able to assess whether a certain decant method is better than another without first having an appreciation of how much bottle variation we should expect naturally from a single case...?
Perhaps if we go down that route first we should ensure at least 2 bts opened for any one decant method (to provide a measure of insurance against a single below-average bottle swaying results).
This was my first thought also; however I don't think two would be sufficient: if they differ, which one is representative? I would suggest three, so that in the event of a difference in one, the other two are taken as representative. However, this is probably impracticable to do for all tests, and the assumption of minimal variation is probably reasonable, though could be worthwhile to test separately, e.g. by 3-4 bottles (rather than the full case) all opened with the same method to assess variation.
In terms of variations, there are many things we could add, such as including a bottle shaken immediately prior to decant, or subject to significant temperature variation; probably better to focus on the decant method/timing to keep things manageable.
Depending on numbers attending and hence bottles, using WS and DRTs suggestions, I'd go for:
- Auduze method
- 0hr no decant == pop and pour
- 0hr double decanted == straight before the tasting
- 4-6hr double decanting == (late) lunchtime - x3 to also provide variance control
- 8-10hr double decanting == in the morning
- 20-24hr double decanting == the night before
Would we additionally want any variations on the timing of the Auduze (e.g. Auduze 4hr vs Auduze 8hr)?
I have a very slim chance to attend, but would have to confirm closer to the date; best to assume I will not be available for now.