Decanting method experimentation

Anything to do with Port.
Post Reply
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Decanting method experimentation

Post by PhilW »

For the last six months, I have been doing some decanting experiments on and off, with the goals of determining how important it is to stand the bottle before decanting, and how much difference it makes using different filter types. The following describes the methodology used and results/conclusions; Comments on (practical) improvements to the methodology are welcome, to improve further such tests.

Methodology
With bottle variation a significant potential issue, it is essentially impracticable to examine different methods between different bottles, unless a large number of bottles is used (impracticable). The method used therefore has been to attempt to examine various aspects within each individual bottle, rather than between bottles. To do this, for each test I have effectively decanted in a single pour, while switching the container/funnel/filter mid-decant (yes, this makes a mess and a small amount of waste, but it seemed the only fair way without affecting the pour). Each test has been slightly different as described below, but in all cases:
  • A single bottle is decanted
  • Three freshly cleaned and dried decanters are used
  • A set of three identical, freshly cleaned and dried glasses are used
  • Each decanter is labelled 1-3
  • Each glass has a small white sticker marked 1-3 placed on the underside of the base (directly under the stem) so that the writing is not visible from above (for the pedant desirous of precise detail, I placed a first sticker with black scribble on it on the underside, and then the sticker with the number on it on top, the scribble to ensure the number could not be seen through the paper from behind)
  • The wine is decanted appropriately for the test into each of the four decanters (as per notes for specific test procedure)
  • The glasses are lined up as 1-3, and an identical pour is made from decanters 1-3 into glasses 1-3 respectively
  • I leave the room, and my lovely assistant (who thinks I am slightly mad) swaps the positions of the glasses
  • I return and place stickers A-C on the top side of the base of each glass
  • I smell and taste the wines and make an assessment, making notes against A-C
  • Once all assessment is done, I check the underside of the glass to reveal the letter->number mapping
In some tests I performed a second assessment a few hours later, using exactly the same procedure:
  • I placed blank stickers over the visible A-C stickers (in fact a scribble sticker and then another blank one on top)
  • I leave the room, and my lovely assistant rolls her eyes and swaps the glass positions again
  • I return, and place stickers W-Z on the top side of the base
  • I smell and taste the wines and make an assessment, making notes
  • Once all assessment is done, I check the underside of the glass to reveal the second letter->number mapping
Testing
Using the above method, I have performed several tests over the last few months, as follows:
  • (a) Bottle from lying, stood for 15min, opened and decanted immediately; first third through surgical gauze, second third through unbleached coffee filter, then last third through another filter paper
    (b) As above, but filter paper first, gauze second, filter paper again third
    (c) Bottle stood for 24hrs, gauze, filter paper, filter paper
    (d) Bottle stood for 24hrs, unfiltered, filter paper, filter paper
    (e) Bottle stood for 24hrs, decanted direct to glasses and single decanter as: unfiltered, gauze, filter, filter(decanter)
The reason for the "thirds" used above (except (e)), is that with settled sediment I would normally expect to be able to pour the first 2/3 of the bottle without filtering if wanted. The tests are intended to allow me to directly compare unfiltered to filtered, and between different types of filtering, and whether the length of time standing is significant.

Tests (a) and (b) were performed once, (c) and (d) several times each (2,3 respectively) and (e) performed once.

Summary of results
The following observations were made:
- From (a): The bleached filter paper used in (a) will not be used again.
- From (b): There was negligible difference between the initial filter paper vs last filter paper, implying little difference between filtered start and filtered end of bottle.
- From (c),(d): At D+0h, minor perceptive differences were noted in both smell and taste, but were not generally consistent between successive tests; no method was either consistently good or consistently bad. It is noted that since the number of tests performed is small, variation is likely to outweigh deteermination of any small method bias which may be present, but there is clearly no significant bias.
- From (c),(d): At D+4h, the minor perceptive differences seem to have disappeared; very occaisionally one of the glasses might seem very slightly weaker than the others but if so it was borderline detectable at this stage.
- From (e): At d+0h, the wine decanted through filter paper into glass seemed to be very slightly flatter/affected on both nose and taste when compared with the unfiltered and gauze-filtered; however, after 1hr in glass no difference was noted between the unfiltered and filtered.

Conclusions
- If filter paper is to be used, then I am much less concerned about standing up time than previously.
- Filter paper also yields the clearest result, as well as getting the maximum from the bottle.
- There *may* be a slight effect to the nose/taste as a consequence of using (unbleached) filter paper, but if so it is very small and was only noticeable when a small amount of wine is passed through the filter (a glass) and not when a larger amount is filtered (a third of a bottle). This effect seems to disappear after 1-2hr in the glass.
- Test (e) needs repetition to check this result for consistency. If consistency is shown, it could be interesting to try "seasoning" the filter paper, perhaps by passing a glass of water through it first.
PopulusTremula
Warre’s Traditional LBV
Posts: 330
Joined: 17:45 Mon 23 May 2011

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by PopulusTremula »

Thanks Phil, very interesting.

I always use muslin which is folded a few times into a small sieve (approx. 6 cm diam.) and whilst i have not conducted any real tests, at least not of comparable quality to yours, i have always been pleased with the results.

1. The muslin captures the sediment, even of the mucky/fine kind, at least if the cloth has been folded a few times. The resulting liquid is clear.

2. I have not found any indication that the passage through the cloth alters the flavour. I usually pour the first few drops directly into a glass w/o any filter. This is then compared against the filtered port. Admittedly my palate might be as refined as that of a London pigeon but so far at least no differences have been found.

Muslin bought from Lakeland.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by jdaw1 »

Excellent work, persistent and thorough. Thank you.

It seems, as a summary, that all sensible things give the same outcome, at least to within a quite tight precision (consistent with a much-smaller previous experiment).

Please say more about the bleached filter paper — which, and what difference it made.
Glenn E.
Graham’s 1977
Posts: 4172
Joined: 22:27 Wed 09 Jul 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by Glenn E. »

jdaw1 wrote:Excellent work, persistent and thorough. Thank you.

It seems, as a summary, that all sensible things give the same outcome, at least to within a quite tight precision (consistent with a much-smaller previous experiment).

Please say more about the bleached filter paper — which, and what difference it made.
+1

+1

+1, I'm very interested in hearing this as well.

One question since I almost never filter - is there a difference in speed between filter paper and gauze? The once or twice that I have tried using an unbleached coffee filter it seemed terribly slow. Is gauze faster?
Glenn Elliott
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by djewesbury »

God forbid that anybody should try to demystify the arcane rituals around vintage port, or encourage people to think that it's really not that complicated, and can even be enjoyable.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by DRT »

djewesbury wrote:God forbid that anybody should try to demystify the arcane rituals around vintage port, or encourage people to think that it's really not that complicated, and can even be enjoyable.
+1

There is a lot to be said about leaving such details to one's butler.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by djewesbury »

I am going to do an experiment. I'm going to open a bottle of port and drink it.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by PhilW »

jdaw1 wrote:Please say more about the bleached filter paper — which, and what difference it made.
I don't remember the brand, and no longer have them; they were white (so I assume bleached), and there seemed to be a distinct flatness/edge to it (similar to the effect of a hint of tca) which was only present in that sample.
Glenn E. wrote:One question since I almost never filter - is there a difference in speed between filter paper and gauze? The once or twice that I have tried using an unbleached coffee filter it seemed terribly slow. Is gauze faster?
Gauze is generally much faster, almost as fast as unfiltered; filter paper gets slower the more fine sediment that is present.
djewesbury wrote:I am going to do an experiment. I'm going to open a bottle of port and drink it.
Good call. I did the same thing tonight, with a bottle of G85 which I am now confident that I am doing no disservice to by decanting direct from the cellar with no standing up; it's not bad, either.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14879
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

PhilW wrote:
djewesbury wrote:I am going to do an experiment. I'm going to open a bottle of port and drink it.
Good call. I did the same thing tonight, with a bottle of G85 which I am now confident that I am doing no disservice to by decanting direct from the cellar with no standing up; it's not bad, either.
But have you compared it against an unfiltered G83, which is a clearly better port?
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by LGTrotter »

AHB wrote:But have you compared it against an unfiltered G83, which is a clearly better port?
Feeling a bit frisky tonight Alex? Looking for an argument perchance?

In re. of this thread, I notice that part of this experiment was about standing the bottle up. My qualitative data can support the conclusion that decanting from standing up or lying down makes no difference. Personally I prefer the Julie Gayet position for decanting.
User avatar
djewesbury
Graham’s 1970
Posts: 8165
Joined: 20:01 Mon 31 Dec 2012
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by djewesbury »

What, underneath François Hollande?
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
LGTrotter
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3707
Joined: 17:45 Fri 19 Oct 2012
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by LGTrotter »

Exactly. I was thinking of saying twenty Benson & Hedges, as in 'ten standing up and twenty lying down' but thought this could be construed as coarse.
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by PhilW »

Following a reference in a recent post on filtration, and looking back at the testing and conclusions reach in 2014/15, I felt a postscript would be worthwhile to add notes from experiences gained over subsequent years, and particularly since I no longer use filter paper for decanting, as explained below.

In the original tests I came to the following conclusions:
(a) If filter paper is to be used, then I am much less concerned about standing up time than previously.
(b) Filter paper also yields the clearest result, as well as getting the maximum from the bottle.
(c) There *may* be a slight effect to the nose/taste as a consequence of using (unbleached) filter paper, but if so it is very small and was only noticeable when a small amount of wine is passed through the filter (a glass) and not when a larger amount is filtered (a third of a bottle). This effect seems to disappear after 1-2hr in the glass.

Most of the original testing was performed with 20 to 45 year old port; and I suspect more of the former than the latter. What I have found since is that the effects of using filter paper are far more noticeable on older ports, and particularly the less robust. I believe there are two potential effects in action that may affect taste/smell:
(1) the filter paper *may* add a slight taste which may disappear after 1-2hr per the original description above;
(2) the filter paper *will* remove some of the flavour.
This second statement needs some justification; the best I can provide is as follows:

A very old bottle (>100yr old) was generously opened by a very generous friend to share between a few of us; the bottle was tonged, left to stand, and decanted by hand without filtering. The wine was cloudy, and light in colour; well past its prime, but with plenty of flavour (and intriguing to try). I thought that the cloudiness might be inhibiting the taste and decided to put half of my glass through an unbleached coffee filter to see what effect this might have; despite others believing it would still be cloudy, this did in fact yield completely clear golden wine; however how wrong I was about the taste, as this had all but disappeared. That day essentially marked the end of my use of filter paper for port decanting, and I have subsequently only used sterile gauze, which I find more than sufficient to catch sediment without ever stripping the wine of flavour.

In summary:
- Essentially, filter as little as possible while decanting, just to remove coarse sediment; personally I use a single layer of sterile gauze.
- Don't be afraid of slight cloudiness occurring sometimes; it's better than stripping the flavour.
- Only use (unbleached) filter paper if you must have pin-clear wine; and be aware that it will affect the flavour to a greater/lesser degree depending on the wine.
User avatar
hadge
Niepoort LBV
Posts: 284
Joined: 20:08 Thu 17 May 2018
Location: London

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by hadge »

which sterile gauze do you use and where do you get it?
PhilW
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3503
Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
Location: Near Cambridge, UK

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by PhilW »

hadge wrote: 20:41 Wed 27 Jul 2022 which sterile gauze do you use and where do you get it?
I use non-woven sterile gauze/swabs such as these, no specific brand, and have bought individual packets from Boots, and then subsequently in larger boxes from any medical supplier through Amazon. Most brands come in both sterile and non-sterile versions, so make sure you get the sterile (and avoid any medicated ones), and non-woven to ensure no lint. They come in different sizes and quantities; I buy the 5x5cm size, and they come in individual 4-ply packets - i.e. four layers per packet of which I now just use one layer per decant (I used to use two). A typical box might be 25 packets of 4-ply for around £6, which therefore does 50-100 decants.
User avatar
uncle tom
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3518
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by uncle tom »

Totally agree about the use of gauze - but I would be wary of items marketed as 'sterile'

There are three basic levels of cleanliness recognised by brewers, which are pertinent here:

Level one is clean - which means no dirt - this is the standard required in brewing for equipment where the contents are brought to the boil in use.

Level two is sanitised - which means clean, and bugs have been virtually eliminated with chemical agents. In brewing this is suitable for fermentation tanks where you want your introduced bugs (yeast) to totally overwhelm any other bugs that may be around.

Level three is sterile - which means treated with heat or radiation to the point where no bug can possibly survive. This is only relevant in brewing when culturing up small stored yeast samples.

In everyday life we live in a very non-sterile environment. Whilst commercial kitchens routinely sanitise, domestic kitchens are usually no more than clean.

Although totally bug free, sterile supplies can sometimes have a bit of a medical smell to them, so there's a risk that overkill could cause issues.

Clean non-sterile gauzes have no discernible odour that I can detect, and do the job just fine.
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by DRT »

PhilW wrote: 15:28 Wed 27 Jul 2022 Following a reference in a recent post on filtration, and looking back at the testing and conclusions reach in 2014/15, I felt a postscript would be worthwhile to add notes from experiences gained over subsequent years, and particularly since I no longer use filter paper for decanting, as explained below.

In the original tests I came to the following conclusions:
(a) If filter paper is to be used, then I am much less concerned about standing up time than previously.
(b) Filter paper also yields the clearest result, as well as getting the maximum from the bottle.
(c) There *may* be a slight effect to the nose/taste as a consequence of using (unbleached) filter paper, but if so it is very small and was only noticeable when a small amount of wine is passed through the filter (a glass) and not when a larger amount is filtered (a third of a bottle). This effect seems to disappear after 1-2hr in the glass.

Most of the original testing was performed with 20 to 45 year old port; and I suspect more of the former than the latter. What I have found since is that the effects of using filter paper are far more noticeable on older ports, and particularly the less robust. I believe there are two potential effects in action that may affect taste/smell:
(1) the filter paper *may* add a slight taste which may disappear after 1-2hr per the original description above;
(2) the filter paper *will* remove some of the flavour.
This second statement needs some justification; the best I can provide is as follows:

A very old bottle (>100yr old) was generously opened by a very generous friend to share between a few of us; the bottle was tonged, left to stand, and decanted by hand without filtering. The wine was cloudy, and light in colour; well past its prime, but with plenty of flavour (and intriguing to try). I thought that the cloudiness might be inhibiting the taste and decided to put half of my glass through an unbleached coffee filter to see what effect this might have; despite others believing it would still be cloudy, this did in fact yield completely clear golden wine; however how wrong I was about the taste, as this had all but disappeared. That day essentially marked the end of my use of filter paper for port decanting, and I have subsequently only used sterile gauze, which I find more than sufficient to catch sediment without ever stripping the wine of flavour.

In summary:
- Essentially, filter as little as possible while decanting, just to remove coarse sediment; personally I use a single layer of sterile gauze.
- Don't be afraid of slight cloudiness occurring sometimes; it's better than stripping the flavour.
- Only use (unbleached) filter paper if you must have pin-clear wine; and be aware that it will affect the flavour to a greater/lesser degree depending on the wine.
I am left wondering how many times Julian will have winced and the use of the word "may" in this post :wink:

On a more serious note, the use of a very fine stainless steel filter removes every problem referred to above :990066:
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
JacobH
Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
Posts: 3300
Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Decanting method experimentation

Post by JacobH »

uncle tom wrote: 18:47 Sun 31 Jul 2022 Although totally bug free, sterile supplies can sometimes have a bit of a medical smell to them, so there's a risk that overkill could cause issues.
Isn’t it likely that the sanitisation process that gives the smell since that involves treatment with chemicals rather than just steam / heat / radiation?
Image
Post Reply