About pros & cons of Vacuvin (I)
About pros & cons of Vacuvin (I)
Ver mensaje de Paco Higón“Sorry for the quality of the translation but I think that this posting introduces very useful information.”
The author of the original posting is Jesús (Norje) form the Spanish side..... ;-)
About pros & cons of Vacuvin, or simply about its inefficiency, Norje made this simple experiment that I’m going to explain:
He opened a bottle (https://www.verema.com/comunidad/vinoscatados/vino.asp?vino=9338), he tasted it and he poured the wine into two clean bottles and then he’s re-corked one of them and he’s used the Vacuvin with the other one.
Both bottles were left half-filled in a calm room with the heating disconnected, that means, to a quite stable temperature of 17º. He left the bottles during 4 days. Arrived the fourth day his wife poured into two equal glasses the same amount of wine from each of the bottles. One the glasses was marked with a thread so that he did a blind tasting... with this result:
In both cases the wine had improved remarkably, in both cases appeared expressive, but the nose in one of the glasses reminded him more to the wine just opened and he bet that this one was the vacuvin’s one. He guessed right. The wine did not have “lost” nothing. However he also noticed that the wine of the other glass had improved (depending –of course- on his personal taste). This second wine showed less balsamic notes and minerals and more accessible and rounded fruitiness. Also he had more volume in mouth, probably more than the first one.
(To continue)
Re: About pros & cons of Vacuvin (II)
Ver mensaje de Paco HigónAnd back to the starting point: He used the Vacuvin again with the first bottle and re-corked the other, and kept both in the same place, for another 3 days. After this time (a whole week has passed) he repeated the tasting and again without information. Moreover, he also guessed right:
The Vacuvin wine appeared to be a little more polished, he’s “fallen” a little but it was just a very small “fall”. It was not as fruitful as the re-corked on his 4 day nor as pleasurable as was itself 3 days ago. The re-corked bottle gave volatile notes in nose, but it was in the mouth where it was clearly oxidized, although not enough for him so he finished the glass and the bottle. Hypothesis: If we accept than Anglo-Saxon’s would prefer wines with an oxidized touch, it is normal that they prefer to keep opened wine bottles without Vacuvin.
Some conclusions:
A 4th day the oxygenation of the bottle without Vacuvin rounded the wine so that it was better for his taste. This depends on personal taste, and is necessary to consider that the wine was stored in a room at good temperature, with little light etc. and that was an initially “closed” wine.
With Vacuvin the wine lasted more, nevertheless wine did not improve as much with the first oxygenation.
The wine showed in its evolution different moments that pleased Norje from more to less like this:
+++++ re-corked wine at 4th day
++++ Vacuvin wine at 4th day
+++ “just-opened” wine
++ Vacuvin wine at 7th day
+ re-corked wine at 7ht day
This way of thinking is totally personal, but it helps to know by intuition the curves of evolution with and without Vacuvin. These curves will be different according to the fragility of the wine, according to its raw materials, how old it is...etc.
Vacuvin seems better for those who do not please oxidized notes in wines.
I also think:
-in a “hard” wine but with ";matter";, Vacuvin is not necessary, since the wine will improve with oxygenation and surely we will have finished the bottle before it comes down.
--a young but fragile wine (without oak aging) can improve with Vacuvin as he that Vacuvin preserves wine from the effect of oxygen, and is possible that it improves a little with the slight oxygenation allowed.
But another experiment still remains:
--An old wine, therefore fragile once opened, can “need” Vacuvin not to be too much oxygenated since although it could improves with the “first” oxygenation, it is foreseeable that their curve of evolution would be too fast.
Cheers!!!