Gillman Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Yes Cam but it will take a lot longer for adverse effects to be noticed because of the much smaller amount of air in a normal neck space than in, say, a bottle 1/4 full. In practice, the ill effects that can potentailly occur are never noticed because who keeps full bottles for years and years before opening them? Even those who encounter old bottles usually aren't dealing with bottles older than 20 years. That is not long enough for the small amount of air in normal neck space to do damage.Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesbassdad Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Plus, it's the same air until the bottle is opened. To whatever extent the escape of volatile agents is a factor, an equilibrium condition would be reached in a short time.Yours truly,Dave Morefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian12069 Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 You know what...drink the damn thing...don't store it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesbassdad Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 We used to have a member here whose slogan was "Drink it, man; drink it!"He used it often, especially when some drop-in inquired as to the value of some old bottling he'd found. (Here I use the masculine pronoun without guilt. I have yet to see a post from a woman hoping to make a killing on an old bottle of whiskey.)Yours truly,Dave Morefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrispyCritter Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I've noticed that some air can have positive effects, too - my first few pours of Isle of Jura 10yo SMSW were rather disappointing, but after the half-full bottle sat on the shelf for a month or so, it was a lot better when I revisited it.Sazerac Jr. seemed to have a bit of a rough, spirity edge on first pour, and then mellowed out a bit on the second pour a week later. Standard WT 101 also has shown this effect.On the other hand, air wasn't kind to my Bernheim Wheat - the last pours, though they weren't bad, weren't as good as the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr8erdane Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I've been reading this thread with interest as almost every bottle on the shelf in my bunker is open. Personally, tastewise I would have to side with those that say there are few effects in the taste from one pour to the next. But then I find a totally different problem that nobody seems to have touched on. And that's volume. Once I open the bottle, the volume tends to deteriorate steadily. Now normally I would think that this is a figment of my imagination but the amazing thing is that the better the whiskey, the faster the deterioration! I'm not talking angel's share here either but a major drop in fluid levels. One day I look at a particular bottle and the level is even with the top of the label when it was above it the day before. So, being the chronic worrier I am I open the bottle and pour a bit in a glass to taste to see if it has oxidized and then put the bottle back on the shelf. The very next day the level is BELOW the top of the label! Now comes the really eerie part. THE LEVEL ONLY DROPS ON THE BOTTLE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AT THAT TIME! All the rest look like they are the same as they were the day before. I'm beginning to think that my house is either haunted or that damned tree rat has learned how to get in and out of my fireplace again unnoticed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barturtle Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 My local liquor store has the same problem: I go in and discover a wonderful bottle after paying much attention to it and making sure it has a loving home to retire to, I go back the next day and there is no more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I finished my two week long, one person, double blind sampling of freshly opened Stagg 2002 vs 4 year opened Stagg 2002.I presented samples to a bourbon taster, who shall remain nameless and presented them with neat samples randomly from each of the above bottles. At least 30 trials of Two: 1/2 Oz samples. My son poured them based on a random sequence generated from Excel with 1's and 2's. My wife served them and I collated the data. Sometimes the taster got only New, sometimes only Old and sometimes one of each. His only requirement was to say Same or Different. He tasted the neat, diluted and with ice. He did not know what whiskey or what the experiment was. The conclusion. Completely random answers. Got it right and wrong exactly equally. Identified the same whiskey as different the same number of times he identified the different whiskeys as same and the alternatives. Conclusion: I don't think anyone can tell two different whiskies apart reliably, no less two of the same whiskies that differ only by time opened. I challenge anyone else to try this experiment with more people and a different whiskey. This is anything but scientific but has some validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburlowski Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 At least 30 trials of Two: 1/2 Oz samples. Good thing you did this over a two week period.You have my thanks and admiration for your sacrifice and dedication to the further edification of SB members! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinkyBanjo Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 If you need another volunteer for that same test on 2002 Stagg let me know.In the name of science of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffRenner Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I finished my ... sampling of freshly opened Stagg 2002 vs 4 year opened Stagg 2002. ... At least 30 trials of Two: 1/2 Oz samples. My son poured them ... My wife served them and I collated the data.I have no background in statistics, but I understand that a more powerful test is the triangle test. Two samples are the same and the third is different. The subject evaluates all three, then chooses which one is different from the other three. The choices are chosen at random, so that two may be sample A and one sample B, or the other way around, and they are presented in random order.In industry, this is done with a test panel, and the members push the different one away from the other two on a signal so they cannot be influenced by the others.Multiple results are then subjected to statistical analysis.I have participated in panels of this sort for beers - in one case to evaluate a technique called first wort hopping, in which hops are added in a non-traditional manner - steeped in the first runoff from the mash.This might be another way to test a similar question to the one you investigated.Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I have no background in statistics, but I understand that a more powerful test is the triangle test. Two samples are the same and the third is different. The subject evaluates all three, then chooses which one is different from the other three.In industry, this is done with a test panel, and the members push the different one away from the other two on a signal so they cannot be influenced by the others.Multiple results are then subjected to statistical analysis.I have participated in panels of this sort for beers - in one case to evaluate a technique called first wort hopping, in which hops are added in a non-traditional manner - steeped in the first runoff from the mash.This might be another way to test a similar question to the one you investigated.JeffOn Topic: Way to go Ed, take one for the team!Off Topic: Jeff, where do you come down on FWH? I haven't tried it and it seems everyone has a different opinion on the subject. Promash by default has the utilization rate about 20% lower than a 60 minute boil IIRC. What is the suposed benefit of FWH versus say adding more hops for the duration of the boil? Personally I prefer more aroma, so I dry-hop the bejesus out of my IPAs. :yum: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsgorman Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I use the spray nitrogen for wines, but figure it buys me a day or two at best. I found vac-u-vin to be a complete waste of money and effort. But, the best solution that I've had for bourbon is glass marbles.I have a bowl of marbles that I slip into bottles as I drink the bourbon. It pushes the liquor towards the neck and reduces air contact. Towards the end of the bottle, I need to be careful or even use a bottle pourer so the marbles don't dip into my drink (no biggie if it does happen). A simple solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffRenner Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Off Topic: Jeff, where do you come down on FWH? I haven't tried it and it seems everyone has a different opinion on the subject.I love it. It's SOP for me for pilsners and English-style bitters (half of my brews). I think it adds flavor, though not aroma (I add late hops for that and dry hop bitters), and a smoother bitterness than full boil hops. There's something about that steep before the boil.Dave Draper has an excellent summary on his beer page.Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyBoston Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 That Marble Idea is really clever. I would never have thought to do that. What does everybody else think? Would the marble alter the taste in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nebraska Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I prefer to keep all my marbles where there at. Once you've lost them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 That Marble Idea is really clever. I would never have thought to do that. What does everybody else think? Would the marble alter the taste in any way?As long as they are clean, they should be competely inert. They're just glass, after all, just like the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts