302180 Mon Jun 12 13:10:33 -0700 2006 59 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1690019 Has anyone tried BevWizard? It's a contraption using magnets that supposed to take the edge off of cheap wine, i.e. reducing the harshness of the tannins. Link: http://www.bevwizard.com/ Mon Jun 12 13:10:33 -0700 2006 0 ipse dixit 1 1690021 There was a thread on this on the Not About Food Board a few days ago. The device is total hogwash. Mon Jun 12 13:30:19 -0700 2006 1690019 0 biltong 1 1690022 Just remember, if it sounds too good to be true it IS!!! The magnet thing is bogus for everything expect making money for those scamming it. Mon Jun 12 14:10:52 -0700 2006 1690019 0 Monty 2 1690024 I don't know ... magnets work pretty well on my fridge. :-) Mon Jun 12 14:40:43 -0700 2006 1690022 0 ipse dixit 3 1690030 So ... do the magnets on your fridge improve the taste of what is stored in it? Monty, is that is what is meant by a "money magnet" Here's the link to the discussion last week. Read the excellent article at the end and save your money and buy a good bottle of wine ... or good wine glasses. While it is true this is a different magnetic device than the one described, the idea is the same. Link: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/show/302159#1689773 Mon Jun 12 15:23:38 -0700 2006 1690024 0 rworange 4 1690033 Exactly, money magnet, draws the money right out of your wallet and into their grimy paws. You are correct, buy good wine, some nice Ridel's and maybe even a good corkscrew and enjoy. Forget about miracles being performed on that bottle of Two Buck Chuck. Mon Jun 12 15:46:14 -0700 2006 1690030 0 Monty 5 1690037 My humble opinion is that it its own way, Riedel glasses fall into the same category as wine magnets. I'm not sure how we can spend countless hours discussing the fabulous distinctions between a California vs. a French varietal of some type, marveling at the distinctions, but when it comes to picking a glass to drink it from, somehow this one particular shape will make them both test better than any other shape. It seems that the idea behind the Riedel is the presumption that all varietals taste alike, hence this particular design for this particular varietal and that particular shape for that varietal. In other words, this one shape will make any and all cabernets taste more cabernet-like but won't work on a pinot noir, which seems to say that all cabernets taste alike. I guess I don't get it. I think it's bogus. Mon Jun 12 15:58:49 -0700 2006 1690033 0 Loren3 6 1690042 Have you tried it? Really, I have NO savy as far as tasting wine. However, I've done back to back comparisons and the specially designed wine glasses do work. However, never ... NEVER put a bad wine in a Riedel or similar glass. It accentuates all the bad things in it. Short of investing in some pricy glasses go to a wine bar that has good glasses and do your own taste test. You can get a nice bartender to put the same wine in different glasses. Leave a big tip though. Mon Jun 12 16:13:57 -0700 2006 1690037 0 rworange 6 1690043 "It seems that the idea behind the Riedel is the presumption that all varietals taste alike, hence this particular design for this particular varietal and that particular shape for that varietal." Not exactly. The idea is that there are tendencies (levels of fruit, tannin, acid, etc) within a varietal and these are accentuated by certain shapes of glasses. Can you drink a pinot out of cab glass? Absolutely, and it will probably taste better than if you drank it out of cheap general-purpose glass. Will the pinot taste better out of pinot glass than out of a cab glass? Perhaps, but it depends on the exact pinot and cab, and how sensitive you are the wines' taste and aroma. I'm sure the folks at Reidel have thought about different glasses for different types of cabs, and different glasses for different types of pinots. Maybe they've already come out with these. But I would guess they've decided to draw the line at varietals. Mon Jun 12 16:17:55 -0700 2006 1690037 0 Darren 6 1690046 I just drink it straight out of the bottle. Mon Jun 12 16:33:50 -0700 2006 1690037 0 ipse dixit 7 1690053 THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! Yeah! Mon Jun 12 17:18:01 -0700 2006 1690046 0 Loren3 4 1690035 Thanks to Babette for including the LA Times link. I read it and took a look at the device website for the first time. I know one of the tasters mentioned in the Times article and talked to him about it a few days after the taste test. He said that there was a positive difference between the two wines. The inventor of BevWiz is a friend of mine too, but I have not tried the device myself. There is a difference between this and other magnetic devices. According to the website, the BevWizard's design is as part of an aeration device. That alone will make a big difference. I've used several different aerating pourers and they smooth tannins in a rough wine considerably. Again, not having tried the BevWiz, I can't say whether it provides more smoothing than the aerating pourers. I wouldn't discount out of hand that magnets can help polymerize tannins. Wine tannin polymerization is a hot area of research and in the cellar (i.e., the Australians are masters of tannin management), new stuff is being discovered all the time. Tannins and other polyphenols can be affected by polarity. Mon Jun 12 15:56:08 -0700 2006 1690030 0 Melanie Wong 5 1690039 "I wouldn't discount out of hand that magnets can help polymerize tannins. " ARRRGGHHH! Under certain conditions, powerful electromagnets, maybe, but where's the supporting research? A simple permanent magnet, with wine exposed to it for a millisecond, is simply too miraculous to believe. And if it's the aeration doing the trick, then save the money, skip the magnets, and buy a simple aerating pourer. Mon Jun 12 16:06:57 -0700 2006 1690035 0 Loren3 5 1690040 It might be interesting to try the BevWizard against other aerating pourers. Hmmm ... a blind tasting at the Chow picnic using different devices? Yeah, I know, no booze allowed, it would be interesting though. Anyway, thanks for the insight. Do these devices work better then just putting the wine in a carafe and letting it aerate? ... or putting it in a blender? It is interesting that wineries are doing some research with magnets, since that was a big point in the wine clip report, that if this worked, wineries would be jumping on it. Mon Jun 12 16:09:13 -0700 2006 1690035 0 rworange 6 1690045 There's plenty of wine at Chow picnics, just no hard alcohol. The benefit of an aerating pourer is that it acts faster and only on the quantity that you pour through it. You clamp one on a bottle, pour yourself a glass of wine and it's good to go immediately. The balance of the wine in the bottle is unaffected, so you don't have to estimate in advance how much wine you plan to consume to dump into a decanter. No need to clean a carafe or blender. Please excuse my poor syntax in that last paragraph. I don't know if wineries are doing research with magnets. There is considerable research into tannin polymerization by any method. Tannins and other phenols can be pulled out of wine instantly just by passing them along a charged resin column. This adhesion is based on polarity. The trouble is that it's not selective enough to remove only the undesireable components of tannin and will separate out positive elements. If anyone knows more about magnetic research on tannins, please let us know. Mon Jun 12 16:30:24 -0700 2006 1690040 0 Melanie Wong 7 1690048 I am intrigued by the mention of an aerating pourer. I've never heard of it. Are they readily available at wine shops? Are there different types? Can you give further basic info on them? From your post, it sounds like you've had some positive experience with them. Mon Jun 12 16:46:38 -0700 2006 1690045 0 Richard 8 1690188 There have been a variety of types of aerating pour spouts on the market with different mechanical properties. You can probably find them at a fine wine shop or various online sources. I don't own one myself so can't give you many details. Where I've seen them used more effectively is to taste barrel samples or newly released, very young red wines. As soon as the wine hits the glass, it's aerated quite fully and one doesn't have to slosh it around or wait longer to taste it. Wed Jun 14 01:08:45 -0700 2006 1690048 0 Melanie Wong 7 1690085 Seem to recall a recent review to this effect, that while it did take the edge off the tannins, it also made whatever wine was being tested less interesting, i.e. one dimensional or flat. Sorry can't remember the source or even the device. Mon Jun 12 22:28:29 -0700 2006 1690045 0 PolarBear 8 1690187 Not every wine has out of balance tannins. You'd only want to use such a device on one that does. Wed Jun 14 01:03:10 -0700 2006 1690085 0 Melanie Wong 5 1690102 Hate to say it, but the OP is right, NO WAY a small permanent magnet could "polymerize tannins" absolutely physically impossible. The suggestion that a small magnet would have any effect on the taste of a wine is absurd. That said, aerating a wine does indeed have an effect. Tue Jun 13 09:12:35 -0700 2006 1690035 0 StriperGuy 6 1690190 I don't have any skin in this game, but I don't under why it's physically impossible. If aeration's effect can be immediate, why not the other? The magnet doesn't have to act upon the entire volume or every single molecule in the glass, just enough to make a perceptible difference. In the presence of oxygen, the reaction could be speeded up. I don't have any proof that it's possible either, yet many winemaking tools rely on the polarity of phenolics and tannins to work and they instantly change the character of a large volume of wine. And these use materials with much lower charges, like an egg white for example, or the resin column I mentioned previously. To fine the tannins in a barrel of young Cabernet Sauvignon, you'd use only ONE (1) egg white to remove a considerable amount of tannin from those 55 gallons of wine. Stirring in an egg white solution for a couple seconds in a barrel makes a profound and instant change in the texture of the wine. Or add a small amount of activated charcoal to a glass carboy of white wine with excessive browning from phenolics and it becomes lighter and brighter immediately due to the polarity difference between the carbon and the color phenols. To use a non-wine example, every dust particle in the room somehow makes a beeline for my computer screen. Wed Jun 14 01:28:56 -0700 2006 1690102 0 Melanie Wong 7 1690196 You've got the science mostly right on the egg whites, charcoal filter, and a resin column (did not read the previous post, but am assuming some kind of resin chromatography column) all of the above would have fairly instantaneous results, though depending on the column and charcoal filter it could take quite a while to actually flow through. You are a tad off on this statment "And these use materials with much lower charges" lower charges then what? There you are muddling your science totally. The eggwhite is acting by essentially clumping together with any fines, and you are correct, a little egg white goes a long way. A resin column is a binding reaction depending on the actuall surface chemistry of the column and the charcoal is similar. Aeration by pouring through a funnel or decanting is simple oxidation and yes, aeration. The magnet however is pure hooey. A small magnet does not exert any appreciable effect on a large volume of fluid passing near it. This is pure new agey pseudo-science. There is absolutely NO possibility that a small permanent magnet exerts any appreciable effect on wine passing nearby. A small permanent magnet would have nothing to interact with in the wine. Even with a huge, superconducting magnet (like in an MRI machine) thousands of times more powerful, you would not make any permanent chemical change to the wine. Quite simply this ascribes unscientific "magical" properties to magnetism that are just not real. This is a common new agey claim, magnetic bracelets, shoe inserts, pillows, or even reading glasses with magnets in them, but none of them actually work from any scientific/physics/chemistry perspective. We could also dunk a "crystal" in the wine to "energize" it. Any decent chemist or food scientist would certainly chuckle about using magnets to make wine taste better. Wed Jun 14 05:38:06 -0700 2006 1690190 0 StriperGuy 8 1690203 just a quick correction --- it's not "new age" it's "newage", rhymes with "sewage" and has essentially the same meaning. I like to see a test which uses the magnet without aeration, aeration without the magnet, both, and none all done in a quadruple blind tasting. Wed Jun 14 12:33:01 -0700 2006 1690196 0 Larry 9 1690267 Excuse me, guys, but this reminds me SO much of the folks who are going on and on about how Global Warming is based on stupid science and is all a bunch of hooey, while in the meantime the glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland are melting like Frosty in August: some serious wine persons without any axes to grind at all did a dead-blind test, and with neither prejudice aforethought, nor in fact any clue as to whether they were drinking Before or After, invariably picked the wine that had been unmistakably changed. You can call it magic, you can call it hocus-pocus, you can say it didn't happen because it by Jesus can't, but it demonstrably DID. Unless all those guys were paid off to lie, which I (in my silly, naive sort of way) must doubt. Read the damn story, and then make your judgment. Thu Jun 15 01:16:29 -0700 2006 1690203 0 Will Owen 10 1690276 I'm not saying it didn't happen if you read my post. What I am saying is that the effect the tasters noticed was aeration, NOT MAGNETISM. Thu Jun 15 09:43:26 -0700 2006 1690267 0 StriperGuy 10 1690290 Did read the article, the taste test they refer to on their website had holes in the protocols. Maybe not intentionally, but enough so that they couldn't be considered 100% proof. These test protocols can be difficult to get right. To say that this is based on science is stretching things a bit, I'm well educated and understand most of the concepts of modern physics if not the details. The phraseology used to describe the effects of this product are what give science a bad name. If you feel that it does work well, follow the link below to collect a million dollars simply by proving you can taste a difference. I'm not hostile to or worked up about this, I'd actually like to find something to turn 2 buck chuck into at least 5 buck chuck. Link: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html Thu Jun 15 12:23:52 -0700 2006 1690267 0 Larry 11 1690297 Great article. Hmmm ... maybe I'll start marketing magnetic coasters and take up that million dollar challenge. I figure the chances are fifty-fifty that testing it out would show a difference. If I luck out, I'm a million bucks richer. Actually, I might start selling the "Strawberry keeper" jar ... keep your strawberries fresh miraculously fresh for two or more weeks ... the special design of this jar takes advantage the strawberry's natural preservation process ... All I need to invest in is some Mason jars and sell them for big bucks. Someone is already selling a herb-keeper jar for $14.50 that is just a tall glass jar and you put water in the bottom to keep the herbs fresh. Ah, I never was much of a business person or snake oil salesman. But who knows ... maybe that magnet thing works ... I'm going to have to buy some cheap magnets, start a company and accept the million dollar challenge. What's to lose? Thu Jun 15 13:16:20 -0700 2006 1690290 0 rworange 12 1690299 If you glue some semi-worthless stones on them and plate the rings with copper you might just have something there. I've seen a lot of these sort of things over the years, and always wondered how craven a soul you'd have to have to make a living this way. The Randi site is an interesting read, there's a lot of people out there selling the emperor some new clothes. Thu Jun 15 13:37:38 -0700 2006 1690297 0 Larry 8 1690405 Eeeek! I'm trapped in a magnetic field and I can't get out! Honestly, I'm enjoying this exchange. The albumin in egg whites acts in more ways than just agglomerating insoluble gross fines. At typical wine pH, its anions will attract and bind the electrostatically charged phenol molecules of young red wine out of solution to form a solid protein precipitate. The reason I'm continuing to think about this is that wine has such complex composition and is so unstable, any small change in conditions can speed the natural aging process of phenolic polymerization. Heat, cold, light, vibration, oxygen -- many small forces can readily shift the unstable equilibrium and advance polymerization. Just shaking an unopened bottle of red wine is said to restack the phenolic molecules temporarily and will affect the taste and texture. Young, short tannins have paramagnetic properties. Yet, I'm unaware of how an energy transfer could be induced by the type of magnetic field in this device to upset the equilibrium. How powerful of a field would be required to shift the path of charged tannin molecules in wine? Fri Jun 16 20:53:40 -0700 2006 1690196 0 Melanie Wong 9 1690435 I don't mean to give you a hard time, but you need to brush up on your science and use a little less wine-magic-speak. You use just enough science talk to sound credible, but not enough to really be scientific. There is no such thing as a "paramagnetic property of short tannins". I don't doubt that the binding reacation that eggwhites go through with wine may have some some complex chemistry behind it, after all egg whites are proteins; some of the most complex chemistry on earth involves protein-folding and protein binding. I am very sceptical about the shaken wine bottle comment. Has the shaken wine bottle experiment been done in a double blind experiment where neither the taster, nor the data collector know which bottles have been shaken until a third party analizes the data? Has it been done across 10, 20, or 50 bottles of wine in order to control for differences between bottles of the same "identical" wine which we all know can be huge? If the answers to any of these questions is "no" then all we have is anecdotal, observations, NOT science. Again, don't mean to give you a hard time but "restack the phenolic molecules temporarily" there is no term in chemistry for "temporarily restacking" molecules. This again is "wine-magic language." A scientist I work with is a leading bioanalytical chemist who would just laugh if I showed that comment to him. If you are actually interested in the chemistry of food and wine, by all means learn something about it. Heaven forbid I am sure there are excellent texts on the chemistry of wine. I have found a few below after very quick googling. Try reading James Randi's comments about the Bevwizard, at the bottom of this page: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html He is one of the great debunkers of magical pseudoscientific claims. From the meetings of the American Chemical Society, a text on the chemistry of wine flavor: http://bookstore.ucdavis.edu/Display.cfm?ItemID=356 Or this textbook on the chemistry of wine: http://bookstore.ucdavis.edu/Display.cfm?ItemID=1080 Haven't read these so I hope they are free of pseudoscience. The ACS is pretty credible, so I would probably trust that text. Read them with a critical eye. If it sounds a bit magical, it probably is. Or, as serious as you are about wine, go to UC Davis and take a course or two in their chemistry department on the chemistry of wine. They probably have the leading wine science curriculum in the world. And finally, if you really believe in the BevWizard take James Randi up on his $1,000,000 challenge. He has offered this prize to anyone with one of these wine gadgets, who will subject it to a scientifically designed trial, if the device actually works. Whew. Sat Jun 17 12:29:19 -0700 2006 1690405 0 StriperGuy 10 1690620 I try to avoid "wine speak". If I've strayed, please feel free to point it out because I want to know whenever I've failed to communicate clearly. I'm not a believer in magic, which should be evident in my continuing to seek a scientific explanation of why magnetism could or could not affect the performance of this device as in my post above. I'm not a scientist so I can only communicate in the language that I know using the terms and analogies that scientists have employed to help a layperson understand these topics. I had come across Randi's comments on wine and magnets earlier. You should note that he pokes fun at the inventor of another device and not the BevWizard specifically except by association. However, engaging in name-calling with the other device's inventor or saying it's "silly" can't be considered debunking. His mention of the BevWizard is -- "The BevWizard is a neck-clip-plus-aerator that gets rid of those nasty 'smaller tannins' that are 'negatively charged particles'. The device “encourages” the tannins to 'combine together'.” If you read the details of Randi's challenge, it is a prize for proof of the paranormal. His working definition of paranormal to qualify for the prize is something that's "not scientifically explanable". You previously agreed that the aerator speeds oxidation, so that would seem to be some basis for scientific explanation and disqualify it from the challenge. Small or short tannins and other phenolic compounds (e.g., gallic acid, epigallocatechin, and hydrolyzable tannins) in wine are highly polar. They're relatively large molecules and can stay in solution because of this polarity. It would be surprising if your chemist colleague were not familiar with the self-association or stacking of phenol rings. I use the term "stack" because these loose complexes of phenolic compounds were described to me as analogous to a haystack or the interleafing of a stack of cards by Dr. Roger Boulton, Stephen Sinclair Scott Endowed Chair in Enology at UC Davis. He refers to stacking in the article linked below that I found on the web. I'm away from home, still visiting my dad and don't have Boulton's textbook, _Principles and Practices of Wine Making_, at my fingertips to check further. From the trunk of my car, I've pulled out _Concepts in Wine Technology_ (2004) by Yair Margalit of the Israel Institute of Technology. On page 215 to introduce the section on phenolic compounds, it says, "Phenolic compounds are considered to be one of the most important attributes to wine. They are responsible for wine's color, astringency, bitterness, and partially its taste. They also play a most important part in wine aging. Their chemical reactions in wine are very sensitive to many factors, and consequently they go through continuous chemical changes. The basic information about phenolics is presented in this section, but keep in mind that many observable phenomena in wine, related to phenolic compounds, are not yet clearly understood." Link: http://www.asev.org/Journal/Volumes/FeaturedArticles/vol52no2Pgs%2067-87BoultonReview.pdf Tue Jun 20 06:00:21 -0700 2006 1690435 0 Melanie Wong 11 1690624 I give up, no mas, basta. You are clearly very knowledgable, you read some good wine texts, I actually highly value your comments on specific wines and would by any bottle you recommended highly. That said, in your use of terminology you do not differentiate between bandying about "scientific sounding" terminology and actual science. The last post was such a mixture of genuine terminology and scientific-sounding lingo as to be very difficult to disentangle the two. I tried in my last post, this time I give up. Tue Jun 20 09:44:13 -0700 2006 1690620 0 StriperGuy 10 1690651 I want to let this die but I can't believe the skeptics believe in the million dollar prize! Wed Jun 21 00:32:49 -0700 2006 1690435 0 Babette 11 1690654 Have you been to the JREF site? It is pretty straightforward, he's willing to sign a contract guaranteeing the delivery of the prize if you prove your claim. If you believe in the product, collect the million dollars or prove him a liar, either way ther is no downside for you. As I have said all along, I'd be just as happy as anybody if this thing worked, we'd all like better wine. If the manufacturer could prove it worked it would be all upside for them to prove Randi wrong and shut him up, why wouldn't they do it? If they don't believe in the million they can even ask to see it and have it escrowed. Wed Jun 21 00:54:19 -0700 2006 1690651 0 Larry 9 1690464 Melanie, when you hear hoofbeats do you think of horses or zebras? Of course shaking an unopened bottle of red can change flavor and texture. But isn't it more likely you're just mixing back in the sediment from the bottom than "restacking phenolic molecules"? Sat Jun 17 21:59:23 -0700 2006 1690405 0 Larry 10 1690475 ROTFLOL The only quibble I have with your analogy, is that unicorns would be a more appropriate comparison, because there is a chance, however slight, that those hoofbeats are in fact a zebra. Whereas the "restacking of phenolic molecules" is strictly mythological. Sun Jun 18 09:22:29 -0700 2006 1690464 0 StriperGuy 11 1690548 Unfortunately, we left the realm of science and reason in this debate and strayed into belief, you are not going to convince anyone that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Mon Jun 19 11:40:24 -0700 2006 1690475 0 Larry 10 1690618 Actually, no, as the vast majority of red wines are purchased and opened before they've had a chance to throw enough of a sediment that you could perceive in the mouth. Sediment has little to do with restacking, as those polyphenols have already developed a stable, large molecule and fallen out of solution as precipitate. The stacking or self-association refers to smaller molecule phenolic compounds that are still dissolved and that will aggregate and disaggregate with shifts in equilibrium. Where the sensitivity of phenolic compounds to vibration is often discussed is as one possible explanation for what's called "bottling shock" or the similar phenomenon of "travel shock". Yes, it is a matter of debate whether bottle shock or travel shock is real as it does not affect every wine and for the most part is based on personal observation and not tested. Yet, it is a phenomenon that seems to occur often enough that importers and wineries will delay sales (and economic gain) to allow their wine products to show at their best after bottling or shipping. In the _American Journal of Enology and Viticulture_, published by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture, an abstract (link below), "Chemical Characterization of Red Wine Deposit" by Robert E. Baier,* Brian F. Loncto, Robert L. Forsberg, and Anne E. Meyer - Industry/University Center for Biosurfaces, 110 Parker Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, describes an experiment that suggests ionic exchange between the bottle glass and the phenolic compounds is responsible for temporary bottle shock. Now, none of this has to do with whether magnetism affects tannins or other polyphenols. But I wanted to address your interest in how shaking might affect a wine. Link: http://www.asev.org/Journal/Volumes/54_2/54.2%20pgs139-142%20Abstracts.pdf Image: http://www.ajevonline.org/icons/home/AJEV.gif Tue Jun 20 04:15:28 -0700 2006 1690464 0 Melanie Wong 11 1690627 As I remember from physics and chemistry, agitation results in more randomization of a solution, not less. To use your analogy, a tornado tears haytacks apart, it doesn't put them together. Travel/Bottling shock, by your own comment, a subjective and unproven phenomenon. Of course marketers will cater to any whims of the consumer, real or irrational. The cite is an interesting read, it had me until they used the word "probably" in the conclusion. I know people who think "probably" is overstating the likelihood of the sun coming up tomorrow. You're right, none of this addresses whether or not magnets make wine better, and as I said before, I'd like to see something that could actually improve 2 buck chuck. I just have a problem with the pseudo-scientific jargon used by the hucksters pushing this stuff. Most of it sets my BS detector off and I go skeptical. While Randi does debunk paranormal items, he's also dead set against junk science. If you had invented one of these items and were dead certain it worked, wouldn't you take the challenge to make a million bucks? Think of how much the patent would be worth beyond the million if you actually had something that provably worked. He doesn't even ask for a valid scientific explanation, just demonstrable function. Tue Jun 20 11:47:39 -0700 2006 1690618 0 Larry 1 1690023 I have no experience with it, but here is a link to last week's Los Angeles Times article which includes a taste test: http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-wine7jun07,1,1421168.story?coll=la-headlines-food Mon Jun 12 14:33:38 -0700 2006 1690019 0 Babette 2 1690025 Yeah, that article is what piqued my interest. Mon Jun 12 14:41:15 -0700 2006 1690023 0 ipse dixit 3 1690031 Same bogus "technology" and concept as the Wine Clip. The only thing getting clipped is your wallet. Re-read the linked article that debunked the wine clip. It's important that we don't let pseudoscience ruin our enjoyment of food and wine. Link: http://www.dansdata.com/wineclip.htm Mon Jun 12 15:30:10 -0700 2006 1690025 0 Loren3 4 1690036 Thanks for the link, that was interesting. A big difference is that the Wine Clip claims to break down large molecules into smaller molecules. The BevWiz claims to polymerize tannins, that is create larger, smoother molecules, which is what happens with natural aging. Mon Jun 12 15:58:21 -0700 2006 1690031 0 Melanie Wong 5 1690038 A geostatic magnet isn't going to accomplish either in the millisecond or so that the wine is passing by it. But we're all looking for some magic, aren't we? Mon Jun 12 16:01:02 -0700 2006 1690036 0 Loren3 1 1690068 I bought one today. Moments ago I poured two glasses from the same bottle of chardonnay; the second glass using the Bevwizard. I asked my wife to taste both. She didn't know anything about the two glasses, or that they were the same wine. BTW she has an excellent palette. She immediately said that the Bevwizard-treated glass smelled and tasted fruitier. However, she preferred the non-treated wine. Of course, this was a not particularly oakey chard., so that's probably not the best candidate for the use of the device. It does, apparently, make a change in the glass. I'll post again tomorrow after the "cheap red test". Mon Jun 12 20:09:58 -0700 2006 1690019 0 Bob Brooks 1 1690174 Tonight we tried it on a very simple cab. that we drink often only because it doesn't have a lot of flaws and it's cheap. The Bevwizard definitely changed the wine. The problem was that it didn't make it better, but it did do its job of reducing the tannins. I think in this case, the wine really didn't need a reduction in tannin because it probably didn't have that much to begin with so it just made it a bit flabby. Once again, my wife with her excellent palate, immediately could tell the difference between the two blind samples. I think this device will work best with a young, highly tannic wine with greater potential than what we had tonight. But, the point is, it works! It does make a change in the nose and the perception of tannins when you drink it. Tue Jun 13 21:44:41 -0700 2006 1690019 0 Bob Brooks 2 1690191 Thanks, Bob, it's been interesting to read your tasting trials with the device. I'd agree that it's best use is probably with a young, highly tannic red wine. I'd love to hear how it works with young Nebbiolo, such as Barolo. Wed Jun 14 01:38:20 -0700 2006 1690174 0 Melanie Wong 1 1690199 It doesn't do anything to the wine that letting it sit in the glass or decanter for a little while won't do. It is just arriation. Wed Jun 14 08:53:15 -0700 2006 1690019 0 dinwiddie 1 1690465 Okay. This is my last post on this experiment. Tried the bevwizard on a bottle of Marchesi di Monteccristo Nerello del Bastardo 2000. As I understand it, this is a Barrolo but, because of over production, cannot be labelled as such. At only six years of age, this is still a relatively young wine. The Bevwizard, did, indeed, soften it and make it more appealing. So, there you are. For what it's worth. The Bevwizard works! Not necessarily on every wine, but on the right ones, yes! Sat Jun 17 22:21:58 -0700 2006 1690019 0 Bob Brooks 2 1690471 Great, now that you've proved it conclusively go take the Randi challenge and collect your million bucks. Sun Jun 18 01:06:10 -0700 2006 1690465 0 Larry 2 1690474 Don't ya get it? Did you taste it blind? Did you try it with a gadget identical to the bevwizard, but using one that had mock magnets instead of the real thing? Was the pre-BevWizard sip from the top of the bottle and BevWizard sip from further down? In short, did you do a controlled, well designed experiment, or did you just sorta give it a whirl? If it is the latter, you have proved nothing except what we already knew, that many people want magical things to work. Sun Jun 18 08:58:44 -0700 2006 1690465 0 StriperGuy 3 1690486 >>> If it is the latter, you have proved nothing except what we already knew, that many people want magical things to work. <<< Well, no. The absence of highly controlled tests doesn't mean BevWizard doesn't work or is somehow 'magical'. I'm more likely to consider what someone who has tried the product says or who has thoughtfully considered why it might work rather than naysayers who refuse to think outside the box in the absence of controlled tests. I guess I've dealt too many years with the medical profession that is quick to discredit and dismiss anything that has not been tested. Some things work. Whether there are tests to prove why doesn't really matter. I think anyone who has not tried this really has nothing to say. It is like evaluating a restaurant without trying the food. Would I buy a BevWizard. Right now, no. However, if lots of people I trust, Chowhound or not, had it and said it worked, I would consider it whether or not there were tests to back it up. I would consider it even if there were tests that said it DIDN"T work, yet people I trusted said it did. Not that I would dismiss the test data. It would just all fit into my evaluation. Testing is often flawed. How many studies have been done about ... take your pick ... coffee ... it's bad for you, then it's good for you, bad, good, bad ... latest ... good ... may have a positive effect to balance the harmful effects of alcohol. To me, much of science is just as reliable or unreliable as anyone's opinion that a certain item may or may not work. So, IMO, the only opinions I'd consider about whether the BevWizard works or not would be from someone who tried it. If you tried it and it did nothing, controlled test or not, well, that's another thing. After all, at one time scientists thought the world was flat, but never tried sailing to the edge of it to see. Sun Jun 18 13:09:20 -0700 2006 1690474 0 rworange 4 1690622 Sensory evaluation of wine, which Striper Guy proposes as a way to "prove" whether the device works isn't a very powerful tool for that. In any taste test, you're not just testing the device, but also the wine, the bottle, and the tasters. All of those introduce a myriad of confounding factors. Tue Jun 20 06:18:03 -0700 2006 1690486 0 Melanie Wong 3 1690501 If you read my two earlier posts, you'll see that it was a blind tasting with my wife, who did not know why or what she was tasting from two different glasses. I was originally intrigued by this item because the L.A. Times article revealed the taste perceptions changed by the bevwizard among a panel of sophisticated wine writers. Also, the inventor of this device is a Master of Wine; an achievement of no small distinction. Sun Jun 18 19:58:24 -0700 2006 1690474 0 Bob Brooks 4 1690543 Of course your test was not done blind if you were serving the wine to your wife, you knew which was which and may have subtly influenced the results. If you are so convinced that it actually works, then why not try to claim the $1,000,000 prize offered by James Randi. Mon Jun 19 09:54:10 -0700 2006 1690501 0 StriperGuy 5 1690568 It seems the quality of this debate has slipped to the level of taunting. Same thing above on a meatless burger thread. It's bringing Chowhound down, IMHO. Mon Jun 19 14:37:05 -0700 2006 1690543 0 Babette 6 1690621 Actually, I've been waiting for the post from Bob Brooks to the effect that if you knew his wife, it would be understood that he couldn't influence her to do anything . . . (queue the rimshot) . . . ba dum bump. Tue Jun 20 06:09:52 -0700 2006 1690568 0 Melanie Wong 7 1690638 Melanie, you are so right! Actually, I poured the glasses for my wife as blindly as possible and said nothing to her, but I, too, thought this discussion was starting to get a little impolite so I let it go. Tue Jun 20 18:29:48 -0700 2006 1690621 0 Bob Brooks 8 1690639 The thing is, the product makes all sorts of claims about the benefits of a "combination of aeration and a high-intensity magnetic field." Without doing a very systematic comparison with ordinary aeration (or even different methods of aeration), the results of your test aren't anything more than anecdotal. Tue Jun 20 18:36:54 -0700 2006 1690638 0 butterfly 9 1690647 Well, of course, my results are merely anecdotal. So are most of what gets posted here about our restaurant experiences. All I know is that I opened a bottle of wine, poured one glass without the device and immediately poured another one with it, and told my wife to come and taste the glasses. She knew nothing about the two glasses whatsoever. Didn't know if it was the same or different wines. (BTW, I often ask her to taste things on this basis). Her immediate response in both cases was to describe the wines treated with the Bevwizard as "fruitier". And, for the record, she did not prefer them to the untreated ones. The "mock Barollo" that I posted about was improved to her taste. Of course this is all anecdotal. I'm a criminal defense lawyer for God's sake. I get it! I'm just sharing an experience. Take it for what it is. Or don't. Tue Jun 20 21:29:15 -0700 2006 1690639 0 Bob Brooks