Alex

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE make those chicken pillow things! I would like to try my hand at my version of my mother's carrot cake. What say you all? Ronnie, I am sad that you will not be able to be there. Mmm, carrot cake.

I've posted a couple of preliminary results and anticipate doing more testing at the Heartland Gathering this weekend. I'd still like to encourage you and Klinger75 to do some as well. I'll wait for the results before attempting any kind of statistical analysis. A potential problem is that the methodologies used so far don't quite match and, as FG said somewhere in his rants, we've managed to control most, but not all, extraneous variables. I'll do the best I can, though. Dennis said that tester could opt to keep the clip for $20 (the same price he's now charging all eG members); if returned he would send the tester $10.

My point all along (and, I think, yours too) is that Dennis should have hired an independent lab to do this study, but by the looks of things he has no intention of doing so.

Thanks, Mark, for the detailed testing and report. I find it extremely interesting that your tasters' experience matched mine (small difference in smoothness, which disappeared after a brief while). As I mentioned in an earlier post, this also was my experience when I did a similar exercise (using a refrigerator magnet) about 30 years ago. Given the purported theory behind the clip, I doubt that you will find much effect on white wine. Would I spend $79 to speed up the breathing process a bit? I don't think so. Would I keep the one I have for the "reviewer's" price of $20? We'll see after futher testing. Hmm. I do have a couple of impatient wine-drinking friends, and I haven't bought Chanukah presents yet...

Sure it matters. It matters because truth matters, and also because somebody is trying to get your money in exchange for this illusory effect. If it is truly illusory, you shouldn't have to pay money for it. You should be able to accomplish it with a pine cone or a ball-point pen. Let me put it this way, G: if somebody started advertising that he had invented a special secret wine chant that, when incanted just before drinking, would make wine taste better, how would you react? What if that person said that in more than 2,000 instances he had observed people reciting the secret chant and then enjoying their wine more. How would you react to that claim? Repeat the scenario with various other clearly nonsensical interventions: a flashlight, a magic wand, etc. That's all we're looking at here: the flimsiest of pseudo-scientific explanations ("the magic rays from the flashlight alter the molecular structure of the wine, making it taste smoother!") backed up by various retreats from science and objectivity. Next, we will start to see the attacks on science and objectivity themselves. What we are looking at here is essentially a paranormal claim. We've seen all the methods of argumentation common to such claims: the pseudo-science, the retreat from legitimate experimentation, and the defense of placebos -- and we should be seeing the dismissal of science altogether pretty soon, unless people get bored with this. Boy, all that studying for the Certificat de Mérite really paid off. Seriously, though, I don't want to answer Dennis's claims with the same kind of "reasoning" he uses. I doubt, of course, that any sane person would claim that you can influence the taste of wine using a pine cone or a pen. However, the clip has the trappings of science, and so I believe that the scientific method must be used to debunk or support it. If you haven't been there yet, I suggest visiting Skeptic.com for more on this approach. I'm not naive, so I don't believe that if our eGullet testers find no significant clip effect that Dennis will admit to the error of his ways and issue a recall. I do appreciate his making them available at no cost, though (I certainly wouldn't have bought one just to test it out) and I'm looking forward to completing our investigation.

One of my points exactly. That is why I recommended that a comparison be done both immediately after pouring and after five minutes in the glass. My (very preliminary) experience is that any difference disappears after a few minutes in the glass.

I got violently ill after eating a Whopper about 30 years ago and haven't been back to a BK (or even had a fast food burger) since. I still eat McD's fries, though.

As you noted, slkinsey, a few of our intrepid eGulleteers are in the process of doing such tests. I will be compiling the data and posting the results, including a statistical analysis. Dennis, your taste tests have proven nothing yet. There is a difference between preliminary market research (which is what you've done) and making unverified claims. Evidently you, like your customers, do not care about the scientific method. Earlier in this thread you vaguely alluded to an independent lab doing some double-blind testing but haven't mentioned anything about it since. But hey, if people are willing to buy a $79 placebo that costs all of maybe 6 dollars to manufacture, then more power to you. After the double-blind testing we'll see if I have reason to change my tune. Obviously most people will not have had an opportunity to try the product before buying it. Will the web site and your retail outlets have a 90-day money-back return policy? Two have been posted here already. I'm sure that more will follow. When you taste, make sure it's a double-blind test and that you re-taste after the wine has rested in the glasses for five minutes. What slkinsey said.

We're proud of you, Steve. I'd like to know: 1) What does one have to consume to make one's wines look like that in real life? 2) Who is that "President?" The signature looks like Prince's ex-glyph after a few too many glasses of Pernod.

So far I've done two solo tastings, both on ~$20 wines (but picked up on sale ) -- a 1999 Peter Nicolay Riesling Auslese and a 2000 Domaine Vincent Girardin Santenay (a red Burgundy). I perceived no difference between the treated and untreated Riesling. Given the stated theory behind the clip, this probably is to be expected. I did perceive a slight difference with the Santenay -- the clipped wine was a bit less astringent -- but this difference disappeared after the wine had rested in the glasses for a few minutes. Stay tuned....

If the test itself is unbiased the subject's attitude makes little difference. The only thing that could screw up the results is if a subject does not report accurately, saying that there is no difference when one actually is perceived. I doubt that anyone who participates in these eGullet-related testings would do this no matter how skeptical s/he may be. BTW, may I ask the reason for the hefty (58%) price increase?

I agree with the other posts. When we visit my cousin in DC we pick up cheeses at Whole Foods. I'd call around to see who has what you want. There's always room for salmon. I agree with John W's small course menu.

Yes, definitely cheese after the entrée. Also, I would accompany it with one of the less expensive Pinots. As I recently learned from Mark Sommelier (Thanks, Mark!), cheese coats the mouth and mutes the taste buds, and actually can improve the taste of a lesser wine. (Bad for a taste testing but good for a party. ) Another very pleasant alternative would be to serve it with a Pinot Noir-based sparkler. (In fact, this is what I usually drink with Epoisses; the bubbles make the cheese flavor explode in your mouth, not that Epoisses needs much help in that regard.) I'm not too sure about cheddar and PN; blue should be good, though.

I love Pinot Noir with salmon. In fact, for the Heartland gathering's Friday night dinner next week we've paired an Argyle Pinot Noir with the entrée of salmon in phyllo with a saffron sauce. John W.'s cassoulet probably is not beyond your skills. But if you'd like to simplify a bit, serve the roasted or grilled salmon on a bed of lentils that have been dressed with a bacon vinaigrette: Chop some bacon and cook until crisp, adding some chopped shallots toward the end. Drain off most of the fat. Combine the bacon and shallots with xvoo, a good sherry or red wine vinegar, some mustard, and thyme. Let the lentils absorb the dressing for a bit before serving. The lamb sounds perfect. Tomorrow night I'm planning to make filet mignon with a morel sauce and drink the last of my 1988 Hôspice de Nuits or, if it's corked, an Eyrie Vineyards PN. For cheese, I'd serve only the greatest of the Burgundy cheeses and one of the great cheeses of the world (in my opinion, of course), Epoisses.

We're looking forward to feeding all sorts of good food to you and your young companion at the upcoming Heartland Gathering party/dinner.

I haven't had lots of experience with high-end Calchard, although the Grgich Hills I had a while back stands out as a clear favorite. Recently we picked up on closeout several bottles of Sebastiani Dutton Ranch that were mighty tasty.

Wow. That looks really good. It certainly is. I made a big batch several days ago. It's good reheated or even right out of the fridge.

True, but in a double-blind test, and assuming no true difference between the treated and untreated wines, if subjects express a preference they theoretically should split 50-50 between the two. You then do your statistical analysis accordingly.

There are plenty of items that sell, and sell big, that have absolutely no empirical foundation at all except for the placebo effect and cognitive dissonance. This is the point of all my previous posts. I hope this means that you've engaged an lab to do double-blind testing. Just curious: Do you have a Plan B if the results don't bear out your claims? I thought that's why you're paying those big bucks to your PR/Marketing firm.

OK by me. If everyone else is ok with my being the organizer I can post or PM a suggested procedure. Craig, could you PM me with the names of those who'd like to be a part of this?

Sure, why not? Science and fun, hand in hand.

Dennis, a blind test does not mean that you blindfold people. (You didn't put a smilie by that statement so I assume you weren't making a joke. Please ignore the next sentence if you were.) I realize that you're a salesman, not a scientist, but it might be good for you to be familiar with that and similar terms if you're going to be fielding questions about your product. You still didn't say if there is a report in print. When you say "...we figure over 2,000 people have tried it" I'm led to believe that there isn't, and that your taste tests would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. If indeed more than 99% of your tasters thought the clip improved the wine, all the more reason to do some well-controlled studies. Sorry if I seem so picky, but I strongly believe that rigorous scientific inquiry is the only way to provide evidence to support (or not support) the claims you make for the product.

Mashed, with bourbon (flamed 1st), maple syrup, and a little cream. Mmm.

And in another 7 months you could do a babyfoodblog: "Well, it was milk again for me today. You'd think she'd at least throw in some chocolate pudding or strained peaches, or even one of those petrified cookie things...."

I moved from NYC to the Heartland about 30 years ago. Since then I have known the joys of Vernor's, Stroh's, elephant ears, fresh morels, and other indigenous delights. But to this day I have steered clear of corn dogs. (Resistance is futile; the corn dog will be assimilated.) Must resist...must resist.... For a time when I was young I would eat only lamb chops and English muffins. Does that qualify as a strange craving or just a strange kid?