docsconz

It's not bad wine, it is just grossly overrated in my opinion and not representative of what I believe is CDP. I suggest trying it for yourself. Let us know what you think.

Only the bad kind. I'm counting on it

I think there is some benefit to wine scoring. With a consistent scorer like Parker, his scores can be used as a ballpark as to whether or not one might like a wine, if one's palate has been calibrated against his. This does not mean that you necessarily like the wines he likes or to the degree he likes them or vice versa. If one doesn't like "hedonistic fruit bombs", one will know which wines not to overpay for. Just as important are his descriptions and ratings of character driven wines. These too are consistent and accurate and can be identified from his writing with the added benefit that they are not necessarily driven up in price. This provides a service in that people who want "status" wines know which ones to spend big bucks on and those who want wines with individual characteristics can get them too.

It is difficult if not impossible to absolutely prove or disprove anything. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle taught us that by its very nature the act of measuring changes that which is being measured. Of course, that doesn't mean that insight cannot be gained and the more rigorous the methodology, the better the insight. Much medical knowledge is based on that, but even with that, newer methods and ideas come along frequently debunking "accepted wisdom". How often do we see this in the field of nutrition alone - practically everyday, such that I no longer give much creedance to any pronouncements about what is "best" nutritionally. There are too many variables for there to be only one answer for all. Even so, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking. We need to keep refining our variables so the data becomes more meaningful not necessarily to all, but to applicable sets. These variables are honed based upon studies and experimentation using scientific method. No one study is necessarily the be-all and end-all (at least not yet ), but every good study provides fodder for additional studies if the results warrant it. So far, my results with TWC haven't justified for me engaging in significantly more detailed study. Nevertheless, primarily because of Mark's results and the fact that my sample sizes have admittedly been small, I will continue to to explore it in a fashion similar to the way I have, while trying to improve my methodology within reasonable means of time and hassle (I will not use a placebo clip mainly because I don't have anything that could reasonably act as one). If further results indicate a meaningful difference in favor of TWC, I may rethink my attitude towards more detailed testing. I did start this thread. For the most part it has been fun. I appreciate the opportunity I have had to try one of the devices for myself. my principle interest in food and wine is personal enjoyment. I am not against anything that may enhance that, however, I am not willing to automatically accept claims for anything. Based on personal experience I do give weight to others opinions, which is why I started the thread to begin with. Ultimately, however, one must make one's own opinion. If after reading this voluminous thread, any member feels that he or she may still be curious about the product, he or she should try it personally.

How much would it cost to do this right? It's mostly a question of logistics, not money, isn't it? All you need is a case of cheap wine, a real clip, a placebo clip, and about 20 people willing to give you an hour of their time. Then you need somebody in an academic setting to plug your data into one of the accepted statistical programs like ANOVA. I'm sure we could get that done for you if you created that data. That would give us a scientifically acceptable preliminary study that we could take to UC Davis as justification (or lack thereof) for a full-scale study. The real investment would be time. I might be persuaded to make the investment if I felt that the preliminary results justified it. So far they haven't IMO.

I think the usefulness of these initial quasi-scientific "studies" will be to help determine if more rigorous studies will truly be useful. If the results of these studies indicate that there may be a "benefit" to using the product, real or imagined, then additional, rigorous studies may be worthwhile. Short of that I'm not sure I'm willing to invest the cash necessary to perform such a test. My initial results are not pointing me in that direction, however, I'm still willing to try it a few more times just for the heck of it. If my later results are significantly in favor of the device, I will be interested in working on this more definitively.

Great description!

I don't care what the name is, I still want to dine there this winter

FG, You are undoubtedly correct about the scientific validity or lack thereof of these tests. My purpose is to get a direct sense for myself whether there is any degree of validity to the claims made for this product and if there is, whether the results are sufficient for me to continue to use this product. I am sharing my limited results here because that was par of the reason I received the product in the first place. Members can make of the results what they will. It is beyond my ability and most likey that of most others here to perform the rigid scientific methodolgy necessary to definitively confirm or refute the claims for this product. My initial impression is that while some observers do seem to detect a difference in the glasses, the difference has not been sufficient either way to be of anything more than academic interest.

My testing done so far has been somewhat primitive from a truly rigorous scientific point of view, but the results so far have been opposite to those of Mark. I posted my first limited tasting on the other thread. The results were inconclusive. Today I had a test in which I used two tasters much less experienced than Mark's. I opened a bottle of 1996 Altesino Brunello di Montalcino and poured three glasses (one for me) without the wineclip then three identical glasses with the wine clip. The pourings were done with the tasters out of the room. They were called back in and tasted the wines in front of them. Only I knew which wine was which. I asked them to taste each wine without identifying which was which and then to say if there was a difference between the glasses and which was "better". Both tasters identified a difference, however, both said the better glass was the non-clipped wine. I tasted both samples and could not reliably say there was a significant difference. A few minutes later, neither taster was able to discern any noticeable difference in their glasses. My initial conclusion is that there may be a "difference", but that it is not necessarily "better". Upon being asked if the "better" glass was indeed the wine clip glass (they were not), would the diference be enough to influence a purchase of the device, both tasters stated a definate "No". These tests are certainly not definitive in determining the efficacy of the product. I plan on continuing to trial it with additional tasters, wines and pourers (so I can be more of an official unbiased taster).

I despise McDonald's and can still tolerate BK. I still like (relatively) the double cheeseburger at BK and if in a situation with a carload of hungry kids and local ignorance I will choose BK even though my 4yo loves mcDonalds . Disclaimer: My very first employment when I was 16yo was at a Burger King in Brooklyn, which at that time was the busiest in the country.

How difficult will it be to get a reservation there this winter with keller in attendance?

But if you do, there is always Immodium!

How come the others aren't from eGullet ? Sign em up !

Mark, I most certainly do not conclude that Guigal makes "shitty" wines. I have had several bottles of the LaLas including the glorious '91's. They and other Guigal bottlings are magnificent, which was one reason why I was surprised to dislike this wine as much as I did. The other reason I guess was its quality relative to its hype as WS "Wine of the Year". The wine was ok, but nothing special. Having tasted 6 of the WS Top ten wines at this tasting (my favorite was the 1999 Leoville Las casses at No.10), my conclusion is that the WS list has no basis in reality (at least not my reality). The other wines I tasted if I remember correctly were the CDP Chateau la Nerthe 2000 (No. 9) that was similarly structured to the Guigal, Pine Ridge Stag's Leap CS (No.4) which was probably the favorite of most of the people I talked with (it was a tasty wine drinking well at the time), Castello Banfi's 1997 Brunello (No.3), still very tannic and somewhat closed, and Chateau St. Jean Cinc Cepages 1999 ( once again a very nice wine, but No. 2?). I realize that the rankings are not based solely on a wine's "quality", but the combination of quality and price - its relative value. Nevertheless, this experience does reinforce a sense that there is more behind this list than meets the palate.

Great shots! Wow, did that food look good. What was the total turnout?

We'll always have New Jersey

I had the wine last night (sans wine-clip) at a charity wine tasting event in my home town. While it wasn't bad and may have been better with a particular food pairing, I didn't think it was particularly special or even representative of its type. The irony is that my impression of CDP is that they are big, bold,tannic, fruit driven wines (this may be because I have come of age wine-wise in the parker era- see Craig's articleon 100 point wines and wine scoring) and this is anything but. I found it to be thin and too acidic without enough tannic backbone or fruit to support it. The fruit it did have tasted of grapey pez and wasn't particularly complex. I tasted it several times over the course of the evening without much change. My taste in CDP tends to run more along the Beaucastel and Vieux Telegraphe lines. If I'm thinking of matching a CDP with a nice beef or lamb roast, they are what I have in mind. The Guigal might have been a good match with a tomatoey pasta sauce. Is my thinking simply a product of Parkerization and world homogenization of wine styles and the Guigal is what CDP is really supposed to be like?

Craig, How do you do it- One interesting and well written article after another? You've captured the essence of the problem with scoring wines. I think scores have some value as long as they relate a wine to its type. As you so clearly pointed out, most scores are simply pointing to one archetype for red and one for white no matter the situation. This is probably why Parker was never really respected for his Burgundy scoring. Really good burgundies (especially pinot noir) don't really fit the bill for the big fruit bomb. They are much more subtle and idiosyncratic. Don't get me wrong - I love big fruit bombs and have a few high scorers in my cellar, but I agree, there is much more to life than a single style. More important (or at least it should be) than scores are the discussions and descriptions that go along with a particular wine review. Long live variety!

It's not a bad name, per se.

Dude, you could be an awesome salesperson for Immodium. I mean, if anyone knows how great that stuff works it has to be you. I can see it now... "Hi there. I'm Tony Bourdain and I've just spend all day eating God knows what in Kuala Lumpur. I'm pretty sure that the guy who sold me this beef skewer hasn't washed his equipment or his hands... ever! Normally, I'd be spending about 6 hours of quality time in the throne room after a day like this, but I have to catch a 22 hour flight in about 45 minutes. Believe me, if you've ever spend a few hours in one of those pint-sized airplane thunder jugs you know you're lucky if the pins-and-needles in your feet go away by the time the plane is on the ground. "So I'm taking a tablet of Extra Strength Immodium AD. When you eat at the places I've been eating, you know this stuff is your best friend, and with all the lower GI parasites I've caught over the last 18 months, I know what I'm talking about. After I take one, two or fifteen of these little babies, my bowels will be sealed shut like Fort Knox in no time at. That's gonna my flight a lot easier... and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it'll probably make the flight easier for everyone else in the plane as well. "So when your bung is running like a crack addicted thief from the LA police, do what I do and reach for Immodium AD. Don't leave the Western Hemisphere without it." This has to be the funniest post I have ever read. Tony, you have to do it. By the way Immodium is an excellent medication. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

All in the name of Science!

I didn't pour the wines or see them poured, so I'm not sure in what order they were poured. Next time I'll make sure that whoever pours, does so without the wineclip first. This may take more glasses since we would want to do the randomization not knowing whether any, either or all of the glasses contained wine-clipped wine.

OK.

Sounds interesting. What is its price?