Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

JoNorvelleWalker

Serving Champagne and Other Carbonated Wines

Recommended Posts

The NY Times has a current article in the science section "A Universe of Bubbles in Every Champagne Bottle".

 

The article asserts that it is better to serve Champagne at warmer than refrigerator temperatures so that the bubbles are larger and convey more flavor.  Also to serve in a narrow glass.

 

However Gerard Liger-Belair (who is referenced as an authority in the Times article) points out in his book Uncorked (forward by Herve This) that the colder the wine the more viscous and the more dissolved CO2.  Liger-Belair also prefers a goblet to a flute.  I bought Uncorked after reading about it in Liquid Intelligence from Dave Arnold.

 

Discuss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer champagne cold. Mostly because the CO2 isn't so bubbly. PV=nRT and all that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it at room temperature straight out of the bottle, after snatching it up at the gasoline station store ...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

The article asserts that it is better to serve Champagne at warmer than refrigerator temperatures so that the bubbles are larger and convey more flavor.  Also to serve in a narrow glass.

 

I assert that it is better to serve Champagne exactly as you like it.

 

I prefer it chilled but not over so. I have had it ice cold and it isn't pleasant.

 

I do agree with the narrow glass. Anything other than a champagne flute is crass beyond redemption ;).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on whether your objective is to see and feel the bubbles or to taste the wine.  Fizzy wine in goblets rather than flutes facilitates smelling and tasting, but doesn't put the fizz on the center stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gfweb said:

PV=nRT and all that.

 

:D  Haven't seen that formula since 11th grade, over half a century ago. :S  I remember we used to make these ostensibly clever fart jokes related to it. (It's the "Ideal Gas Law.")

 

(Yes, stuff like that is still stuck in my head.)


Edited by Alex (log)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JoNorvelleWalker said:

The article asserts that it is better to serve Champagne at warmer than refrigerator temperatures so that the bubbles are larger and convey more flavor.

 Most wines, including champagne are better severed  at warmer than refrigerator temperatures which is colder than 40°

Recommendations for Champagne are 45° to 50° Most other white wines are good at 50°

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Paul Fink said:

 Most wines, including champagne are better severed  at warmer than refrigerator temperatures which is colder than 40°

Recommendations for Champagne are 45° to 50° Most other white wines are good at 50°

 

I try never to sever my wine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anna N said:

I try never to sever my wine. 

 

you could sever it with a saber 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Cold Duck?  That's what I ended up having on New Year's Eve.

I remembered it fondly from the 70's (I think) and enjoyed it very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lindag said:

Remember Cold Duck?  That's what I ended up having on New Year's Eve.

I remembered it fondly from the 70's (I think) and enjoyed it very much.

 

Cold Duck! Invented in Detroit (really)!

 

Quote

The wine was invented by Harold Borgman, the owner of Pontchartrain Wine Cellars in Detroit, in 1937. The recipe was based on a German legend involving Prince Clemens Wenceslaus of Saxony ordering the mixing of all the dregs of unfinished wine bottles with Champagne. The wine produced was given the name Kaltes Ende ("cold end" in German), until it was altered to the similar-sounding term Kalte Ente meaning "cold duck." The exact recipe now varies, but the original combined one part of Mosel wine, one part Rhine wine with one part of Champagne, seasoned with lemons and balm mint.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't until I read @Alex' link that I realized why "Cold Duck" sounded, how shall I say, off?  But it was because Baby Duck was the vintage of choice among my crowd back then. Don't think I could stomach it now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Called "Trollschoppen" in the Rhineland Palatinate: half white wine, half sparkling wine. Drunk from a "Schoppen" glass, thus half a liter. Considered the last drink at the wine fest before heading home (or at least trying to) ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anna N said:

It wasn't until I read @Alex' link that I realized why "Cold Duck" sounded, how shall I say, off?  But it was because Baby Duck was the vintage of choice among my crowd back then. Don't think I could stomach it now. 

Cold duck was the still version of Baby Duck wasn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kerry Beal said:

Cold duck was the still version of Baby Duck wasn't it?

 

Well, sort of, except that Baby Duck was the still wine. According to the article I linked to:

 

Quote

André introduced their version of Cold Duck in Canada in the mid-1960s. They followed that with similar sweet red and white wines called Chanté. In 1971 they created Baby Duck – a soft-drink-sweet blend of red and white Chanté wines.

Hugely successful, Baby Duck was the best-selling domestic wine during the 1970s

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2017 at 3:15 PM, JoNorvelleWalker said:

The NY Times has a current article in the science section "A Universe of Bubbles in Every Champagne Bottle".

 

The article asserts that it is better to serve Champagne at warmer than refrigerator temperatures so that the bubbles are larger and convey more flavor.  Also to serve in a narrow glass.

 

However Gerard Liger-Belair (who is referenced as an authority in the Times article) points out in his book Uncorked (forward by Herve This) that the colder the wine the more viscous and the more dissolved CO2.  Liger-Belair also prefers a goblet to a flute.  I bought Uncorked after reading about it in Liquid Intelligence from Dave Arnold.

 

Discuss.

 

Who wrote the NY Times article? They seem to think that bubbles are the only thing that matters in Champagne.

 

Although bubbles last longer in narrow glasses such as flutes, the narrow opening restricts your ability to experience the aromas of the wine. In the Sydney wine show, they have moved across to white wine glasses for tasting sparkling wine to ensure that they are tasting the wine, not simply revelling in the bubbles.

 

Moreover, while making the champagne very cold may make the bubbles last longer, it also suppresses the aromas. Again this will limit your ability to taste and appreciate the wine.

 

On the other hand if the base wine is not good (I'm looking at you Cold Duck), the more chill the better as the fizz is likely to be the only decent thing in there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nickrey said:

Who wrote the NY Times article? They seem to think that bubbles are the only thing that matters in Champagne.

 

Although bubbles last longer in narrow glasses such as flutes, the narrow opening restricts your ability to experience the aromas of the wine. In the Sydney wine show, they have moved across to white wine glasses for tasting sparkling wine to ensure that they are tasting the wine, not simply revelling in the bubbles.

 

Moreover, while making the champagne very cold may make the bubbles last longer, it also suppresses the aromas. Again this will limit your ability to taste and appreciate the wine.

 

On the other hand if the base wine is not good (I'm looking at you Cold Duck), the more chill the better as the fizz is likely to be the only decent thing in there.

 What can I say? We were young and foolish. Cold and bubbly was a good thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anna N said:

 What can I say? We were young and foolish. Cold and bubbly was a good thing.  

It still is in my books ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Alex said:

 

Well, sort of, except that Baby Duck was the still wine. According to the article I linked to:

 

 

Nope - Baby Duck was definitely fizzy - many bottles sparkled past my tongue in my teen years. Revolting stuff actually.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 9:36 AM, lindag said:

Remember Cold Duck?  That's what I ended up having on New Year's Eve.

I remembered it fondly from the 70's (I think) and enjoyed it very much.

My great aunt got looped on Cold Duck(we bought it specifically for her) at my wedding reception.  She got so happy that she sat on the lap of the Justice of the Peace who performed out ceremony....funny since at the time she was the Town Clerk who basically worked for him.  We lost her not long afterward and the picture of her sitting on his lap laughing is one of my best memories ........which .including the picture of my grandfathers girlfriend talking with my mom who was holding the youngest guest - a 3 week old Clark.

 

OK ...gottta get out of this forum.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer my champagne slightly cold. But I do believe that  a traditional champagne flute will preserve carbonation best. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By ElsieD
      I got an e-mail this morning about the Modernist team's next project - pizza! 
       
      Modernist Pizza is Underway!
      After taking on the world of bread, we’re thrilled to announce the topic of our next book: pizza. Modernist Pizza will explore the science, history, equipment, technology, and people that have made pizza so beloved.

      Authors Nathan Myhrvold and Francisco Migoya, with the Modernist Cuisine team, are currently at work conducting extensive research and testing long-held pizza-making beliefs; this quest for knowledge has already taken them to cities across the United States, Italy, and beyond. The result of their work will be a multivolume cookbook that includes both traditional and innovative recipes for pizzas found around the globe along with techniques that will help you make pizza the way you like it.

      Modernist Pizza is in its early stages, and although we’ve begun to dig in, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Although we can’t guarantee when it will arrive at your door just yet, we can promise that this book will deliver the complete story of pizza as it’s never been told before.

      In the meantime, we would love to hear from you as we continue to research pizza from around the world. Contact pizza@modernistcuisine.com to tell us about your favorite pizzerias and their pizza. Connect with us on social media to get all the latest Modernist Pizza updates.
    • By Tempranillo
      I have been tasked with putting together a team for a new kosher barbecue event in Arizona, happening sometime later this year. The event was supposed to be in mid-April, but the venue decided to cancel. The organizers are busy looking for a new venue, and have assured us that this will happen.
       
      Many details for the event are not quite settled yet, so, I am trying to prepare for all sorts of contingencies beyond the usual concerns about putting out good food. What is known is that we will be following the KCBS kosher rules. As far as I can tell, there were 10-12 such events held last year across the US. So, it's a pretty small world. I don't think there's a kosher championship ladder like the other barbecue events have, either. I think it's a good time to get in, get practice and see where it takes me.
       
      Now, I've been reading and watching videos online with all sorts of info on smoking/cooking for competitions. I have watched some of the TV shows, and one documentary. It's been kind of a mixed bag in terms of usefulness. No one has posted much about kosher barbecue, so I am making changes to recipes and procedures and running a lot of tests. I currently have access to my home kitchen which is small but adequate, the stove is electric and unremarkable and about 7 years old. It does maintain temperature well, and can be set to run anywhere from 140°F to 550°F.  I also have access to an outdoor kitchen at a friend's place, with a relatively large charcoal type grill. At most of the kosher barbecue events the event organizers provide smokers/grills plus meats and many ingredients to ensure that everything is truly kosher. If needed, my team sponsor is prepared to purchase a grill/smoker which I will need to research once I know I will need it.
       
      I should note that I am not Jewish and did not grow up around any kosher households, so I am also studying some of the finer points about running a kosher kitchen and learning about kosher ingredients. Modern competition barbecue is an odd mix of modernist techniques and ingredients, right alongside ordinary-folk foods like margarine, and bottled sauces.
       
      For reference, the 4 categories for kosher events are: Chicken, Beef Ribs, Turkey, and Beef Brisket -to be served in that order.
       
      So far, I have been running smokeless tests on chicken and beef ribs. Mostly learning to trim the chicken thighs (what a nightmare!) and seeing what happens at certain temperatures and times. I know things will be different with real smoking happening, but I want to see some baseline results so that I know what to strive for. I do have a bunch of thermometers, and have got some basic ideas about writing a competition timeline.
       
      The chicken perplexes me in several ways. First, some of the competition cooks recommend boning while others recommend bone-in. Second, I see some folks injecting and brining, while others maybe do a quick half hour marinade, and even others are full-on modernist with citric acid under the skin, etc. Third, the braise vs non- braise chicken where some people load up their pan with a pound of butter, margarine or a couple cups of chicken stock while others do not. Fourth, The bite-through skin is driving me insane. Some people swear by transglutaminase to reattach the skin for a better bite. Catch is, only some types are kosher, and I can see having issues explaining it. I have tested an egg white egg wash which seems to attach the skin pretty well without showing. I think I need to go for longer times to get more tender skin. Today I did a pan (with olive oil) of six as follows: one hour at 220°, one hour under foil at 230°, then glazed and 20 minutes on a rack at 350°. It was only partly bite-though and the taste-testers wanted more crispiness. I tried showing them pictures and explained that it wasn't ever going to be crispy, that we're looking to go even softer. I am going to run tests on longer cook periods and see how it goes.
       
      I want to ask people about the whole swimming in margarine thing which is in voque right now. people claim it makes the chicken juicy. I know that meat is mostly all about temperatures. I can see how the margarine acts like duck fat in a confit and helps prevent some oven-drying after hours and hours in the oven, but, in the end, isn't it just an insulator?
       
      I've been making corned beef and other brisket dishes for over 20 years, so, I think I have a good handle on that. I will practice it in a couple of weeks. I simply don't need as much help on this item.
       
      The turkey scares me. On TV, I see people dunking it in butter before serving it. This obviously is not kosher, and I don't want to do it with margarine I don't want to present anything in a competition made with margarine, there has to be something better! -Either cook the bird better or find a better dip, like maybe a flavorful nut oil or a sauce. That said, unlike ribs or brisket, it is not traditional to dunk turkey in a sauce.  I went with some friends to a chain place called Dickies to do a little research and their turkey breast was odd and kind of hammy. Not like Virginia ham, more like ham lunchmeat. It was very moist and unlike any turkey I have ever eaten. Ok, I admit to not being very fond of turkey, so my experiences with it have been a bit limited. I am assuming it was brined. Given the limited amount of time we will have (about a day and a half) to cook, I am planning on just cooking the breast. Other than that, I am open to suggestions. The internet has been least informative on the topic of turkey. People's videos and such just show rubbing the whole bird and letting it roast for a few hours. Any tips at all would be appreciated.
       
      Whew! Thanks for reading all of this, I look forward to any advice you can give.
    • By flippant
      I've had the CSO for a number of years now, but have yet to actually bake bread in it.
       
      Reading through the Modernist Bread thread on this forum I see many of you are using the CSO to great effect, which is heartening.
       
      To that end, I would like to know about your experience baking bread in it – what sort of extra equipment you use (pans, cast iron? etc), what breads work the best, any corrections you find yourself making, or anything you feel might be useful to someone else using the CSO.
       
      Thank you!
       
       
    • By Rho
       
      The space race trickled into kitchens in the 60s and 70s, including one curious tool that's faded away in the years since: the thermal pin, a heat pipe skewer that can halve cooking times for roasts:

       
      Heat pipes are thermal superconductors, transferring heat 500-1000 times more effectively than solid copper (some people in the sous vide thread have discussed copper pins). They're hollow tubes with the air evacuated and a small amount of working fluid, often water. The usable temperature range is limited by the triple point and the critical point, with additional constraints near the edges. Water is effective from 20C-280C /70F-530F, which comfortably spans most cooking temperatures.
       
      Modernist Bread has an excellent section on how bread bakes, including a diagram of the internal heat pipes that develop, summarized here. (click for a good photo!)
       
      Sous-vide solves the overcooking side of the gradient problem, but it's still limited by total heat diffusion time-- doubling the size of a cut quadruples the time needed for the center to reach temperature. Heat pipe pins should make larger cuts practical, or normal cuts cook faster. Here's a graph from "The heat pipe and its potential for enhancing the cooking and cooling of meat joints", showing average temperatures over time for 1kg joints of meat convection baked at 190C/375F for 110 minutes (foil removed for the last 30 minutes):

       
      Thermal pins were sold commercially from 1956 to about 1990. They're listed occasionally for about $20 on ebay. They even made potato baking racks with heat pipes-- though now you can easily par-cook a potato in the microwave and finish it in the oven.
       
      I don't know why production of thermal pins stopped, or what fundamental problems limited their usage. It seems like pans and commercial griddles would be improved by adding heat pipes to spread heat throughout and avoid hot or cold spots. Perhaps roasts fell out of favor as the culture of entertaining shifted away from monolithic centerpieces to smaller, more precisely cooked portions.
    • By philie
      Hey there, i hope to find some help in the wise hands of yours. after some research i am still having some problems concerning glazing:
       
      For a party i would like to make some cubes and rounded savoury cakes and foams out of silicone forms that have a ready bottom and a colour glazing. 
      Somehow i just do not manage to find a steady glazing ( one that does not run ) and is for texture reasons preferably hard or crisp that does not include sugar or syrup.
       
      can you help me or lead my way in a certain direction?
       
      thanks very much!
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×