The Wine Clip

[docsconz]

I disagree, Sam. The above methodology would not even pass muster as a preliminary study designed to determine whether further study would be necessary or meaningful. Even preliminary studies need to be scientific in order for their results to be worth considering.

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.

[John W.]

unless i missed something, "better" in this case means "less tannic".  is less tannic always "better"?  does the clip do anything that a big fatty steak won't do?

OK, I can't stay away any longer.

I think I'd rather have the big fatty steak.

Hearing Mark's recital of the story last eve (over unclipped cocktails), I'd be interested in checking it out because he did say there was a difference, however slight. But is $80 worth the pleasure of simply not pulling the cork 30 minutes earlier? Dunno.

Mr Clip;

Ever think about mini-concentrateurs? Might be on to something there.

[Suzanne F]

And regarding Mark's results: is "subdued bouquet" to be counted as a positive or a negative? To me, subdued bouquet is a negative. But, hey, I'm just a girl who likes bitter tastes.

[Fat Guy]

unless i missed something, "better" in this case means "less tannic".  is less tannic always "better"?  does the clip do anything that a big fatty steak won't do?

If you want your wine to be less tannic, all you have to do is buy cheaper wine.

However, we are still not in possession of an entry level of proof that the wine clip does anything because we have not seen any double-blind tests done with placebos, control groups, and controlled sample. These -- plus proper data analysis -- are the basic requirements of testing. Anything else is so speculative as to be of little scientific interest. And that's not a knock against the expertness of any palates here. Those with really good palates, I have found, are the first to admit that it's easy to be fooled and that double-blind methodology is the way to go.

Some interesting background reading: "Great Expectations," by our own JJ Goode, published in The Daily Gullet. Psychology students were given the exact same cheese on multiple occasions, but were told different things about it, and they thought they discerned differences. JJ is also frank about the shortcomings of the study, but at least he used ANOVA and basic scientific techniques to get where he got.

Again, I hope those who are conducting these experiments will consult with our various on-site scientists to design better tests. Currently, the tests being conducted aren't advancing the discussion in a scientifically meaningful way.

[Mark Sommelier]

I disagree, Sam. The above methodology would not even pass muster as a preliminary study designed to determine whether further study would be necessary or meaningful. Even preliminary studies need to be scientific in order for their results to be worth considering.

Dear FG,

I am neither a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. I conducted the first test that I described to see if there indeed was an effect on the wine or if this was a waste of my time. I decided that it wasn't a waste of time. The results surprised everyone, including me. Every person who participated was skeptical. After the testing we had a discussion about whether the "effects" of the Wine Clip were psychological. We decided that they weren't.

Edited October 13, 2003 by Mark Sommelier (log)

[Mark Sommelier]

unless i missed something, "better" in this case means "less tannic".  is less tannic always "better"?  does the clip do anything that a big fatty steak won't do?

Or a piece of cheese.

[docsconz]

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.

[Fat Guy]

Mark, am I reading your experiment correctly: is it correct to say that in every instance you first poured unclipped and then poured clipped from the same bottle? If so, I'd be interested to see you try the exact same experiment without the clip. In other words, pour eight pours from a bottle. Have people taste the first four pours against the second four pours. It seems likely that the later pours receive more agitation and oxygen than the initial pours. Certainly we all know that the first pour out of a bottle tends to be the worst.

[tommy]

if the differences people are detecting are actually due to pouring/aeration/etc (and i don't doubt they are), are they really differences at all? i mean, haven't we all noticed these differences before, and therefore wouldn't these testers have realized that the difference is just like the difference they've been tasting all along?

i'll try english next time.

Edited October 13, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

Short of that I'm not sure I'm willing to invest the cash necessary to perform such a test.

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.

[Fat Guy]

It would also be necessary, I think, to test all the in-glass samples with a RayTek MiniTemp or equivalent product, so as to ascertain uniform temperature. Also not expensive, and I'd hate to think this all boiled down to some pours being one degree warmer or cooler than others.

[docsconz]

Short of that I'm not sure I'm willing to invest the cash necessary to perform such a test.

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.

[Fat Guy]

What we really need is a user who is already in an academic setting where time is easily allocated for something like this and volunteers are a dime a dozen. Unfortunately JJ Goode has just graduated and is now living in the real world, otherwise we could have had him trick a professor into letting him do this for credit.

[Mark Sommelier]

Mark, am I reading your experiment correctly: is it correct to say that in every instance you first poured unclipped and then poured clipped from the same bottle? If so, I'd be interested to see you try the exact same experiment without the clip. In other words, pour eight pours from a bottle. Have people taste the first four pours against the second four pours. It seems likely that the later pours receive more agitation and oxygen than the initial pours. Certainly we all know that the first pour out of a bottle tends to be the worst.

FG,

I understand your concern. I did not use different bottles for the clipped and un-clipped pours for obvious reasons: bottle variation. I have poured one or two bottles of wine in my career - once the cork was pulled, I poured the un-clipped glasses without tipping the bottle unduly, then applied the clip and continued pouring. Agitation was at the minimum. Aeration was less than 30 seconds. A noticable difference was observed in all my tests. It is interesting that docsconz finds the opposite. The first pour of all the wines went into my glass.

[Alex]

Further observations and conclusions:

1) In all cases a difference was noticed between wines poured straight from the bottle and wines poured using The Wine Clip.

2) In most of the cases the clipped wine was thought to be better tasting.

3) In all of the cases it was observed that 15 minutes after the test had been conducted, the differences in the two wines were almost imperceptible.

Personally, I found it interesting that different kinds of wine reacted diffferently, with pinot noir the most extreme example. Only red wines were used in these tests. I intend to experiment with white wines in the near future. I demonstrated The Wine Clip with some customers one of the evenings. They were amazed at the results, too. I hope that these observations are helpful to those interested in purchacing this product. It does most of what the literature that comes with it says: it makes wine taste as if it has been breathing for 30 minutes. It does not make wine taste as if it has been aged for many years as purported.

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...

[Alex]

What we really need is a user who is already in an academic setting where time is easily allocated for something like this and volunteers are a dime a dozen. Unfortunately JJ Goode has just graduated and is now living in the real world, otherwise we could have had him trick a professor into letting him do this for credit.

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.

[Fat Guy]

I totally agree. But in the absence of any truth-seeking seriousness on the manufacturer's part, we can still pursue these avenues of research. We don't have much of a budget, but we have a mission to raise the level of food-and-drink discussion in the world and we have tremendous resources in the intellects of our members. That our forums and good will are being shamelessly exploited by someone who increasingly reveals his fundamental hucksterism as we peel away the layers of bullshit and sanctimony shouldn't stop us from trying to get to the bottom of things ourselves. Nobody here has a stake in the outcome. If basic science indicates that the wine clip does something, so be it. We should publish those results and send them on to a larger organization that may wish to pursue the research to its full logical extent. If a well-designed preliminary study indicates that the wine clip is bogus, we should publish those results as well. At this point, however, we have no science even to look at.

In an intellectually pure world, we would take all claims neutrally and test them rigorously. But in the real world, with so many bogus claims being circulated all the time, it is simply not possible to give full consideration to every quackish paranormal claim, and therefore we develop filtering mechanisms in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. This wine clip device is so clearly allocable, as a preliminary matter, to the chaff category that any scientifically minded person simply must remain strongly skeptical until such time as truly rigorous study is brought into play. It's essentially a paranormal claim along the lines of mystical medical quackery, so the threshold for even taking it seriously needs to be set extremely high as a matter of intellectual gatekeeping.

Let's refamiliarize ourselves with the scientific method, because it's among the most important developments in the history of of the world and it's what allows computers, medicine, and all manner of engineering to exist. The basics of the scientific method can be found all over; all you have to do is pick up a basic science text -- as in grade-school level -- or do a quick online search.

What is the ``scientific method''?

  The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Note...000000000000000

Also, same source:

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable.

[thewineclip]

In the original post from Sept. 5th a simple question was asked, "is the wine clip a gimmick and nonsense?"...

From there an eG posting party started. As an honest and reputable businessman, I offered my product for free -- I even sent a clip to South Africa (not exactly a cheap event). Still, there were eG'ers that felt good about belittling my efforts. Their comments suggested that my free samples would greatly improve business and that my costs equaled nothing more than a few dollars. Not exactly the behavior I'd expect from wine experts.

It was Craig's suggestion that the taste tests be conducted by a panel of eG members/experts that he selected. There were no objections to the names he posted. I sent the clips to those people and to others who had asked for a FREE clip that day.

Then there were the eG'ers who suggested that the people buying my product are losers. Furthermore, another person said that I'm making a career out of "tricking people" into buying The Wine Clip. I've been called a crackpot and so on and so on.

Then the eG tastings were conducted and one man posted what I considered to be a credit to the claim we make on our box. In addition, it answered the original question in post #1. And as I expected and predicted would happen, his results are being discredited by Fat Boy and others. You just can't wine on eG!

In ending, I am not a seller of snake oil. I will not trick my customers. Yes, we do offer a money back guarantee in tandem with a lifetime warranty. Yes, we will continue to sell The Wine Clip and the price will eventually be $79.

I should also add that I posted testimonials from wine experts and their findings when testing the Wine Cellar Express. Why didn't I get any negative comments then? Was Fat Boy afraid to challenge people like Ewing-Mulligan? I wonder?Don't like TWC? Fine. But it generated the most active thread in eG history. So, you’re welcome for the free clips and your double welcome for the traffic.

For those of you who conducted the tests, I thank you for taking the time. And if you feel as if your posts have been fair, my slams are not pointed at you.

I ask that those who were sent a clip either keep it or send it back to me. But I ask that you do not ship it to others who may ask for it.

Edited October 13, 2003 by thewineclip (log)

[Fat Guy]

Your self-serving and inaccurate summary of the unfolding of these threads further discredits you. The posts are all here for all to read; your attempt to spin the history can't work because it's all there in black and white.

The most active thread in eGullet history? Hardly. But then again you're not really familiar with our site -- you're just looking for free advertising. We wouldn't expect you to actually learn anything about eGullet before lecturing us on our Web statistics.

Until such time as you fund some real independent scientific studies, you will continue to speak with zero credibility. You will continue to be no better than a snake-oil salesman. You will continue to find yourself ridden out of town on a rail by those who care about truth. You may be able to pull off this act elsewhere, but not here.

[thewineclip]

Your self-serving and inaccurate summary of the unfolding of these threads further discredits you. The posts are all here for all to read; your attempt to spin the history can't work because it's all there in black and white.

Yes, they are. And I am hard pressed to find it where you think I spin? Enlighten me.

[gsquared]

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

I think, FG, that you miss the point. It is not illusory to me, but only objectively illusory. I am an the side of the sceptics, but in the case of a harmless illusion, I have no problem if someone happily forks over money for something which he firmly believes enhances his wine drinking experience. It is the very fact that of that belief that makes it irrelevant to that user whether, scientifically speaking, it works. Does this apply to all "paranormal" claims like coral calcium? No, not when the sell is based on exploiting an illusion of curing ills - it is no longer harmless. Below that level, I am inclined to stand back and smile at the foibles of the gullible, rather than wave my arms at its scientific inaccuracy.

[thewineclip]

The most active thread in eGullet history? Hardly. But then again you're not really familiar with our site -- you're just looking for free advertising. We wouldn't expect you to actually learn anything about eGullet before lecturing us on our Web statistics.

Until such time as you fund some real independent scientific studies, you will continue to speak with zero credibility. You will continue to be no better than a snake-oil salesman. You will continue to find yourself ridden out of town on a rail by those who care about truth. You may be able to pull off this act elsewhere, but not here.

Well then let me ask you this. If I go to the bottom of the topics page I can place a querry which can provide me with the most replies on a given topic from the beginning of time. In the wine category I see The Wine Clip as number one. Is your site not working?

Edited October 13, 2003 by thewineclip (log)

[Fat Guy]

I am inclined to stand back and smile at the foibles of the gullible, rather than wave my arms at its scientific inaccuracy.

Oh I understand the point. And I have no concern whatsoever with most of the stupidity in the world. I appreciate the position that a placebo can be harmless and can even "work." But G, we have this claim in our midst and those of us who -- like you -- make eGullet what is have, I think, an obligation to be truth-seekers in this regard. Of course you don't have to agree with me.

[Fat Guy]

Currently, the Dinner topic has 4,459 replies. Keep trying, though.

All anybody needs to know about your disingenuous approach to salesmanship and truth can be found in your Oct 12 2003, 12:20 PM statement that "I don't have all the answers and quite frankly I won't be looking for them either." Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it among intelligent, educated, literate people.

You're not going to fight your way out of this paper bag, and at this point you're wasting everybody's time. I have clearly articulated the only conditions under which you could possibly begin to restore your long-ago abandoned credibility. Until then, I have no more of my time to waste on your repetitive nonsense. This will be my final post on this subject.

[thewineclip]

Until such time as you fund some real independent scientific studies, you will continue to speak with zero credibility. You will continue to be no better than a snake-oil salesman. You will continue to find yourself ridden out of town on a rail by those who care about truth. You may be able to pull off this act elsewhere, but not here.

Come on -- Who breaks the eG user agreement with the words you can't say on TV, you or me?

Edited October 13, 2003 by thewineclip (log)