The Wine Clip

[tommy]

wineclip, that was your best. post. ever.

the discount and charitable contributions are very thoughtful.

so is the price the listed 49.95 less 30 then?

Edited October 13, 2003 by tommy (log)

[John W.]

Good luck Dennis.

What an admirable departure.

[hollywood]

Why would you compare TWC and our marketing material to a product / company that used a government agency's tests in a misleading manner?

Uh, deja vu all over again. Didn't you say...

"Although we tested it in a lab with people who have PHd's it was not in the way certain eG members (not you) suggest we should have."

I fail to see how you can determine my quote as combative? It wasn't meant to be. I just don't understand the comparison.

Deja vu, Dennis, not kung fu.

[gsquared]

Your welcome.  Hurts to hear you'd return it.

Only because I thought you sent it to us for testing - If I am not going to do serious testing, I thought that I should return it.

Edited October 13, 2003 by gsquared (log)

[sammy]

Before I take advantage of the discounted purchase price for the wine clip, I'd just like to better understand why the majority of posters in this thread are not willing to accept (or even consider with an open mind) the idea that the wine clip does what Mr Wine Clip and others say it does. Even after our own Mark Sommelier reported his results with experienced wine tasters. What is most bothersome to me, is that many eGullet members consistently make claims about products and the masses take it at face value and run out to buy them without the same amount of scrutiny.

As an example in the wine forum:

"For the price of one bottle of okay California Cabernet Sauvignon you can get glasses that will make all your wine more enjoyable. " Fat-Guy April 23, 2003

Nobody questioned the statement and several logged on to Amazon as quickly as they good to buy the glasses before the promotion ended. I am just as skeptical as the next guy when it comes to claims about products but I for one am disappointed with the reception we have given Dennis.

[mamster]

Yeah, you can't get more admirable than donating snake oil proceeds to charity.

twc, in case you are still reading, people who believe they have developed a working treatment are delighted by the prospect of scientific trials of the product, because it's an opportunity to prove to the world that the product works. It's just like taking an exam: students who know their stuff don't fear the exam, because they can strut their stuff.

The Wine Clip is patent medicine. It's N-rays. Anyone remember coloring the edge of their CDs with a green marker? Supposedly it made them sound better. Many people convinced themselves this was true. It wasn't, and nobody does it any more.

So, again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the wine clip really works. There is exactly one way to prove to the world that it does: a double-blind scientific test like the one slkinsey described. And there is exactly one reason not to submit the wine clip to such a test: because you know in your heart that it will fail.

Folks, don't be chumps. Don't buy an untested product for $50, $20, or $5, no matter who gets the profits. You're just encouraging people like twc to flood the market with more pseudoscientific crap.

[hollywood]

Yeah, you can't get more admirable than donating snake oil proceeds to charity.

Mr. Bayless meet Mr. Wine Clip. Mr. Wine Clip, Mr. Bayless.

[sammy]

Folks, don't be chumps. Don't buy an untested product for $50, $20, or $5, no matter who gets the profits. You're just encouraging people like twc to flood the market with more pseudoscientific crap.

What kinds of products are you suggesting people use your proposed buying protocol?

[mamster]

"For the price of one bottle of okay California Cabernet Sauvignon you can get glasses that will make all your wine more enjoyable. "  Fat-Guy  April 23, 2003

Nobody questioned the statement and several logged on to Amazon as quickly as they good to buy the glasses before the promotion ended. I am just as skeptical as the next guy when it comes to claims about products but I for one am disappointed with the reception we have given Dennis.

I'm one of those people who went right over to Amazon and bought the glasses. My existing wine glasses were from IKEA. They were too small and they didn't feel nice in my hand. When I bought the Spiegelau glasses I did so under the impression that they would enable me to drink wine out of them and look nice. It was easy to judge that they succeeded, and if they hadn't, I would have returned them (they are a pain in the ass to clean, though). I'm certainly skeptical of the idea that Riedel glasses and their competitors are perfectly tuned to specific types of wine, but that's not why I bought the Spiegelaus--I just needed some nicer stemware.

In the case of the wine clip, there is a good chance that the product does absolutely nothing. Say you went to Amazon and they had a deal that said: for $50, we'll either send you some stemware or a box of powdered glass. Probably it's the stemware, but who knows? We're not willing to invest in a test to make sure you're getting the stemware. Hey, that's worth $50, right? It'll probably enhance your wine drinking experience.

[mamster]

What kinds of products are you suggesting people use your proposed buying protocol?

Drugs, especially, but any product making novel scientific claims.

[ronnie_suburban]

Let me just lay out how things will unfold from here on in:

some people will say it changes the wine; some sceptics will ask for clarification of how the test was conducted, and then conclude that it was meaningless. A flame war will then follow for about 2 days. Then some people will do a better test (proper double blind ABX style test)  which will not show an effect. The sceptics will conclude that it is all snake oil, but many people will think that there must really be something behind it all.

So far, you're right on schedule.

=R=

[Mayhaw Man]

Thought some of you might find these rating sites for some of the other products mentioned in this thread:

You rate it .com

Many types of "snake oil" are reviewed here. I will say that P.T. Barnum seems to have been right.

[slkinsey]

Before I take advantage of the discounted purchase price for the wine clip, I'd just like to better understand why the majority of posters in this thread are not willing to accept (or even consider with an open mind) the idea that the wine clip does what Mr Wine Clip and others say it does. Even after our own Mark Sommelier reported his results with experienced wine tasters. What is most bothersome to me, is that many eGullet members consistently make claims about products and the masses take it at face value and run out to buy them without the same amount of scrutiny.

As an example in the wine forum:

"For the price of one bottle of okay California Cabernet Sauvignon you can get glasses that will make all your wine more enjoyable. "  Fat-Guy  April 23, 2003

Nobody questioned the statement and several logged on to Amazon as quickly as they good to buy the glasses before the promotion ended. I am just as skeptical as the next guy when it comes to claims about products but I for one am disappointed with the reception we have given Dennis.

Several things here:

1. Fat Guy did not say that the glasses would make your wine taste better, only that they would "make all your wine more enjoyable." This is clearly a judgment call, and presumably a reasonably intelligent person who understands that he/she does not care at all about glassware will know that FG's recommendation does not apply.

2. Fat Guy's personal recommendation was just that: a personal recommendation from someone whose judgment we know and trust. In this way, it is similar to a trusted restaurant critic saying, "you can't go wrong with the fish." Fat Guy was not trying to make money by selling us glassware. Mr. Clip, on the other hand, is trying to make money and is not someone whose judgment we know and trust.

3. It is well known and understood that glassware (shape, etc.) can effect one's sensory perceptions of the beverage consumed from same. Suggesting that certain glassware can have a positive effect on the experience of drinking wine goes right in line with currently accepted science, not against it. Suggesting that a ring of magnets around the neck of a wine bottle "break up the tannins" and that the magnetic field produced by those magnets "changes the molecular structure" of the wine does.

4. I think many of us are not willing to accept the idea that the Wine Clip does what Mr. Clip says it does because a) the idea that it works the way he says it works goes against the scientific knowledge and experience many of us have; and b) he really hasn't demonstrated that it does do what he says it does. I don't think anyone on these threads has suggested that wine served using a Wine Clip in certain circumstances can produce wine that is perceived as having certain improvements. What many of us are questioning is whether or not the perceived difference is a real difference, and if so, whether or not it is due to the Wine Clip, and specifically due to the wine passing through the magnetic field, or due to other factors not inextricably linked to use of a Wine Clip.

I'm sorry to hear that you are not happy with the response that Mr. Clip received here, but extraordinary claims are generally met with skepticism and there is a commensurate burden on the maker of extraordinary claims to support those claims with sound evidence. Instead Mr. Clip replied with many of the same techniques and arguments as well as the personal style of most sellers of snake oil. This proved risible to many of us who have knowledge, education and experience apparently not shared by Mr. Clip that pokes holes in most of his arguments and evidence. Sp, I'm not sure how, exactly, you think we should respond to him. Many of us have strongly challenged some of his assertions, and a few have been a little sarcastic, but I haven't seen anything that struck me as inappropriate or outside the boundary of behaviors exhibited by Mr. Clip himself. Try going back through these threads replacing "Wine Clip" with "Crystal Pyramid" and ask yourself how you would respond then.

[sammy]

Before I take advantage of the discounted purchase price for the wine clip, I'd just like to better understand why the majority of posters in this thread are not willing to accept (or even consider with an open mind) the idea that the wine clip does what Mr Wine Clip and others say it does. Even after our own Mark Sommelier reported his results with experienced wine tasters. What is most bothersome to me, is that many eGullet members consistently make claims about products and the masses take it at face value and run out to buy them without the same amount of scrutiny.

As an example in the wine forum:

"For the price of one bottle of okay California Cabernet Sauvignon you can get glasses that will make all your wine more enjoyable. "  Fat-Guy  April 23, 2003

Nobody questioned the statement and several logged on to Amazon as quickly as they good to buy the glasses before the promotion ended. I am just as skeptical as the next guy when it comes to claims about products but I for one am disappointed with the reception we have given Dennis.

Several things here:

1. Fat Guy did not say that the glasses would make your wine taste better, only that they would "make all your wine more enjoyable." This is clearly a judgment call, and presumably a reasonably intelligent person who understands that he/she does not care at all about glassware will know that FG's recommendation does not apply.

2. Fat Guy's personal recommendation was just that: a personal recommendation from someone whose judgment we know and trust. In this way, it is similar to a trusted restaurant critic saying, "you can't go wrong with the fish." Fat Guy was not trying to make money by selling us glassware. Mr. Clip, on the other hand, is trying to make money and is not someone whose judgment we know and trust.

3. It is well known and understood that glassware (shape, etc.) can effect one's sensory perceptions of the beverage consumed from same. Suggesting that certain glassware can have a positive effect on the experience of drinking wine goes right in line with currently accepted science, not against it. Suggesting that a ring of magnets around the neck of a wine bottle "break up the tannins" and that the magnetic field produced by those magnets "changes the molecular structure" of the wine does.

4. I think many of us are not willing to accept the idea that the Wine Clip does what Mr. Clip says it does because a) the idea that it works the way he says it works goes against the scientific knowledge and experience many of us have; and b) he really hasn't demonstrated that it does do what he says it does. I don't think anyone on these threads has suggested that wine served using a Wine Clip in certain circumstances can produce wine that is perceived as having certain improvements. What many of us are questioning is whether or not the perceived difference is a real difference, and if so, whether or not it is due to the Wine Clip, and specifically due to the wine passing through the magnetic field, or due to other factors not inextricably linked to use of a Wine Clip.

I'm sorry to hear that you are not happy with the response that Mr. Clip received here, but extraordinary claims are generally met with skepticism and there is a commensurate burden on the maker of extraordinary claims to support those claims with sound evidence. Instead Mr. Clip replied with many of the same techniques and arguments as well as the personal style of most sellers of snake oil. This proved risible to many of us who have knowledge, education and experience apparently not shared by Mr. Clip that pokes holes in most of his arguments and evidence. Sp, I'm not sure how, exactly, you think we should respond to him. Many of us have strongly challenged some of his assertions, and a few have been a little sarcastic, but I haven't seen anything that struck me as inappropriate or outside the boundary of behaviors exhibited by Mr. Clip himself. Try going back through these threads replacing "Wine Clip" with "Crystal Pyramid" and ask yourself how you would respond then.

1. Why are you saying it is a judgement call? He said "...that will make all your wine more enjoyable."

Sounds like a fact to me. And how many other ways will the wine be more enjoyable besides tasting better?

2. My understanding was that eGullet received a commission from Amazon so therefore he would have a financial interest.

3. It is well known and understood by who? Where are the studies proving this? How do we know that Spieglau and Riedel are not selling snake-oil?

4. Without having to go too far back in the thread, I think the following quotes from an eGullet Coordinator would "strike me as inappropriate."

"Yeah, you can't get more admirable than donating snake oil proceeds to charity."

"The Wine Clip is patent medicine. "

"Folks, don't be chumps. Don't buy an untested product for $50, $20, or $5, no matter who gets the profits. You're just encouraging people like twc to flood the market with more pseudoscientific crap. "

[Craig Camp]

Try going back through these threads replacing "Wine Clip" with "Crystal Pyramid" and ask yourself how you would respond then.

Are you trying to tell me my crystal pyramid decanter does not work? Do you know how much I paid for that? Why I otta...

[Lady T]

Otta what, Mr. Camp? It'd make a dandy coffee-table conversation piece, no?

After reading these threads, I will surely save my dinero and buy better wines. Which is pretty much what I intended to do back on Page 1 of the earlier thread, but I have to say it's been fun watching the SSBs deflate the snake-oil salesman.

[Alex]

What happened to Alex's tests?

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.

Edited October 13, 2003 by Alex (log)

[mamster]

Sammy, I stand by all my provocative comments. The point slkinsey and I (he better than I) are trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to bring the same amount of skepticism to every claim. Wine is not magnetic. There is no reason a magnetic cuff should affect wine. It's not impossible, but a reasonable person should ask for real scientific evidence that it works before dropping $50 or $20 on it.

If you don't see how this is different from Lobel's trumpeting their new pork or Fat Guy recommending a brand of wineglasses, then I guess we're stuck. But maybe part of the confusion is that it would seem like evaluating the wine clip is the same as evaluating the pork: if you use it and like it, great.

But it's harder to evaluate the wine clip than the pork or the wineglasses, even (especially) if you're experienced with wine. The placebo effect is a very real thing, and there are scads of products out there that rely on it. Most of them are drugs or other treatments for disease: magnetic bracelets, herbal medicines, stereo equipment enhancers, and so on. Now, it would be an exaggeration to say that none of these things work. Maybe some of them do. But in the absence of scientific evaluation, it is impossible to say whether they do or not--or, for that matter, whether they are dangerous.

People who use such products are not stupid--they're ordinary. But they're being preyed upon by charlatans (often the charlatans have convinced themselves that the product works, which makes them better salespeople). In the case of the wine clip, it's obviously not dangerous, and the worst that could happen is you're out $50 and your wine doesn't taste any better or worse than it did before. Big deal, you might say, and I agree. But thewineclip is another in a long line of hucksters who don't want to know whether their product really works. It's an immoral tradition. I say give 'em hell.

[slkinsey]

1. Why are you saying it is a judgement call? He said "...that will make all your wine more enjoyable."

Sounds like a fact to me. And how many other ways will the wine be more enjoyable besides tasting better?

There are many ways that one's wine drinking experience may be made more enjoyable other than making the wine taste better. Just one reason, and certainly not the only benefit of good glassware, is enjoying the fact that you are using good glassware. This is similar to the enjoyment one gets from eating food with sterling silver off of fine china.

Note what else I said above: "presumably a reasonably intelligent person who understands that he/she does not care at all about glassware will know that FG's recommendation does not apply." I would like to think that we are reasonably intelligent and capable of understanting that different people will prefer different glassware.

Note also that I mentioned to Mr. Clip that no one here is arguing the Wine Clip can't enhance one's wine drinking experience. Indeed, if dropping eighty bucks in a fancy magnet makes someone happy while they're drinking wine, it's money well spent!

2. My understanding was that eGullet received a commission from Amazon so therefore he would have a financial interest.

I think the infinitesimally small commission eGullet makes from Amazon purchases hardly qualifies as an ulterior motive. Furthermore, one is always able to purchase goods from Amason without giving the kickback to eGullet. To suggest that Fat Guy's position vis a vis a glassware purchase from Amazon is remotely comparable to Mr. Clip's position vis a vis purchases of the Wine Clip is unkind to say the least, and a broad misrepresentation of the actual situation. It bears mentioning, however, that eGullet runs at a significant loss and that the measly Amazon earnings are a drop in that huge bucket rather than Fat Guy's pockets.

3. It is well known and understood by who? Where are the studies proving this? How do we know that Spieglau and Riedel are not selling snake-oil?

Sammy, I'm sorry but I am not going to dig up a bunch of studies on the Internet for you. Suffice it to say that it has been widely understood for a long time, based on sound science, that the shape and character of glassware can effect the perceived qualities of the beverage that is consumed from same. This is not suibject to debate. Now... if Reidel were saying that "our new Syrah glass makes your cheap stuff taste like it cost nine times more!" you might have a legitimate snake-oil claim. Unfortunately for your argument, they don't. They might say that they have designed glassware specifically to highlight the qualities of Syrah and enhance the enjoyment of drinking Syrah, but this is not the same thing. Again, a reasonably intelligent person understands that the qualities Riedel looks for in a glass for Syrah might not be the same as his/hers. But the point here is that the glassware will affect the person's perception of the Syrah. It is up to each person to decide whether or not they agree with the qualities offered by Riedel's Syrah glass. The Wine Clip, on the other hand, is competely unproven. There is no evidence to support their assertions that it does what they claim it does via the mechanism they claim.

4. Without having to go too far back in the thread, I think the following quotes from an eGullet Coordinator would "strike me as inappropriate."

"Yeah, you can't get more admirable than donating snake oil proceeds to charity."

"The Wine Clip is patent medicine. "

"Folks, don't be chumps. Don't buy an untested product for $50, $20, or $5, no matter who gets the profits. You're just encouraging people like twc to flood the market with more pseudoscientific crap. "

Whether or not you find certain comments inappropriate because they come from a coordinator, a moderator, a contributor or a member is entirely irrelevant. We are all coordinators, moderators, etc. and participants. The only place where Fat Guy threw around any "eGullet weight" was telling Mr. Clip that he couldn't use any material from eGullet threads in promotional materials for his product. If I may say so, offering someone's organizational position here as a point against their argument is an unworthy line of reasoning to say the least.

[LindaJ]

Mr. Clip asked:

I do have another serious question for the experts: What is the prerequisite for becoming a Master of Wine?

masters-of-wine.org

[sammy]

Forget it.

Edited October 13, 2003 by sammy (log)

[DonRocks]

I was one of Mark's test subjects. Without commenting on whether this thing "improves" the wine, there is no question in my mind that it changed the way the red Burgundy showed. I took one whiff of each glass of red Burgundy, and knew which one was, in theory, "clipped." Tasting the Burgundy confirmed what was on the nose, and before Mark told me which was which, I went so far as to ask him, "are you sure this is the same wine?" It was not that subtle, and I predict there will soon be enough anecdotal evidence that these tasting results are confirmed, if not proven.

The Bordeaux test was more subtle, mainly because it had a more tannic finish, and going from glass-to-glass quickly resulted in the finish of one wine leading into the next. The effect of this thing was much less noticeable with the Bordeaux.

If anyone has any specific questions, by all means ask and I will try to respond as objectively as I can.

----

I should add that I wouldn't ever buy this thing, but that's another thread, another topic. Aside from that, I do think that it clearly had an effect on the Burgundy, making it seem less vibrantly fruity, more supple, and rounder on the palate.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Mark Sommelier]

Whew! 21 hours later, there are 127 responses and a raging flame war. Who knew? Please, let me reiterate for everyone's benefit ( including Mssrs. Kinsey and Amster-Burton), I was asked to test the Clip. I agreed. I was as skeptical as anyone else is or was . Everyone who I invited to test the Clip was extremely skeptical to the point of thinking I was nuts. The first test was done straightforwardly with everyone watching to see if there was something to this and it was not a waste of time. After that test, I decided that, yes, there was something to this. THE THING REALLY DID AFFECT THE WINE. THERE WAS A PATENTLY OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE. I have 10 witnesses. In the test with 3 glasses, it was obvious. In all the other tests, it was obvious. I stated, and will state again: the clipped wines were mellower at the outset. Period. Everyone agreed. Whether there was a double blind ABX testing or not, I do not own a laboratory. I am hoping someone else has the time and resources to try the vaunted double blind ABX test. I tested the product in one of the situations it was intended for, a restaurant. I even went so far as to try a test on some customers at table. They saw the difference, too. Average Joe consumer is going to pour 2 glasses and see the same effect. I also stated that some of the claims like "makes wine taste like it has been aged for years" were not true. The effect became less obvious after 15 or 20 minutes, which means to me that you can buy the Clip if you are impatient, or you can wait 20 minutes for the wine to open up. For 20 bucks, you should all take advantage of Mr. Lynch's grand gesture and see for yourself.

[Mark Sommelier]

I was one of Mark's test subjects.  Without commenting on whether this thing "improves" the wine, there is no question in my mind that it changed the way the red Burgundy showed.  I took one whiff of each glass of red Burgundy, and knew which one was, in theory, "clipped."  Tasting the Burgundy confirmed what was on the nose, and before Mark told me which was which, I went so far as to ask him, "are you sure this is the same wine?"  It was not that subtle, and I predict there will soon be enough anecdotal evidence that these tasting results are confirmed, if not proven.

The Bordeaux test was more subtle, mainly because it had a more tannic finish, and going from glass-to-glass quickly resulted in the finish of one wine leading into the next.  The effect of this thing was much less noticeable with the Bordeaux.

If anyone has any specific questions, by all means ask and I will try to respond as objectively as I can. 

----

I should add that I wouldn't ever buy this thing, but that's another thread, another topic.  Aside from that, I do think that it clearly had an effect on the Burgundy, making it seem less vibrantly fruity, more supple, and rounder on the palate.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Rocks,

Maybe Mr. Lynch should call it The Pinot Noir Clip and advertise it on Burghound.com.

It is true, the pinot noir exhibited the most extreme differences.

[slkinsey]

Mark, no one is questioning your perceptions or your expertise. And, as I said before, it is a very interesting result. Indeed, I don't necessarily question that the different glasses of wine did, indeed, taste distinctly different.

That said, what some of us are saying -- those of us who understand perceptual psychology and/or good experimental design -- is that your anectodal results, persuasive as they may be to you, do not really prove anything because there are too many other uncontrolled variables that could have influenced the results. These variables could influence your perceptions, they could influence the actual characteristics of the wine... or both. This is why carefully controlled, blind ABX trials are so valuable. I know you have a lot of confidence in your abilities and perceptions, and I share that confidence. One of the hardest things to explain to people who don't understand experimental psychology is that all the expertise and experience in the world doesn't really matter in this kind of setting.

That said, I am sure I speak for everyone interested in this thread when I thank you for your careful efforts -- which I do think are very interesting and make me feel that the Wine Clip may be worthwhile spending the time and energy to do a blind ABX experiment.