Age beer in seconds

The Japanese have invented a machine that gives wine years of aging in only a few seconds, I wonder if that can be done with beer, because it's so hard to age those Belgians!

http://www.avenuevine.com/archives/000691.html

I'd seen that before, but my original thought was...even if it can produce a similar effect the market may never come around simply because of tradition. Personally, I'd really wonder about it because time has a gentle way of aging that science would be hard pressed to truly duplicate.

I would imagine they have isolated certain aspects of that occur in the aging process and replicated that effect. Trouble is, there are probably unmeasureable (or at least possibly we don't know what to look for) quantities of things (not sure what ) that change in the aging process. My guess is that although the results would be close, a wine aged by machine and a wine aged by time with exhibit different characteristics. That is my quasi-scientific take on it anyway .

Philisophically, there is something about waiting. Assuming there was a way to spot age beer, then pulling out two beers, one aged carefully over 6 months and one that just came out of the fermentor and passed through a machine....I know which one I'd have more of an attachment to. Age, like taste, smell, etc, is quantifiable and therefore a property the beer inherits so to speak. Take that away and the end product is cheapened imho.

Interesting topic though

Interesting article.

In reminds me of a Wall St. Journal Op Ed piece I read a year or so ago. About a British fellow that smuggled some american wine into france for a wine tasting. The French "connoisseurs" judged the amercian wines to be superior to their french counterparts and were incensed when they found out they had judged american wines better. Some of them even tried to change their votes after the fact.

Now I hear about this wine I believe it's called Two Buck Chuck from Trader Joe's that's beat a bunch of expensive wines in taste test.

Just goes to show the experts more often than not are just a bunch of biased snobs. And how resistant people are to changing the status quo.

I think it's hilarious that someone would pay big money for any alcoholic drink because some expert said it's great. Then sit around and pat each other on the back and marvel at their own good taste.

abracadabra said:

Now I hear about this wine I believe it's called Two Buck Chuck from Trader Joe's that's beat a bunch of expensive wines in taste test.

Just goes to show the experts more often than not are just a bunch of biased snobs. And how resistant people are to changing the status quo.

I think it's hilarious that someone would pay big money for any alcoholic drink because some expert said it's great. Then sit around and pat each other on the back and marvel at their own good taste.

Click to expand...

You make a good point, if slightly . You wouldn't believe the score-hounds who frequent our wine/beer shop. With a copy of the Wine Advocate in hand, they roam the store looking for stuff that Parker says is good.

On the other hand...if you find a wine expert that shares your tastes and you like most of the stuff he/she scores well, then there's every reason to trust them. Sure, every expert has biases, but "snob" is really just a low blow on someone who makes millions of dollars judging wine. Hell, if I could do that, I wouldn't think twice. But, going back to my original point: there's a lot of expensive wine out there, and a lot of it you must buy sight unseen ("futures"). So, if you want to try it, you've got to buy it first...so how much do you get? Do you take a gamble and buy a bunch of it? Or just buy a little? If you buy too much and it sucks, then you wasted your money. If you buy too little and it rocks, you missed an opportunity. So you can't just go around blaming people for needing some guidance in situations where they don't have the opportunities to do barrel tastings like Robert Parker does. While I abhor straight-up score hounds, and I often disagree with Parker and his ilk, I do believe that there is great merit in a guide---especially in an industry where there is limited stock, and much of it must be purchased sight unseen.

As for "two buck chuck" (the cute nickname for the Charles Shaw brand of wine sold by Trader Joe's for $2 or $3), I don't recall it beating anything. I've tried it before...it's no better than most grocery store wines. Everyone raves over it because they get something for $3 that's not Thunderbird.

Evan! said:

Everyone raves over it because they get something for $3 that's not Thunderbird.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with Thunderbird?

It's what killed Kerouac....


It's definatly an interesting idea but as has been said, having to wait for something definatly makes your intrest in it grow... Even if the first beer you brewed sucked you still thought it rocked bc you did it and you waited for it...

Evan! said:

You make a good point, if slightly . You wouldn't believe the score-hounds who frequent our wine/beer shop. With a copy of the Wine Advocate in hand, they roam the store looking for stuff that Parker says is good.

"snob" is really just a low blow on someone who makes millions of dollars judging wine.

As for "two buck chuck" (the cute nickname for the Charles Shaw brand of wine sold by Trader Joe's for $2 or $3), I don't recall it beating anything. I've tried it before...it's no better than most grocery store wines. Everyone raves over it because they get something for $3 that's not Thunderbird.

Click to expand...

Snobs: simply my opinion


Best tasting Chardonnay: Fact

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578

The connoisseurs may cringe, the snobs may even sob, but the judges have spoken: California's best chardonnay costs less than $3.

Charles Shaw Chardonnay, better known as "Two Buck Chuck," beat hundreds of other wines and was named the top prize in a prestigious tasting competition in California.

sweet, they've invented a time machine!!!!!!

(never read the article )

I find it pretty funny that the wine the Japanese guy uses as an example is a Beaujolais Nouveau... that's not a wine that is supposed to be aged! The rush to get this wine from grape to mouth was historically so competitive that the French gov't even had to regulate just when and how quickly it could be done!

It makes perfect sense to me that you would want to try the device out on a "new" or Nouveau wine rather than one that's already been aged.

That way you could compare the new wine with the treated wine.

abracadabra said:

Snobs: simply my opinion


Best tasting Chardonnay: Fact

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578

The connoisseurs may cringe, the snobs may even sob, but the judges have spoken: California's best chardonnay costs less than $3.

Charles Shaw Chardonnay, better known as "Two Buck Chuck," beat hundreds of other wines and was named the top prize in a prestigious tasting competition in California.

Click to expand...

Oh...the Chard. Har Har. Wanna know why? Pretty much every cali chard is oaked to the hilt. Tastes like buttered toast with a side of...butter. And traditionally, our (america's) palates have come to yearn for more and more oak. Mo butta! Chucky is oaked up right nice. The chardonnay grape, when grown in california, etc., is one of the blandest, least terroir-expressive grapes in existence. That's why they oak it up so much...to cover up the flaws and blandness.

The affordable wine beat out 350 other California chardonnays to win the double gold. Second place went to an $18 bottle, and the most expensive wines at the event, at the price of $55, didn't even medal.

Click to expand...

You can bet your arse that 75% of the characteristic judgment of these 350 wines went to how much oak they have. But, hey, if wine that tastes like buttered toast is your thing, then Chuck is your bet.

I was referring to the reds...merlot, cab, etc. They really do blow. For an oaked-up chard, the Chuck isn't bad.

You also might have missed this part of the article:

After its big win, ABC News decided to put the cheap stuff to a blind taste test and see if it would repeat the victory. It was disguised and served along with chardonnays of various prices, including a $120 bottle.

In this test, Caroline Styne, co-owner and wine director of two trendy Los Angeles area restaurants, judged the wines -- but to a different outcome. She ranked "Chuck" dead last, but second-to-last was the $120 variety.

Click to expand...

But like the article says, you buy what you like. If you buy based on price, then you're stoooopid. If you like oak bombs, cali chard has plenty of them. The thing about oaky chards, though, is that, well, oak is oak. That's why I never pay more than $15 for an oaky cali chard (and it's super-rare that I actually buy an oaky chard). Oak is the equalizer, in effect...so it wouldn't surprise me that, in a category like cali chard, one of the (if not the) most heavily oaked styles in the world, something like Chuck could win. You know...if you put Richard Nixon masks on 350 different girls, even the ugliest hag could win a beauty contest...

Nope didn't miss the ABC taste test either. I posted the link remember?

One post you haven't heard of the win and the next post you're an expert on it!LOL

abracadabra said:

Nope didn't miss the ABC taste test either. I posted the link remember?

One post you haven't heard of the win and the next post you're an expert on it!LOL

Click to expand...

I never said I haven't heard of Charles Shaw.

Dude, chill. I said I didn't know of any comp where Shaw won anything. You posted the link. I'm no "expert", but I did read the next part of the article where Charles Shaw placed dead last in ABC's attempt to re-create it. The reason I pointed it out to you is because you failed to mention it when you originally used the competition as evidence that experts are just ignorant snobs.

zoebisch01 said:

I'd seen that before, but my original thought was...even if it can produce a similar effect the market may never come around simply because of tradition. Personally, I'd really wonder about it because time has a gentle way of aging that science would be hard pressed to truly duplicate.

Click to expand...

I think what you will find if this device does work as advertised is that many inexpensive and mid priced wines that are normally aged a short time will end up using the device to lower their cost and produce a better tasting wine that under sells other bargain wines. The high end wines will completely ignore device and for the really cheap wines it would increase their cost so they won't use it either. Given that inexpensive wines are where most of the volume is I could see this device having a major affect on the wine industry.
Is this device going to exactly duplicate an aged wine? Very unlikely, but it may be good enough that 95+% of the population can't tell the difference.
Doesn't sound like something the home brewer can use so I guess we will have to stick to the old fashioned methods.

Craig

CBBaron said:

I think what you will find if this device does work as advertised is that many inexpensive and mid priced wines that are normally aged a short time will end up using the device to lower their cost and produce a better tasting wine that under sells other bargain wines. The high end wines will completely ignore device and for the really cheap wines it would increase their cost so they won't use it either. Given that inexpensive wines are where most of the volume is I could see this device having a major affect on the wine industry.
Is this device going to exactly duplicate an aged wine? Very unlikely, but it may be good enough that 95+% of the population can't tell the difference.
Doesn't sound like something the home brewer can use so I guess we will have to stick to the old fashioned methods.

Craig

Click to expand...

CB: I doubt your scenario would play out, even if it did work. Something like 90% of the wine produced in the world today is not meant to be aged. All those inexpensive bottles you speak of won't improve with age, and thus, probably won't improve with any gadgets meant to reproduce the aging process.

Evan!

maybe you should hold off posting until the drugs ware off!

abracadabra said:

Evan!

maybe you should hold off posting until the drugs ware off!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, but I know what I'm doing.

Maybe you should hold off posting until you can confront disagreement without getting snippy. I was just offering up friendly debate; you didn't need to take offense.

Evan! said:

Thanks for the advice, but I know what I'm doing.

Maybe you should hold off posting until you can confront disagreement without getting snippy. I was just offering up friendly debate; you didn't need to take offense.

Click to expand...

I'm not offended I'm LMAO. But you seem to be. And you seem slightly confused.

No offensive intended by the remark about the drugs.

Here's hoping your arm gets better.

RDWHA-cheap bottle of wine?

abracadabra said:

It makes perfect sense to me that you would want to try the device out on a "new" or Nouveau wine rather than one that's already been aged.

That way you could compare the new wine with the treated wine.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not all wines age well, Beaujolais Nouveau included. It is consumed early, because that is the peak of its' potential, not because people can't wait for it to age. I don't know of anyone that cellars the stuff.

Evan! said:

CB: I doubt your scenario would play out, even if it did work. Something like 90% of the wine produced in the world today is not meant to be aged. All those inexpensive bottles you speak of won't improve with age, and thus, probably won't improve with any gadgets meant to reproduce the aging process.

Click to expand...

Evan,
You are probably right, but I think there needs to be a better understanding of the aging process and why some wines don't age as well as others before you can say that a device like this will not help those wines. I guessing it may actually be the opposite in that the cheap wines can actually benefit from the process because they are not actually aging but just mellowing, while the good wines will be better left to age natural because it help to increase the complexities. However I could be very wrong. It is probably more likely that this device has little over all effect and will be mostly ignored.
Craig

abracadabra said:

I'm not offended I'm LMAO. But you seem to be. And you seem slightly confused.

No offensive intended by the remark about the drugs.

Here's hoping your arm gets better.

Click to expand...

Confused about what? No offense taken about the drugs...right now I feel like my head is in a vise.

Jester369 said:

Yes, but not all wines age well, Beaujolais Nouveau included. It is consumed early, because that is the peak of its' potential, not because people can't wait for it to age. I don't know of anyone that cellars the stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure you are right.

I just saying how else could you compare and still have some degree of relative equality.

If you compared an aged wine with a new wine the grapes would be from different years and one of the reasons some wines from certain years are considered better than others. If you used the same wine but waited for one to age the other would have also aged during that time span.

Maybe you could think of a better comparison process. While none came to my mind.

abracadabra said:

Yes I'm sure you are right.

I just saying how else could you compare and still have some degree of relative equality.

If you compared an aged wine with a new wine the grapes would be from different years and one of the reasons some wines from certain years are considered better than others. If you used the same wine but waited for one to age the other would have also aged during that time span.

Maybe you could think of a better comparison process. While none came to my mind.

Click to expand...

Wine differs from vintage to vintage, but there is a ridiculously massive amount of study and research that goes into evaluating vintages as a whole, and evaluating individual wines from individual vintages. As such, I'm relatively certain you could find two vintages of the same wine that are, from the gate, almost identical to the human olfactory/palate. Not perfect, but...you're right, without a time machine, there's no way to compare such a thing.

Evan! said:

I feel like my head is in a vise.

Click to expand...

Hope you feel better soon!

abracadabra said:

Hope you feel better soon!

Click to expand...

thanks. me too. I've got another 10 days on this Augmentin.

If I owned a wine aging machine (will just call it the agimifier ) I'd use it on low quality wines and sell them in the low quality market. That way my wine would be the tastiest wine in the low price range, where I'm assuming most of the sales are.

I'm sure the artificially aged wines would never compete with the true vintage wines even though they may taste as good, simply because the EAC's of the wine community prefer the time and effort put in to fine wines, which is fair enough.

Would a lambourghini that's mass produced by a machine be as special as the hand made italian ones? To you and me hell yeah, but to Jeremy Clarkson definately not.