I saw an advertisement for something called "Clef du Vin". It's a teardrop-shaped piece of metal alloy that when dipped into a glass of wine is supposed to replicate the aging process.

Has anyone heard of this, and does it work?

Does this sound like the sort of thing that would be true? Sounds a bit far fetched, to me.

They lost a court case in the UK about those claims:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/A...djudication_id=40006

Save your money.....

Thanks Chazz for the link to the complaint. It did sound too good to be true.

quote:

Originally posted by Chazz Reinhold:
Does this sound like the sort of thing that would be true? Sounds a bit far fetched, to me.

They lost a court case in the UK about those claims:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/A...djudication_id=40006

Thanks Chazz. I've never believed this s*it and its good to see somthing exposed. Now, I just have to ignore those who tell me "it really works." I don't think they have every tasted wine that has proper age to it.

I'm going to take the other side here, Sid_Mac. I had never heard of the thing until last night, when I was at the Angus Barn in Raleigh, NC, which is a Wine Spectator Grand Award winner. There, the waiter mentioned it and I was very skeptical. Then he demonstrated it. We had a good cabernet (sorry, but I forgot which wine it was -- the third of three different bottles) and he poured some into a tasting glass as the "before" sampling. Then he poured a regular glass and he used the Clef du Vin in it. I was amazed at the difference. Then, at our request, he stirred the remainder of the bottle (in the decanter) with it. The difference was obvious. I didn't know why it worked but, for this bottle, it did as advertised. It's almost as though it were some sort of trick but the wine program at this restaurant has a stellar reputation.

I read the Brittish case link provided by Chazz. I noticed that the findings do not refute the manufacturer's claims but merely find that they were not substatiated sufficiently to allow the advertisement to stand. The findings acknowledged that the manufacturer proved that the device increased the wine's sensitivity to oxidation but failed to prove the significance of the oxidation process.

I ain't no scientist but I do have taste buds and olfactory senses and, for the bottle I drank last night, the Clef du Vin certainly made a difference just like they said it would -- the wine tasted several years older than it did in the "before" tasting. I would try to find such a demo somewhere near you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DanP,

DanP, I'd just like to confirm something. Your "before" glass was poured into a different type of glass compared to the "after" glass (you mentioned a tasting glass)? If so, what were the shapes and sizes of the glasses?

quote:

We had a good cabernet (sorry, but I forgot which wine it was

You can't even remember the wine you drank, and we're supposed to trust your palate?

I am also interested in the answer to the glass question posed by SD. If the glasses were in any way different, the comparison is invalid, palate notwithstanding.

PH

quote:

You can't even remember the wine you drank, and we're supposed to trust your palate?

Sorry, PurpleHaze, but the meeting was quite involved in other matters at the time and the selection was left to a trusted associate. We collectively considered several California cabernets from a very extensive list before casting my vote for "any of those" and turning my attention elsewhere. Actually, I thought I saved the cork from that bottle but I also can't find that at the moment. It was a long night. I'll endeavor to find the answer.

As to the glass size and shape, point taken. The glasses were of similar shape but different sizes. What I called a tasting glass was smaller, perhaps half-scale, so factors of surface area and air exposure would have been different, though the amount poured was relatively small as well, so the ratio of volume to exposure might have been even better. For what it's worth, the bottle had been decanted for about 30 minutes at the time of the first sample. It is interesting, though, that they did not use identical glasses to limit the variables to only that of the introduction of the Clef du Vin vs. the absence thereof.

But I am not ready to accuse them. Perhaps they did it as a valid compensation. If the glasses had been identical, wouldn't the pour amounts have had to have been close to the same as well? The intention was that the "before" amount would be just a taste and the "after" amount would be a full pour for continued enjoyment. Perhaps the small taste in the larger glass would have been misleading. I'm inquiring, not explaining. I want to learn something here.

While all of this undoubtedly has merit, I do have the advantage of my own subjectivity in a first-hand test and I believe the difference was substantial enough to credit the device at least to a degree. My palate is not as refined as those of most readers here but I am capable of some discernment. Again, please note that the referenced British adjudication cited, "The Authority noted that the advertisers had proved that the product made wine more sensitive to oxidation." Is that significant? After all, what is the underlying theory surrounding the concern over different glass sizes and shapes?

I will try this test again but the restaurant is the only one I know of that has a Clef du Vin and that is willing to lend its use so I have to dine or lounge there again after some personal monetary replenishment.

I'll report back with results of a better-controlled experiment (same palate, though) when it happens. Meanwhile, if I figure out the wine in question from the first time, I'll let you know ... and I'll take better notes next time, PH.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DanP,

DanP, since the glasses were similar shapes, the issue isn't surface area for the wine but volume within the bowl. The olfactory senses have a significant impact on how the wine tastes as well, so a larger bowl gives a better wiff as you're drinking.

I don't think it would have any impact on the tannins in the wine, though. Do you recall if the tannins were similar in the two glasses, but the wine in the larger glass just tasted bigger and better?

If you're going to retry this experiment, I'd recommend that the same glass be used for both pours, both should be standard pours, and you shouldn't know which glass is which when tasting.

Not to pile on to Dan, but aging wine is complex chemistry that scientists don't fully understand. How can a metal ball replicate this?

quote:

... he poured some into a tasting glass as the "before" sampling.
... he poured a regular glass and he used the Clef du Vin in it.
...he stirred the remainder of the bottle (in the decanter) with it.

I'd venture a guess that the decanting of the wine had a lot to do with it (as did the differing glasses).

quote:

Originally posted by mwagner7700:
How can a metal ball replicate this?

As any middle school science teacher will tell you, never underestimate what the right combination of metals can do when exposed to an acid solution.

Anyway, I've never experienced this gadget personally. (Nor do I have enough experience with wine--particularly very old wine--to have likely been able to tell you much even if I did.) But, from what I've read, there's some sort of chemical reaction going on with certain components of the wine and alloys in the "key".

Whether that reaction is a viable substitute for the naturally occurring reactions of the real aging process is a whole 'nother matter.

Interesting, one Amazon reviewer claims to have gotten similar results with a clean copper penny.

- Jeff

SD-Wineaux: Perhaps your explanation of the shape of the glass and volume of wine within the bowl lends credence to the rationale of using a scaled-down version of a similar glass for a scaled-down pour. At restaurant wine list prices, a standard pour of this particular wine would probably have cost in the $10-15 range and, since it was wine that we (not they) ordered and paid for, they probably would have presumed that we wouldn't have wanted to "spend" a standard pour on the "before" condition. Perhaps the thinking was that a proportional, miniaturized bowl/volume scenario was appropriate, considering the cost of the wine. Just more speculation on my part, though. I will return there with a better education, thanks to all of y'all. Your third paragraph is the prescription I'll follow next.

I don't think OffNotes is off the mark. By the way, I don't know about using a shiny new penny but I will tell you that the metallic disc, which is composed of a secret blend of alloys, happens to be mostly copper-like in color. Not to keep raising the same point but, in an environment of legal challenge, the findings were that the product indeed made wine more sensitive to oxidation. That could only be proven definitively through molecular examination so there is real science behind at least that aspect of it. The only question is what that oxidation means to the taste of the wine. We have decanters and aerators designed specifically to maximize the wine's exposure to oxygen. If a device, through whatever means, can heighten a wine's sensitivity to oxidation (as was found by the British court to be proven), shouldn't that, by definition, be a good thing?

To clarify for mwagner7700, the bottle was poured into the decanter about a half-hour before the first tasting, which was then poured from the decanter into the smaller glasses. The second tasting, also poured form the decanter, occurred a few minutes after the first tasting. I have known the quality of a decanted bottle of wine to improve from first glass to last in the course of consuming it in one sitting (say, over an hour or so) but the time lapse between first tasting and second in this demonstration was only a few minutes.

To SD-Wineaux's question of "Do you recall if the tannins were similar in the two glasses, but the wine in the larger glass just tasted bigger and better?": The second ("after") glass was definitely mellower and smoother. That was the first thing immediately noticeable -- less of a bite -- before considering the actual taste, which I also thought was distinctly better.

I understand any of you having skepticism but I would suggest that you not let it keep you from trying the do-hickey if you get the opportunity.

Not sure if this thread is still alive ?

I came across this device in a local mag and went to the manufacturer's web site to get an understanding of what it does and have the following observations on this thread:

1 They do not claim that it will age a wine but only that it will alter some of it's components such that you can better judge if the wine is suitable for laying down for 1, 2 3 etc. years.

2 The advert that was disallowed made claims that are not on the manufacturer's web site and implied that by using this device you could actually age the wine.

I wondered if any of the forum members have purchased one of these units.

If this product works it would help me as I really enjoy a good well aged red but aren't much good at judging a young wines laying-down potential

If you have extra money to spend, I'm interested in selling some of my oceanfront property in Topeka.

I've seen this thing also. Looks like a piece of copper embedded in the end of it. So why spend the money on their dohickey when you can just drop a penny into your bottle of '03 Petrus and enjoy it like it's a '61?

http://tinyurl.com/23sycc

Gary Vaynerchuk has something to say about this topic. This is very interesting, he gives the clef a major pazzz, on the basis that a white zin wouldn't age well over a 50 year span.



http://tv.winelibrary.com/2007/07/12/clef-du-vin-goes-u...nd-more-episode-274/

quote:

Originally posted by NJ Cabbie:
Gary Vaynerchuk has something to say about this topic. This is very interesting, he gives the clef a major pazzz, on the basis that a white zin wouldn't age well over a 50 year span.



http://tv.winelibrary.com/2007/07/12/clef-du-vin-goes-u...nd-more-episode-274/

I saw the same show. I also have a product I was asked to try. I guess it makes a two buck chuck taste like a six buck chuck. I have not purchased a wine to try it with yet, but I bet someone has mentioned it here on the forum somewhere. It might work something like the clef-du-vin