Breathing/Preservation Experiment

Prompted by a thread asking about nitrogen preservation systems, I performed last night a simple experiment. Though it doesn't rank up there w/ the PhoenixLander experiment, it was a heck of a lot cheaper.
One person asked about nitrogen preservation systems vs. those using argon. My claim on these systems is the oxyidation rate is so slow, that oxygen (which the nitrogen/argon systems protect against) is not the issue. I claim that the loss of wine volatiles into the headspace of the half drunk btl is the issue that makes the wine seem to lose a bit of freshness & vitality, so it doesn't make a diff if it's nitrogen, argon, or air up there.
So I did the following: I had a leftover half of a 750btl of LuigiEinaudi Dolcetti di Dogliani 2006 from dinner last night. I poured half of this into an wide open/shallow bowl and left it open to the air for 12 hrs. The rest was left in the btl and a cork stopper inserted. I went back to them today at noon, poured both samples into a glass, switched them back and forth until I lost track which was which and then tasted them blind:

Left: Deeper, more alive nose licorice/Dolcetto somewhat fresher nose; far more attractive nose and more typical of Dolcetto; rather hard/tannic/tough very little fruit; pretty hard/tannic/fierce finish; lost nearly all the fruit on the palate but more like the sample that I had the night before, which I thought was rather tight & hard.
Right: Slightly more volatile/alcoholic rather deader/less fruit bit more earthy/dusty/damp Kansas basement nose; much softer/rounder/lush some Dolcetto/licorice/brighter fruit flavor; nose not as good, but much more attractive on the palate.

After about 30 min in the glass, the two samples were pretty much equilibrated and I could barely tell a difference betwixt the two glasses.

And then I looked on the bottom of the glass at the result:
Left=Bowled sample
Right=Stoppered btl sample

Conclusion: Beats heck out of me. I was expecting the bowl-sample to be pretty much devoid of nose and the stoppered one to have more fruit. It was not the case. Obviously, the bowled sample was more "breathed" and it on the palate is more consistent w/ my experience on wines left out half open on the counter: they become progressively harder/more tannic/less attractive on the palate. But I'm not sure it supports my suspicion that it's the loss of volatiles to the headspace that's the cause for degradation of the half-opened wine. Friggin' science experiments...shoulda just dry-labbed it like I did in College.

I'm willing to repeat the experiment again. If anybody will send me your btls of DRC or SQN, I'll be happy to oblige.
Tom

I poured half of this into an wide open/shallow bowl and left it open to the air for 12 hrs. The rest was left in the btl and a cork stopper inserted...
I was expecting the bowl-sample to be pretty much devoid of nose and the stoppered one to have more fruit. It was not the case. Obviously, the bowled sample was more "breathed" and it on the palate is more consistent w/ my experience on wines left out half open on the counter: they become progressively harder/more tannic/less attractive on the palate. But I'm not sure it supports my suspicion that it's the loss of volatiles to the headspace that's the cause for degradation of the half-opened wine.

Thanks for the report. My suspicions are the same as yours: I'd expect samples that get more air to show a deader nose (though I'd expect a potentially softer palate too) and samples that are left open to the air to lose volatiles too, so I'm surprised by your result too. However, the method you used above seems to not be exactly equivalent for the two samples. The bowled sample was poured to a shallow bowl while the remaining (stoppered) sample was not poured but rather left in the bottle. It might sound ridiculous and pedantic but I'm increasingly suspicious that the O2 pick-up from pouring actions is significant. (I realise you don't believe the O2 exposure is the issue, but if it in any way is significant then this is a relevant point.) I'm not sure why, because you'd think the bowled sample, open to the air, would breath just as much O2 (if not more) anyway, but in my experience it seems to possibly make a (albiet subtle) difference. I see those who espouse slow oxygenation techniques as supporting this, since they are essentially eschewing the practice of oxygenation via rapid O2 dissolution in favour of a "more controlled" oxidation like the wine in the re-stoppered bottle would experience. Perhaps it's about a combination of O2 exposure and volatile aromatic diffusion/"blow-off", and one of the reasons results are often inconsistent/confusing is because of the interplay of these processes(?).

BTW, I'm interested that you find open-breathed samples to lose fruit/nose (I agree, but it seems that some others don't share our experience) and that you find that bottles left open actually become harder/less attractive on the palate (most people seem to think that would make the palate softer if anyway).