Testing the Wine Enhancer
The human mind, even my self professed nearly perfect one, is awful at being objective. Politicians, Madison Avenue, and Magicians rely on this simple truism in order to ply their trade. And so it was with this keen awareness, and complete distrust in my own judgement, that I set out to create an objective test for the Catania Wine Enhancer.
This nifty looking wine coaster (there are other models available) is said to "Reduce Tannins and Red Wine Headaches, Improves Flavor." The web site is loaded with anecdotal evidence, and testimonies from satisfied users. These users are more than happy with their purchase, and are enjoying the benefits on a daily basis.
Alas, while I can envy those who have found greater wine enjoyment using the Wine Enhancer, my disposition leans more towards empirical evidence. Wine tasting is a very subjective activity, and I was determined to make my test as objective as possible.
Full details on the procedure, and the data that was collected can be downloaded here, but for those who shudder at the thought of wading through a tome of scientific data, I will lead you through a brief synopsis of what I did.
I conducted three tastings, the first was what I would call a strict clinical trial, the other two were much more relaxed. For the clinical trial the wine was tasted double blind, meaning that no one knew what they were tasting, or why.
Three wines were poured. Unbeknownst to the participants, all three were the same wine (although different bottles). The first round the wine was tasted after having just been uncorked. In the second round, one of the wines was placed on the enhancer for 12 minutes. In the third round the enhanced wine was returned to the enhancer for a full hour.
Each taster was asked to separately rate the components of the wine (fruit, acidity, tannin, linger and overall impression) on a scale from 1 - 10 using whole numbers (no fractions).
The enhanced wine did not produce significant results. While there were changes, they were no greater or less than the other two wines.
The hour long exposure to the enhancer was designed to look for less subtle changes. Both common sense, and conversations with the creator of the Catania Wine Enhancer suggested that this amount of exposure would be "too long" and therefore quite noticeable.
Again, there were not significant results. Even an hour of "enhancing" did not seem to change the wine to any degree greater than the wines that were not exposed to the enhancer.
The literature for the enhancer warns to not taste the wine blind, and that "Blind tastings are a bit more complicated than most people understand." Instead, it outlines a procedure where a glass of un-enhanced wine is set aside while the rest of the bottle in enhanced, then the enhanced wine is tasted first. And while I used experience blind tasters in my first trial, in order to be fair (and forestall objections) I decided to taste exactly as the instructions state.
Well, sort of. In order to mitigate the placebo effect I conducted two tastings. In both tasting the participants were told about the enhancer, and what to expect. In the first tasting an enhanced wine was used, but in the second, the wine was a control (yes, I lied to the participants and told them the wine was enhanced). In both cases the wine that was said to be enhanced was considered much changed by the tasters.
In both cases I also had the panel re-taste, after mixing up the glasses, and had them pick out the enhanced wine. The results were predictably mixed, with the enhanced (both actual and assumed) wine not showing better than chance would suggest.
So what does all this really mean? Did the Catania Wine Enhancer work for me? In my own tests I did not taste a difference. In the clinical trial (of which my own results were not included) there was no discernible change. In the casual tastings the wine that was said to be improved was found to be so, even when it was not. This tends to indicate that the power of suggestion was more effective than the actual enhancer.
Robert Catania, the creator of the Catania Wine Enhancer is an honest, well meaning guy. He has created a device that he feels greatly improves (much less changes) wine. He has many testimonials (including one from the Wine Spectator) that agree with him. In my tests I found no evidence to support change, much less improvement in the wine.
Perhaps my methodology is flawed (which is why it is included and offered up for peer review). Perhaps my ability to taste the differences is simply not acute enough (I didn't dwell on my own notes, and they are not included in the data, but I never noticed any change in the wines). Or maybe, just maybe, the Catania Wine Enhancer is nothing more than a pretty coaster.
This nifty looking wine coaster (there are other models available) is said to "Reduce Tannins and Red Wine Headaches, Improves Flavor." The web site is loaded with anecdotal evidence, and testimonies from satisfied users. These users are more than happy with their purchase, and are enjoying the benefits on a daily basis.
Alas, while I can envy those who have found greater wine enjoyment using the Wine Enhancer, my disposition leans more towards empirical evidence. Wine tasting is a very subjective activity, and I was determined to make my test as objective as possible.
Full details on the procedure, and the data that was collected can be downloaded here, but for those who shudder at the thought of wading through a tome of scientific data, I will lead you through a brief synopsis of what I did.
I conducted three tastings, the first was what I would call a strict clinical trial, the other two were much more relaxed. For the clinical trial the wine was tasted double blind, meaning that no one knew what they were tasting, or why.
Three wines were poured. Unbeknownst to the participants, all three were the same wine (although different bottles). The first round the wine was tasted after having just been uncorked. In the second round, one of the wines was placed on the enhancer for 12 minutes. In the third round the enhanced wine was returned to the enhancer for a full hour.
Each taster was asked to separately rate the components of the wine (fruit, acidity, tannin, linger and overall impression) on a scale from 1 - 10 using whole numbers (no fractions).
The enhanced wine did not produce significant results. While there were changes, they were no greater or less than the other two wines.
The hour long exposure to the enhancer was designed to look for less subtle changes. Both common sense, and conversations with the creator of the Catania Wine Enhancer suggested that this amount of exposure would be "too long" and therefore quite noticeable.
Again, there were not significant results. Even an hour of "enhancing" did not seem to change the wine to any degree greater than the wines that were not exposed to the enhancer.
The literature for the enhancer warns to not taste the wine blind, and that "Blind tastings are a bit more complicated than most people understand." Instead, it outlines a procedure where a glass of un-enhanced wine is set aside while the rest of the bottle in enhanced, then the enhanced wine is tasted first. And while I used experience blind tasters in my first trial, in order to be fair (and forestall objections) I decided to taste exactly as the instructions state.
Well, sort of. In order to mitigate the placebo effect I conducted two tastings. In both tasting the participants were told about the enhancer, and what to expect. In the first tasting an enhanced wine was used, but in the second, the wine was a control (yes, I lied to the participants and told them the wine was enhanced). In both cases the wine that was said to be enhanced was considered much changed by the tasters.
In both cases I also had the panel re-taste, after mixing up the glasses, and had them pick out the enhanced wine. The results were predictably mixed, with the enhanced (both actual and assumed) wine not showing better than chance would suggest.
So what does all this really mean? Did the Catania Wine Enhancer work for me? In my own tests I did not taste a difference. In the clinical trial (of which my own results were not included) there was no discernible change. In the casual tastings the wine that was said to be improved was found to be so, even when it was not. This tends to indicate that the power of suggestion was more effective than the actual enhancer.
Robert Catania, the creator of the Catania Wine Enhancer is an honest, well meaning guy. He has created a device that he feels greatly improves (much less changes) wine. He has many testimonials (including one from the Wine Spectator) that agree with him. In my tests I found no evidence to support change, much less improvement in the wine.
Perhaps my methodology is flawed (which is why it is included and offered up for peer review). Perhaps my ability to taste the differences is simply not acute enough (I didn't dwell on my own notes, and they are not included in the data, but I never noticed any change in the wines). Or maybe, just maybe, the Catania Wine Enhancer is nothing more than a pretty coaster.
3 Comments:
I am writing this letter in response a past post by Stephen Reiss on his blog.
Let me start off by saying I was not present for any of these tests nor was any trusted confident of mine offered the opportunity to be witness to it. I cannot confirm or validate any of his results. There are no named sources to validate it his testing. I offer full names of testimonials and media publications to support my claims. It has come to my attention that he has gone as far as writing to the wine spectator trying to get them to retract their results which where published in an article they wrote. How far will you or your sponsor go Steven?
http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Free/0,3739,149,00.html
In our conversation over the phone you managed to criticize the wine spectators tasting procedures, Robin Gar for taking so long to get back to you on your book review, most all other wine writers as not having the Phd you claimed makes you more scientific then all of them. You also deceived me on several other comments from how you found out about the wine enhancer to your acquaintance with Jennifer Rosen.
The Catania Wine Enhancers have been available for 2 years now and thoroughly tested using many methods. After numerous trials to identify its effects and the reasons why traditional blind tasting can go wrong, we have developed specific blind tasting methods. What we found was that certain procedures had to be followed to confirm the results of so many users claim. What we discovered I shared with Stephen and he assured me he would take that into account in his tests. What he chose to do was somewhat different and then includes some admittedly sneaky tricks on his taster’s.
Out right lies to your taster in an attempt to confirm placebo effects after getting positive responses is ridiculous. I can also imagine this was not appreciated by his invitees nor ever used in a legitimate wine tasting review.
The wine enhancer requires unique methods of testing due to the inherent issue of tasting un-enhanced wine versus enhanced wine can have a temporary desensitizing effect on the palliate. We have confirmed this in our two years of experiments. We feel this is due to the following reasons.
1- When tasting the same wine, enhanced versus un-enhanced, there will be some similar components and some subtle differences. This will vary in degree somewhat from wine to wine.
Tasters should not be kept in the dark of what they specific affects they are tasting for in this case.
2- The wholeness and energetic balance of the enhanced wine being over powered by sandwiching it between un-enhanced wines seems to cause problems for people. When people taste the enhanced first the vast majority like it better or notice a difference at least. This has been validated by hundreds of people we have spoken with or demonstrated it to. Recent information may link this to Hydrogen/Oxygen bonding affects on the water cells.
When moving on to the more aggressive, astringent un-enhanced the change becomes clear. If you go back to the enhanced immediately you will see the difference is still there because you are aware of it, but to a lesser extent due to the palette being effected.
In traditional blind triangles the order is varied and this issue is not addressed.
We recommend in our instructions that the first time using the wine enhancer you follow a simple method of not doing it blind, but rather taste the enhanced wine first.
We do not say never to do blind tastings with it as Steve has claimed. See web site for instructions. www.WineEnhancer.net
The energetic effect of enhancing wine exposes the wine to recently discovered subtle energy fields that Steve does not believe in or seem to understand. Some extremely well respected wine makers (and physicists) do believe in these energetic fields and produce some amazing wines grown Biodynamical on similar principle.
(ex Domaine Leflaive to name one)
For analogy purposes only I refer you to an excellent paper by Wine Maker
Randal Grahm of Bonny Doon Vineyards. He is speaking of biodynamic wine making and the bigger picture of it. The enhanced wine takes on a deeper multidimensionality much like what is described in tasting biodynamic wines.
“There is the manner in which the various taste impressions sequence on your palate. You get the sense of the multi-dimensionality of the wine, like rotating a precious stone, so as to be able to view its facets from many different angles”.
“Biodynamics deals with how we might seek to harmonize our farming practices with the subtle forces of the universe, following the astronomical calendar – free cosmic fertilizer, you might say, and utilizing the biodynamic preparations, which essentially are a form of viticultural homeopathy…..Terroir speaks in a very still, small voice. It is easy not to hear it above the stentorian tones of……….. extreme tannic extraction that we find in modern wines. We winemakers need to look long and hard in the mirror”
“The language of modern wine criticism tends to be reductive and anatomizing – it slices and dices a wine into its component parts. Fruitiness… check, soft tannins… check, concentration… check. We have liftoff and a 90+ point wine. But a true appreciation of terroir is an appreciation of integration, balance and originality; it compels us to slow down and be present with a wine”
We should not jam it into a test tube and force scientific results based upon our current knowledge which may not be fully understood yet. This is the equivalent of trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Wine is made to be enjoyed and not over analyzed. We should not sandwich wine between other wines as is done at most tastings and wine list selections. I personally have never enjoyed large wine tastings for the simple reason you cannot fully connect with the wholeness and spirit of the wine.
How can anybody intelligently dismiss 2 years and thousands of tasters feedback over one mans claims with no again no sources that this all even took place?
I stand on the merits that we have a customer satisfaction rating well over 99%.
We offer a 30 day money back return policy and 80% of our business right now is by referral.
Our supporters include major media, very experienced wine professionals and numerous wine makers of whom I will not expose to any potential critics venom at this time.
What I recommended that he should have done was to perform two separate blind tastings one the way he did and one outlined below. I told him he would get very different results, but both would be blind.
1- At the beginning tell the people what they are tasting for (aroma, fruitiness, astringency, overall enjoyment). We are testing a device that claims to change the wine and a brief explanation of it and show it to them. Informing them it is the same wine enhanced vs un-enhanced. You can replace the part about telling them about device and tell them the samples are same type of wine, but different labels if prefer. We do not like deceiving people but some prefer this method.
2- Now enhance half of the wine you will be testing for the proper amount of time according to instructions. Label samples with a dry marker or other method. Allow to breath and rest for 20-30 minutes in same glass containers as un-enhanced. You may do as many wines as you choose, but in flights of 2 at a time.
3- Arrange all the enhanced wines first in flights of 2 wines (Enhanced vs Un-enhanced) and allow some form of protein and time between each flight to clear the palette of the effect I am speaking of.
4- Do not tell people the order of the wines of which is enhanced vs un-enhanced.
The order is blind here. Ask them to get a good sip and allow it to be in their mouth for at least 3 seconds before they swallow or spit.
When tested using this method and allowing a properly enhanced wine some time to rest after enhancing, people will notice the results more clearly. This is the only presently known way to do this blind while taking into account the assaulted palette.
The wine Enhancer is made for pleasure and wine enjoyment not for a lab or hired critics. If you do not resonate with it, do not buy it, but do not allow rigidly designed overly complicated reports to prevent what most people find very rewarding or your money back.
In summary I will say that I have been an owner/operator of Restaurants, hotels, and spas for over 25 years. I am a graduate of the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park NY.
Over the years I have been an award winning chef, general manager, VP, and Board of Director.
The company which my family and I owned, grew from 1 small 60 seat restaurant to 7 restaurant, 3 hotels, 2 spas, and a bakery over the years. We have employed thousands of people and served an un-countable amount of customers at a very high level of service. My previous company is www.cataniahospitalitygroup.com. I chose in January of 2006 to move on and explore this new exciting venture.
With all of my experience and knowledge of food and wine, why would I leave a successful business to sell what Stephen implies to be a pretty coaster that does not work?
You seem to be available for hire for almost any wine service imaginable. Your site is like one big ad for yourself proclaimed arrogance.
The reason I did this is because of an overwhelmingly positive response by the public not the critics. Countless people have claimed relief of red wine headaches and are beginning to enjoy wine.
I am trying to offer a product which we feel is highly appreciated by some people.
Wine makers get paid to make wine and sell it; Stephen Reiss gets paid by selling his book and performing wine services as well as critiquing.
I personally did not pay him for this service by the way. Based on the fact he spent so much time and energy on this one product he does not think works, I assume someone may have paid him to do this.
His article though somewhat polite does not hide the insinuations that I, many hundreds of happy people, and wine professionals are all wrong.
Life is not absolute as rigid scientific minds try to make it. We should not be threatened by that which challenges our beliefs and is not yet fully understood.
Robert V Catania
Catania Wine Enhancer Inc.
www.WineEnhancer.net
.
The usual excuses for "woo". Thanks for posting a true blind taste test.
After seeing Mr.Catania's comments about disregarding good empirical evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence, I'm especially inclined to believe it's a bunch of BS, whether Mr.Catania thinks so or not.
Mr.Catania, if you read this, let me tell you that there's one good way to prove once and for all that these wine enhancers work. Pay someone to do a real, statistically sound analysis.
But you wouldn't want to do that, would you, because the wine enhancers are selling just fine on anecdotal evidence and you wouldn't want to risk producing evidence to the contrary, would you?
As the Originator of the Wine Enhancing devices utilizing a "True" magnetic field, We do have scientific evidence which shows an increase in the Ph which in fact is a reduction of the acidity. We also have indicators recorded by a laboratory that "The Perfect Sommelier" in fact reduces the Ta or total acidity in wine. These figures are available to the general public by going to our website www.AgeYourWine.com and emailing us your request.
Please also note we do not and have never paid for top wine universities to study our product, such as UC Davis, Penn State, Texas A & M but each of these fine Universities have done research and you may contact those Universities directly for their results.
Our Testimonials are completely uncompensated from wine lovers to Wine connoisseurs to the top names at the top culinary accademies in the country.
We have taken roustings from many people over the 7 years we have been on the market but we continue to manufacture a product that people use every day all over the world and for those people that do not believe the product works, they have never tried The Perfect Sommelier.
Post a Comment
<< Home