01438 741177         thewinesociety.com


Continuing the discussion from New to The Community? 10 brilliant topics to get you started! :slight_smile::

1 Like

Sorry, maybe I am being thick, but I really don’t understand. I cannot see any discussion of aeration in the thread you linked to. Do you have a question?

Probably my IT incompetence. Let’s try again. Which magazine has just reported after testing a few aerators with 2 favourable reviews, one v expensive and one at £15. The report was quite dismissive of traditional decant methods in comparison. I wondered if others had experience of aerators. I can’t recall the Society commenting on them or selling them.

1 Like

No need to spend any money, use the food blender:

1 Like

I’m not sure what the “traditional decant method” is in the Which article, but if I find a wine is unpleasantly sulphurous {reductive) I invert the bottle into a carafe/decanter/jug, letting the wine glug out, give it a good shake, and then leave it for a while before drinking.

I have only tried an aerator once, and in an uncontrolled environment, but that seemed to help with a reductive wine too. I doubt very much though that they improve all wines - and may make some worse.

As a general rule I prefer to avoid gadgets, and rely more on buying decent wine to start with, and keeping it an appropriate amount of time before opening it. And sometimes I like a bit of reduction,


I am, as usual, in complete agreement with Steve.

Xmas is on the horizon, (or if you believe the shops, imminent), and there’s a good chance that someone who knows of you vinous interest will buy you this gadget.

I’ve got a boxful of useless wine gadgets I have been given as a gift.

Spend your own money on decent wine


I just looked at the Which magazine article. Very poorly executed comparison of methods/devices (despite the people doing the comparison having a degree of credibility in wine terms). However the sparkling wine preserver accompanying article is even worse.

By the way the “traditional method “ is apparently pouring into a jug and then pouring back into the bottle. I’m in the Slatcher school of no devices.

1 Like

The article they did a few months ago on wine coolers was pretty poor I thought. It confused small wine fridges with larger wine ageing cabinets and only covered a couple of the latter, describing them as poor value on a completely invalid comparison.

I find Which not a bad source for a few things, but it’s useless for anything that isn’t mass market IMO.


I feel I owe @BobM an apology for shooting him down on his first post here.

And I should have said “Welcome to the Community, Bob!”

We’re not all miserable old gits*, though some of us have been around wine for some time and we’ve played with all sorts of devices touted as the solution only to be disappointed.

So, please do stick around Bob. There is a great deal of knowledge here if you want to pick brains. If you do get an aerator - or any other wine ‘improvement’ device try it yourself in a blind** taste test.

Get someone one to pour two glasses, one through the aerator and one straight from the bottle. You should use identical glasses, so they’ll have to be marked so they can be told apart. The glasses should be poured out of sight of you, in a different room to you.

Then the pourer should leave the room while you enter and taste from the two glasses. (this is so their reactions can’t influence you.)

If you prefer one of the wines and that wine has passed through the aerator, then you’ll know that it was a worthwhile purchase.

If you do this, do please report back.

Whatever, please do stick around, @BobM

*OK, there may be one or two
**Blind meaning that the taster doesn’t know what they are tasting


Really? I often do that, and if I did I would expect it to aerate the wine a bit, but I would certainly not describe it as “traditional”.

It’s what I would call “double-decanting”

Thanks PeterM but no need to apologise. I’m pretty thick skinned. Have ordered said device with the intention of trying it blind. Reason I asked the question was that for Which to base an article on 2 opinions seemed a rather thin basis for anything other than thinking this is something worth pursuing more rigorously. I just wondered if there was broader experience on the particular gadgets. Apparently not, though no shortage of opinions. Life 'twas ever thus.