Jump to content
Brian Robinson

WS 2009 Blind Tasting Results

Recommended Posts

Wish I could be more accurate

 

It's possible I'm wrong on this, but according to Table 6 of the gauging manual, 120 proof contains 60% alcohol and 43.71% water; 30 proof contains 15% alcohol and 86.2% water. (They add to up more than 100% because of contraction.)

 

The general formula based on volumes of water to add to a given unit of alcohol of proof is:

 

((original proof / new proof) * new volume of water) - original volume of water = number of units of water to add per 100 units of alcohol.

 

For example, substitution yields

 

((120/30) * 86.2) - 43.71 = 301 units of water added to 100 units of 120 proof alcohol results in a 30 proof alcohol (ie 15%). In other words, 1:3 dilutes a 120 proof spirit to 30 proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, gal... but think on this...

 

I use an equivalent approach to get the same sort of answer when I'm asking that sort of question, but that's slightly different than what we're talking about.

 

Ya see, you just described how to get a strength that is ¼th that of the original. When I do that, I use Table 6 too, but in another (equivalent) way. Like this:

 

100(60/15*.98102 - .91333) = 301.075

 

 

100/301.075 is (slightly) not 1:3. But there's the rub, and you already described why: there's some "change" left on that resulting volume of water so that the alcoholic contraction is accounted for in achieving the desired final alcoholic degree that was put-into-the-math. That is to say, you chose to shoot for a percent alcohol that is a fourth of the original... but no one (practically considered) who pours water into a glass of absinthe knows the amount of contraction likely to occur - which varies according to the strength of the spirit, being maximum at nearly fifty-fifty, on the side of pure alcohol.

 

So when I throw numbers out there, say in this particular circumstance, I picture someone adding a volume of water at 1:3, not shooting for a percentage that is four times lower.

 

Incidentally, I think your estimate is closer to the actual value for 1:3, and others in kind, since I used weight percents that were considerably off the mark (printed - like - in the 1870s, but like I said, it's what I had in my backpack at the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, I like math. I may not understand it immediately but I truly love it. I want to be an engineer when I grow up.

 

Thanks Grim, Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100/301.075 is (slightly) not 1:3

 

If I'm gauging spirit for tax purposes, being off by 1/3rd of a percent is too far in error. But for someone louching an absinthe to drink, it's perfectly close enough. And no one accounts for contraction when preparing an absinthe either.

 

I was well aware of what I was doing and I think your percentages are too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my bad.

 

 

But, how interested would you have been in class if there were questions like this:

 

Johnny has three bottles of Herbsaint from the 30's, a bottle from the 20's in mint condition with full level, and four Herbsaint glasses with brouilleurs. He want to sell them as a set to get a case each of DP-sinthe, two cases of Pacifique, 43 bottles of Marteau, a complete set of the matching Joe-and-Jules releases from Ridge, and a case of mini's of all the Jades, what should he make his asking price if the Pacifiques are 3 times the price of the Jade mini's, 10% less than the Marteau, and the DP-sinthe is the inverse of the sum of the squares of the Ridge? And will he have any money left over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And will he have any money left over?

 

Depends entirely on his sale price. (Asking price makes the problem insolvable, since it's not solidly connected to what he actually receives.)

 

But if we were to assume asking price = sale price, $2034.27ea for the 30s bottles, $3621.94 for the 20s bottle and $72.47ea for the glasses and brouilleurs.

 

1¢ left over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are much too good or maybe that's just the Magic of Math.

I don't even know how much a bottle of Ridge is going to cost, yet. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um, I think you need to be more specific, that is (obviously) not an absinthe bottle, and I would love to see a label that indicated that absinthe (or something even like absinthe) was sold in a bottle like that...along with the prohibition thingy going on at that time...

Edited by pierreverte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a modest 35ml sample:

 

Absinthe bottled at 60°...

1:3 provides around 15.04°

1:4 provides around 12.02°

1:5 provides around 10.01°

1:6 provides around 8.58°

 

Absinthe bottled at 65°...

1:3 provides around 16.32°

1:4 provides around 13.04°

1:5 provides around 10.85°

1:6 provides around 9.30°

 

Absinthe bottled at 68°...

1:3 provides around 17.09°

1:4 provides around 13.65°

1:5 provides around 11.36°

1:6 provides around 9.73°

 

Absinthe bottled at 72°...

1:3 provides around 18.12°

1:4 provides around 14.47°

1:5 provides around 12.04°

1:6 provides around 10.31°

 

Absinthe bottled at 74°...

1:3 provides around 18.64°

1:4 provides around 14.88°

1:5 provides around 12.38°

1:6 provides around 10.60°

 

(As stated before: "There is certainly error associated with the above...")

 

100/301.075 is (slightly) not 1:3

 

If I'm gauging spirit for tax purposes, being off by 1/3rd of a percent is too far in error. But for someone louching an absinthe to drink, it's perfectly close enough. And no one accounts for contraction when preparing an absinthe either.

 

I was well aware of what I was doing and I think your percentages are too high.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am kind of curious about the formula behind how the tastings were "weighted." Just so I'm not misunderstood, I in no way doubt the validity of the results, but that is some pretty basic (and important) information that was omitted. At least I hope it was omitted. Otherwise I will be trying to figure out how to delete this post tomorrow... This thread did get a little off track and I admit to having skimmed it. Anyway, I was just curious about the unweighted results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... Yeah, I see the scoring sheets and also the WS scoring system, but nothing about how the scores were weighed. If this information is there and I am just having a brain fart, feel free to ignore me... I assume that by "weighed results" you mean that the participants score sheets were not counted equally? If that is the case, then how the scores were weighed becomes pretty important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! I see what you mean now. Forgive me. It was my brain fart! I thought you meant how each of the scores (taste, louche, etc) were weighted.

 

I guess I should have specified more clearly by calling it a truncated mean. I discarded the highest and lowest score for each brand and averaged the rest.

 

I also crunched the numbers with a straight statistical average as well as several other methods, but I've normally found the truncated mean to give the most reliable data in these tastings. As I mentioned before, if we would have been able to have 15-20 people, we would have been able to use all of the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×