PDA

View Full Version : Three Gifts Wine



Seikou-Kishi
23rd April 2014, 21:11
I don't want to take up too much space on Sooz's thread (http://jandeane81.com/threads/2733-Cookery-Recipes), so I thought I'd make a new thread for this idea.

It's not so much a recipe for wine as a gift idea that happens to involve wine. It is a Christmas gift idea I created many years ago for a friend of the family who is a priest in the church of England. Whenever I make it, I do brew the wine myself and prefer to use only a single varietal (pinot noir is among my favourites for this). You can either grow or buy the grapes yourself or use one of the wine-making kits that are all over the place. Pinot noir is not a grape that handles the cold very well, and such grapes grown in cooler locations make lack-lustre reds. So if you live in a colder country, it would be best to import the grapes from somewhere else (Burgundy is ideal) or else to buy the "kit" stuff.

Anyway, once your desired wine is ready to be bottled, you will need the following:


As many glass bottles as necessary, with corks and a corking machine if using them (I prefer swing-top bottles for their convenience)
A rubber disc as used for opening jars
A (preferably thin) test tube, boiling tube, or narrow-necked conincal flask (Erlenmeyer for Americans)
Myrrh essential oil
Frankincense essential oil
Colloidal gold (the finer, cerise-coloured stuff is preferable)


Cut a circle out of the centre of the rubber disc big enough for the test tube to pass through, but small enough that the hole is held tightly around the tube. Add a drop or two each of frankincense and myrrh essential oils to the test tube and slide the rubber up from the bottom of the test tube. If the test tube will fit inside the neck of the bottle, that is preferable, otherwise hold the bottle over the test tube so that the holes line up. You can also use an inverted funnel to help channel the vapours into the bottles. Sit the test tube in a cup of boiling water and let the rubber disc sit over the brim of the cup, holding the test tube in place. This will also prevent steam or water vapour entering your bottles. Using a clear glass cup is a useful for seeing when the oil has evaporated.

The water will heat and evaporate the oils, which will rise into the wine bottle. Once the oil has evaporated away, repeat with your other bottles (or have a test tube and so on for each bottle and do them all at once). Leave the bottles upside down for at least ten minutes after completion to give the oil vapours time to condense and line the insides of your bottles, then return them to their upright position. Alternatively, if using swing-tops, just close the lid to stop the vapours escaping. Then, take your colloidal gold and add between a teaspoon and a tablespoon to each bottle. You can then fill each bottle with wine.

Frankincense and myrrh used to be used to fumigate bottles in the pre-modern era, when the microbial cause of illness (and rancidity) was not understood. What was understood, though, was that bottles fumigated in this way kept the wine in good condition: i.e., they knew the practice of hygiene if not the theory. These ingredients would line the insides of the bottles and provide their anti-microbial effect, but they would also contribute to the flavour of the wine. This is one of the reasons I enjoy using pinot noir for this, as pinot noir often has smoky notes that work well with these two resins (or essential oils, in our case, which take only the lightest and most delicate of the scents from the resins).

This makes a poignant gift for Christian friends for the Christmas period, and I have found the wine is well received both for its novelty as for the effort undertaken.

Sooz
26th April 2014, 11:56
SK, this was a much bigger post when I viewed it initially.

What happened? I can see you have not edited it.

Am I going insane? There has been a lot of your post cut out.:scrhd:

Sooz

Spiral
26th April 2014, 12:56
SK, this was a much bigger post when I viewed it initially.

What happened? I can see you have not edited it.

Am I going insane? There has been a lot of your post cut out.:scrhd:

Sooz

I thought so too, but I've checked the cached version on google (23.4.2014) and its the same, only the Admin Elves can edit a post without leaving an "edited by" BTW.

I do get a strong picture of SKs 17th century Alchemy laboratory, complete with a homunculus in a retort after reading this :belief:

Sooz
26th April 2014, 13:26
I thought so too, but I've checked the cached version on google (23.4.2014) and its the same, only the Admin Elves can edit a post without leaving an "edited by" BTW.

I do get a strong picture of SKs 17th century Alchemy laboratory, complete with a homunculus in a retort after reading this :belief:

That can be the only answer Twirly, lol.....I can see SK's lab also.

Reminds me of a book I read a million moons ago....A Chymical Wedding....(I will check with that on start page and get back....)

Sooz
26th April 2014, 13:48
There ya go, a fabulous book:

(More the question is, 'Who is SK?"...)

I read this book 'A Chymical Wedding' about (I hate to admit it), over 20 years ago. Fascinating book.

http://www.bookwitch.co.uk/book-reviews/the-chymical-wedding-lindsay-clarke/

Seikou-Kishi
26th April 2014, 20:07
Is it possible you've viewed it on two different devices? When I'm on my iPad, I normally use it in landscape for internet browsing and because the screen's so much wider, the paragraphs spread over fewer lines so the entire thing looks shorter.

The other possibility (once I'd read your post, I thought this one looked too short as well) is that all three of us have got it confused with one of my longer ramblings :D I could quite understand that. I am prone :D

Ah, SK is just SK :D

Tribe
26th April 2014, 20:14
Maybe , on first glance it seemed long . Lots of info , but when glancing again it normalised. ? Minds are tricky things aye ? :frantic:

Seikou-Kishi
26th April 2014, 20:30
Maybe , on first glance it seemed long . Lots of info , but when glancing again it normalised. ? Minds are tricky things aye ? :frantic:

This is very true! I was reading a book the night before last and you know how it goes when reading: you infer from context what is coming and because of that, you don't take in each letter or word individually and read in that laborious way children read at first. Well, I was reading and the flow of the text led me to assume that an upcoming word was one particular word when it wasn't (they were pretty much the same in meaning). Anyway, I happened to stop just as I read this word. I could see the word I'd assumed on the page and as I looked at it, the word was replaced with a different word. It wasn't simply a case of assumption, but of seeing the word change from that assumption. How much of what we see do we see just because we assume we will? We see the wall as opaque because we are not used to seeing through it. It is easily shown by hypnosis that people can indeed see straight through opaque things like walls.

It was quite fun.