View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
rob davis
 
Posts: n/a
Default Costco Wine Kits

Seems like a rather damning review but i appreciate the input.
Hopefully the limited collection kit is of a better quality. I'm going
to start it off tomorrow and hope for the best. Did you follow those
"strange instructions?" I didn't think the 23 litres was all juice, as
it says right on the pail that the kit was from concentrate. I would
think that having 23 litres of must is strictly for convenience. If I
end up with a half decent Barbaresco at $2.40 a bottle, it would be
preferable to the $16 it costs at the liquor store. I can always use
more "pizza wine."
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:55:14 GMT, "Great Dane" >
wrote:

>I have purchases to same 23 litre pail in the Barolo style...from Costco
>here in Vancouver. I was disappointed with the result...these pails of "
>sterile must" are no better than a regular run-of-mill 7 litre box kit you
>can buy for about $32.00.....When I contacted the Company they refused to
>tell me how much of this kit was just pure water....!!! I also didn't like
>the strange instructions it comes with...!! well you live and learn....
>"rob davis" > wrote in message
>news:401aa5bd.46353465@news...
>> Recently a poster mentioned that Costco sold Wine Kits. I was in a
>> Costco here in Calgary the other day and noticed a wine kit promotion.
>> They were selling kits thst featured 23 litres of must. One of the two
>> "Limited Collection 2003" Opus V kits was an Italian Barbaresco. Being
>> a sucker for full bodied Reds I bought the kit. At $72.00Cdn the price
>> seemed pretty good.
>> I'm ready to start the kit now and noticed some strange instuctions.
>> After sprinkling the yeast on the must the instructions say to stir
>> the yeast into the must after waiting ten minutes. The other strange
>> instruction called for stirring the wine after racking to the carboy
>> for secondary fermentation, calling this step an initial degassing.
>> Both of these steps seem designed to rush the fermentation and would
>> appear to be unnecessary. Any thoughts on these steps?

>
>