Talk:Speyer wine bottle

Was it opened in the 1930s and earlier?
This is not the only source that has mentioned this that I've run across. and here which contains details of earlier analyses. This did not make the wine disappear, of course. However, there are assertions that it might have been opened when discovered, in the 1910s, and the 1930s. Presumably it was resealec. Of perhaps it was removed with a hypodermic needle or similar instrument. How did they test the contents without opening the bottle? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are assertions that it has been tested, which is different from opened. Spectroscopy may well have been used. Are there sources saying it has been opened?-- cyclopia speak! 15:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. I may have confabulated the "smell" part.  I may have seen it in some article I didn't put into the article. However, the two articles in the external links suggest there was a lot going on by way of analysis. I think we need to incorporate those into a note in the article.  How about "oldest bottle of still liquid grape wine in the world" as the hook?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Addedd "scent" to latest edit. ✅ 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The least complimentary description of the bottle
"a bottle with a slimy yellow something inside" Probably not a reliable source, but certainly graphic enough in its description. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I noticed a Wordpress blog was used to source information in the article. While I am happy to see the article expanded, I feel we should be cautious -I personally feel the blog is a fine read, but it doesn't meet WP:RS standards, I'm afraid. So I removed it. Sorry! -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is the HFC not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimnirsson (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLOGS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

aas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.78.132 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Odd sentence
What does: The 1.5-litre (0.33 imp gal; 0.40 US gal) bottle is a survivor. mean?--ukexpat (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I guess they wanted to include the size of the bottle somewhere (1.5 litre), and added this sentence. The "survivor" part is probably because the article has just said that glass was fragile, but this one survived. Well, yes, that's the point of the article, so no need to add it again in the last sentence. Needs rewriting. Fram (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I don't think the conversion to gallons is useful. I don't think anyone, even those silly Americans, measures wine in anything other than metric units. In the US, a bottle of wine is 750ml (or 375ml half bottle, or 1.5l magnum). But I do remember once being in a bar in NYC that had a choice between 6 or 9 ounce glasses, so I have included a conversion to US fluid ounces just in case that might be useful. I'm less familiar with the situation in England, as I always drink ale when I'm there. UKexpat, I'm guessing from your user name you might know? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A standard bottle of wine is also 750ml here in the UK. In a pub you would ask for a "small" or a "large" glass. The size of glasses is also measured in ml - a "large" (i.e. frigging huge) glass is apparently 250ml as standard. Anyway, we don't measure wine in fl oz at all in the UK. --77.102.114.99 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What do they mean by this?
"It is thought that, while micro-biologically uncontaminated, the liquid would not actually be enjoyable to drink today." Am I to understand that they speculate that the taste would not be to my liking? If it's a liquid, then by definition it would be possible to drink it. If they say it "wouldn't be enjoyable" then they must be speculating about the taste. Is wikipedia really at the point where it tells people what is and what is not a good taste? If it means that the liquid might be poisonous then it should say so and explain why. I shouldn't have to read the sources to obtain such obvious facts about the article subject. GMRE (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are indeed speculating about the taste. The source states: "Wine professor Monika Christmann said: ‘Micro-biologically it is probably not spoiled, but it would not bring joy to the palate." -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 21:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to a quote and attributed her. "It is thought" is too weasely for me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. However, there is also another source stating a similar concept, without attribution to anyone. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 07:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline and fall of the Roman empire
Although this article says "typically Roman glass was too fragile to be dependable" the article also contains a link to the Roman glass article, which makes clear that glass technology continued to improve throughout much of the duration of the Roman principate - even as other disciplines, such as civil law and numismatics, had begun to decline. Our overall simplified view of the "decadent" Roman empire and its "decline and fall" conceal areas where crafts and life skills continued to improve, such as the blowing of sturdy glass bottles. Bigturtle (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the source says. I don't think we need to elaborate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Opening
I am perplexed by the claim that they are afraid to open the bottle because of the risk of how the contents would interact with the air. Surely German scientists have the ability to open it within a glove box with a nitrogen atmosphere?Bill (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)