Hi all,
Let's talk to Doug at PIWine about the destemmer. I'm wondering how much fruit is lost in the process.
As for the press, let's give it a tune-up. Let's take the polls apart and let's consider buying new hardware. Some lockwashers down at the bottom beneath the plate, for instance, might keep those poles from wiggling. I know at the very least we need to rachet it down with some wrenches. It's never been so wiggly.
Best,
Bernardo
2 comments:
Re the destemmer -
Go for it. But keep in mind that Lori & Peter (and to a lesser extent, me) put a bunch more time into destemming than went into the Pace / Dawson barrel, so their concern isn't fruit loss - it's saving hours. Betcha they'd buy a few extra pounds and be happy to shave off an hour of bending over the barrel.
(Also, for what it's worth, the destemmer is the standard, assumed piece of equipment in just about all the home winemaking texts.)
Re the press:
Yeah, let's look at what we can do.
Here's what I've already looked at, earlier this week -
The shafts were not removed after the 2007 pressing - so they're attached in exactly the same way as they were when we used them in 2007. Ditto 2006 to 2007. I don't remember the wobbliness being any different, but maybe. If it was, it wasn't because of anything different down below.
As they are attached, the threads on the bottom of the shafts are too short to extend through and above the bottom rail. So, as attached, there's no way to put a bolt above the bottom rail to help steady each shaft.
The tops of the shafts are bent. Probably makes little difference, unless we want to remove the shafts from the sleeves without removing the shafts from the pressing plate.
One of the legs is not original, which is not a big deal, but I notice it does not sit as nicely in the framing of the bottom of the press plate as the originals. So it probably adds a little unsteadiness. More of a bummer, unlike the other two legs, it is not drilled at the foot, so if we wanted to add short, heavy duty wheels to the legs (and I did want to so it would be easier to shuffle the beast around in the cellar), too bad.
The rail bolted to the bottom of the press plate is of the same type as we're using for the top brace. Two bolts were uses - don't know if the press plate was drilled to do this or the holes are original. I'm guessing they were drilled, because the press plate has a large center hole that looks like it's from the original casting: this has an ancient wooden bung in it. It was likely the connection point for the original screw mechanism or the original bottom rail. I vote screw mechanism - meaning the press was probably not originally made for an independent screw jack like we're using, but for a top block that screwed down a central shaft - like the mechanical presses I linked to. Also like the old press that's sitting in the front yard of the house on 6th ave at about 15th.
What might be easily done with the barbers' press is to flip the shafts, so that there is a longer threaded portion extending through the press plate, and putting a bolt above and below the plate. That would add some rigidity. Won't know how much til we try it, but it's an easy change. Still seems to me like a pretty life threatening machine that requires two people to get done the work of one, but what the hey. Labor is cheap and unemployment rates are going up.
Re the whole idea of buying a new press - I don't imagine small changes to the existing press would alter my desire, but gear acquisition pangs come and go. It's not something I would do until next autumn and who knows if I'll still want to. I wasn't really assuming everyone would want to come in on it.
Post a Comment