Found this article on one of my newsfeeds (taken from
"wineloverspage.com") - thought many of you might also find it interesting.
I'm rather intrigued at the remark attributed to the Portugese cork makers -
that the term 'corked' is misleading --- maybe we should be saying 'tainted'
instead?



Corked?
One of the more frustrating experiences in wine appreciation is the
discovery that the wine you've been looking forward to enjoying was the
victim of a random drive-by slaying perpetrated by a tainted natural cork.


The musty, moldy, mushroomy, chlorine-scented damp-basement and
wet-cardboard stench that cork taint imparts, even in homeopathic amounts,
is sufficient to spoil the enjoyment of your wine and prompt pouring it out,
or if you're willing to make the effort and have a cooperative wine
merchant, taking it back for a refund or exchange.

Even if we grant that the incidence of cork-tainted wine has diminished
somewhat in recent years, thanks to increased quality control efforts by
some cork producers and wine makers, there's no question that a significant
percentage of wines stoppered with natural cork will be spoiled.

But here's a twist, and I don't mean the twist of a screw cap: The other
night I opened a bottle of decent Alsatian wine from a respected producer -
specifically, Trimbach 2002 Pinot Blanc - only to be greeted by the telltale
aroma. Tasting confirmed the first impression: Musty wet-cardboard and fruit
that was muted at best left me in absolutely no doubt. I'll stake my
reputation, such as it is, on my judgement that this wine was corked.

But here's where the story goes off the rails: The bottle was not fitted
with a natural cork. It was closed with a slick-skinned, foam-filled
synthetic stopper, a modern invention explicitly designed as a taint-free
replacement for natural cork.

What's up with that? We've been kicking this topic around on our WineLovers
Discussion Group, and the consensus is that the chemical malefactors
involved in taint - trichloroanisole (TCA) and the less-familiar
tribromoanisole (TBA) and others - is not limited to natural cork. These
compounds may turn up in barrels, in wood used in winery building and other
organic materials that may come in contact with wine.

It's for just this reason that the folks at Amorim - the major Portuguese
cork producer that I had the pleasure of visiting last autumn - object to
the term "corked" to describe tainted wine. Cork defenders argue that taint
comes from many sources and that it's not fair to associate it with the bark
of the Portuguese oak tree.

While I don't buy it completely - most tainted wine is affected by the
cork - this tasting certainly offers a compelling wake-up call and
demonstrates that alternative stoppers can't guarantee that a wine won't
pick up taint from other sources.

I've E-mailed Trimbach asking for comment but at this point have had no
reply. If and when the company responds, I'll pass it on.

"Ric" > wrote:

> Found this article on one of my newsfeeds (taken from
> "wineloverspage.com") - thought many of you might also find it
> interesting. I'm rather intrigued at the remark attributed to
> the Portugese cork makers - that the term 'corked' is misleading
> --- maybe we should be saying 'tainted' instead?
>
> [...]

No we shouldn't.

That's very typical cork producers marketing speak fighting
against losing market shares to alternative closures.

I happen to live in a country (Austria) where alternative closures
haveen an immense uproar, making it the no four country in the
world after NZ, AU, and CH.

We do taste professionally between 2,000 and 3,000 wines a year.
At the slightest suspect of taint we do immediately open a second
bottle and taste it alongside the first. With bark corks, we have
between 10 and 30 percent cork taints, i.e. that the backup-bottle
confirms the problem of the first by showing better (or, rarely,
by being worse).

Although the share of screw-capped and glass-stoppered wine is
much lower than 10 percent, I have yet to come across a wine where
there is a difference between the suspect and the back-up bottle.
In fact we had only one glass-stoppered wine with a problem
similar to TCA, and none under screw-cap, althouh we had bad wines
under both closures.

M.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:39:36 +0200, Michael Pronay >
wrote:

>"Ric" > wrote:
>
>> Found this article on one of my newsfeeds (taken from
>> "wineloverspage.com") - thought many of you might also find it
>> interesting. I'm rather intrigued at the remark attributed to
>> the Portugese cork makers - that the term 'corked' is misleading
>> --- maybe we should be saying 'tainted' instead?
>>
>> [...]
>
>No we shouldn't.
>
>That's very typical cork producers marketing speak fighting
>against losing market shares to alternative closures.
>
>I happen to live in a country (Austria) where alternative closures
>haveen an immense uproar, making it the no four country in the
>world after NZ, AU, and CH.
>
>We do taste professionally between 2,000 and 3,000 wines a year.
>At the slightest suspect of taint we do immediately open a second
>bottle and taste it alongside the first. With bark corks, we have
>between 10 and 30 percent cork taints, i.e. that the backup-bottle
>confirms the problem of the first by showing better (or, rarely,
>by being worse).
>
>Although the share of screw-capped and glass-stoppered wine is
>much lower than 10 percent, I have yet to come across a wine where
>there is a difference between the suspect and the back-up bottle.
>In fact we had only one glass-stoppered wine with a problem
>similar to TCA, and none under screw-cap, althouh we had bad wines
>under both closures.
>
>M.

While I agree that the Portugese cork industry has a dog in this hunt,
I think your final paragraph actually supports their position. Bad
corks, poorly handled corks, poor production sanitation, etc. are
probably the leading cause of corked wines. But if the Portugese cork
makers are implying that with good corks well handled (i.e. their
product) the cause might lie elsewhere they might have a case.

Bad storage, bad barrels, contamination in bottling or whatever would
be blamed for those incidents which you cite of screw-capped or
glass-stoppered wines which show as tainted and with the backup bottle
displaying the same fault.

Bottom line, and I'm in total agreement with you, is that far too many
bottles of wine (often at great expense) are damaged and the cause is
the cork more often than any other culprit in the sequence.

How long will it take though until I enjoy the ceremony at my dining
table of the waiter bringing the bottle, displaying the label, then
ceremoniously twisting off the Stelvin closure and proffering it for
my consideration before pouring a taste?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>> Although the share of screw-capped and glass-stoppered wine is
>> much lower than 10 percent, I have yet to come across a wine
>> where there is a difference between the suspect and the back-up
>> bottle. In fact we had only one glass-stoppered wine with a
>> problem similar to TCA, and none under screw-cap, althouh we
>> had bad wines under both closures.

> While I agree that the Portugese cork industry has a dog in
> this hunt, I think your final paragraph actually supports their
> position. Bad corks, poorly handled corks, poor production
> sanitation, etc. are probably the leading cause of corked wines.
> But if the Portugese cork makers are implying that with good
> corks well handled (i.e. their product) the cause might lie
> elsewhere they might have a case.

Here's where I cannot follow you reasoning. When one bottle
under cork is suspect, the other discernably better (judged
by an experienced panel), then only the individual cork can
be the culprit. Since corks are treated in batches - from
production to bottling line - bottle variation can only be
caused by the individual piece of bark, not by mishandling
the whole batch.

> Bad storage, bad barrels, contamination in bottling or
> whatever would be blamed for those incidents which you cite
> of screw-capped or glass-stoppered wines which show as tainted
> and with the backup bottle displaying the same fault.

While here, I do clearly say that we do not have encountered
bottle variation, so bad wine can come from everywhe bad
wine-making most certainly being the number one culprit. Not
talking about the fact that the incidence rate of these faults
is much, much lower than with corks.

> Bottom line, and I'm in total agreement with you, is that far
> too many bottles of wine (often at great expense) are damaged
> and the cause is the cork more often than any other culprit in
> the sequence.

Here we're 100% d'accord.

> How long will it take though until I enjoy the ceremony at my
> dining table of the waiter bringing the bottle, displaying the
> label, then ceremoniously twisting off the Stelvin closure and
> proffering it for my consideration before pouring a taste?

Just come over to Vienna, no problem having this ceremony over
here!

M.

I also agree that contaminated cork is by far the leading cause of TCA
contamination of wine - although TCA can, and does, contaminate oak in the
winery as well. Inappropriate use of hypochlorite solutions as cleaning
agents in the winery have long been associated with the contamination,
regardless of the cork used.

But I still think the term 'corked' is misleading - most wine drinkers I
watch and listen to really don't know what TCA is, or how to recognize it.
The term 'corked' leads people to blame corks for acetification, sulfides,
oxygenated wine, brettanomyces infection, and various other ills.

I must admit I'm skeptical of the previous posters suggestion of 10 to 30
percent contamination in cork closed wines. As a winemaker, I don't see data
to support that estimate - nor does my experience support it. 5 to 10% is
the range many winemakers will admit off the record. Of course, the industry
would have you believe the number is around 3%.

Bottom line; alternative closures are preferable insofar as reducing TCA
contamination is concerned. But the term 'corked', to my mind, is still
misleading.

Had dinner at the Novotel in Venice Mestre 2 nights ago and while far
from a memorable meal, I got a great wine story out of it relating to
corked wine.

I ordered the valpolicella, a nice enough though not inspired offering
the night before and as we were having a light dinner ordered it again.
The waiter brought the bottle, pulled the cork, poured a little, I did
the swill sniff and sip thing and even with my lingering vestige of a
head cold could taste the cork, my wife verified the phenomenon and I
rejected the bottle. The waiter explained that Valpolicella is a wine
that needs to breathe in order to be appreciated. I replied, "The wine
is corked, it will never be good." I got a grimace but he did come back
with a fresh bottle and all was well at our table.

About 10 minutes later I noticed a couple sitting behind me (glass
windows are great mirrors) appearantly she had ordered a glass of the
house wine (not the aforementioned Valpo according to the menu) Waiter
brought over what looked like the same bottle (and I would sear that it
was as the label was the same) poured her a generous glass and left.
Though I felt like walking over and advising her, I refrained (not that
much of a wine snob!) She drank the wine, I would have loved to know
what she thought. So I now know2 what happens in B restaurants when wine
is returned! Caveat emptor!



--
Joseph Coulter
Cruises and Vacations
http://www.josephcoulter.com/