I know that variations in temperature are bad for cellaring wines, and I seem
to have that under control with a new furnace. The old convection model bled
heat and warmed up the basement irregularly. With the new furnace, my basement
back bedroom (wine storage room) has been holding at 50 - 54 deg. F for the
last two months, and will gradually heat to the mid 60s by August.

But maintaining humidity requires adding water (humidifier) periodically,which
raises the humidity from 50% to 75%. It drops back to 50% within a couple of
days. There are more expensive solutions to this, of course, consisting of
central humidification, and a vapor barrier to seal the room. I don't want to
do all this. I am not worried about pushing the humidity to 75% and damaging
the room, because it doesn't stay there.

Any comments about yo-yo humidities?

Thanks

Tom Schellberg

Salut/Hi Xyzsch,

le/on 23 Feb 2004 04:39:27 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>But maintaining humidity requires adding water (humidifier) periodically,which
>raises the humidity from 50% to 75%. It drops back to 50% within a couple of
>days. There are more expensive solutions to this, of course, consisting of
>central humidification, and a vapor barrier to seal the room. I don't want to
>do all this. I am not worried about pushing the humidity to 75% and damaging
>the room, because it doesn't stay there.

Frankly Tom, I'd not fret about the humidity. If you've got some bottles
which you want to store for a _very_ long time (>20 years) then you might
consider waxing the necks. I don't knowe about its availability in the USA,
but bottling wax (like sealing wax) is freely available here in France. All
you'd need to do is melt the wax, and one by one, dip each bottle into the
wax, deep enought to cover the whole capsule (clean off first, of course).
Your corks won't dry out then.

But honestly, I'd not bother.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Bottle wax is readily available from any home winemaking supply retailer.
I've got several colors in my winemaking shop, and use it occasionally for a
decorative touch in finishing some of my wines.

Typical source would be www.homebrew.com

Bart


"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Salut/Hi Xyzsch,
>
> le/on 23 Feb 2004 04:39:27 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >But maintaining humidity requires adding water (humidifier)
periodically,which
> >raises the humidity from 50% to 75%. It drops back to 50% within a couple
of
> >days. There are more expensive solutions to this, of course, consisting
of
> >central humidification, and a vapor barrier to seal the room. I don't
want to
> >do all this. I am not worried about pushing the humidity to 75% and
damaging
> >the room, because it doesn't stay there.
>
> Frankly Tom, I'd not fret about the humidity. If you've got some bottles
> which you want to store for a _very_ long time (>20 years) then you might
> consider waxing the necks. I don't knowe about its availability in the
USA,
> but bottling wax (like sealing wax) is freely available here in France.
All
> you'd need to do is melt the wax, and one by one, dip each bottle into the
> wax, deep enought to cover the whole capsule (clean off first, of course).
> Your corks won't dry out then.
>
> But honestly, I'd not bother.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Thanks for the tip Ian with bottle wax.

Silver Oak Winery sells a Port at the vineyard only. They have the melted
wax over the top. Its a real pain in the ass to remove however.

I thought they did of for decorations only. Now I find out there is another
reason for such wax.

thanks


"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Salut/Hi Xyzsch,
>
> le/on 23 Feb 2004 04:39:27 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >But maintaining humidity requires adding water (humidifier)
periodically,which
> >raises the humidity from 50% to 75%. It drops back to 50% within a couple
of
> >days. There are more expensive solutions to this, of course, consisting
of
> >central humidification, and a vapor barrier to seal the room. I don't
want to
> >do all this. I am not worried about pushing the humidity to 75% and
damaging
> >the room, because it doesn't stay there.
>
> Frankly Tom, I'd not fret about the humidity. If you've got some bottles
> which you want to store for a _very_ long time (>20 years) then you might
> consider waxing the necks. I don't knowe about its availability in the
USA,
> but bottling wax (like sealing wax) is freely available here in France.
All
> you'd need to do is melt the wax, and one by one, dip each bottle into the
> wax, deep enought to cover the whole capsule (clean off first, of course).
> Your corks won't dry out then.
>
> But honestly, I'd not bother.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Frankly Tom, I'd not fret about the humidity. If you've got some bottles
> which you want to store for a _very_ long time (>20 years) then you might
> consider waxing the necks. I don't knowe about its availability in the
USA,
> but bottling wax (like sealing wax) is freely available here in France.
All
> you'd need to do is melt the wax, and one by one, dip each bottle into the
> wax, deep enought to cover the whole capsule (clean off first, of course).

Hi, Ian -

Are you suggesting that he should first remove the capsule, or that the
outside of the capsule should be cleaned? It sounded like the former, but
the latter makes more sense. The metal (or metallized plastic) capsule is a
better vapor barrier material than wax. The function of the wax would be to
fill the gap-osis between the capsule and the neck of the bottle, as well as
any pinholes at the top of the capsule. Also, the embedded capsule would
make removal of the wax easier - although that's still a messy process.

> Your corks won't dry out then.

That's true - but they may still leak under the wax. I've seen that before.

> But honestly, I'd not bother.

Me neither. Trying to seal leaks from the side _opposite_ the pressure is
an exercise in futility, as anyone schooled in engineering knows.

Tom S

sorry to jump in this discussion but doesn't the bottle need to breathe to
age properly?

Joe

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Salut/Hi Tom S,
>
> le/on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:38:21 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >> you'd need to do is melt the wax, and one by one, dip each bottle into
the
> >> wax, deep enought to cover the whole capsule (clean off first, of
course).
>
> >Are you suggesting that he should first remove the capsule, or that the
> >outside of the capsule should be cleaned? It sounded like the former,
but
> >the latter makes more sense.
>
> Oops, Tom, well spotted. When I said "clean off first", I meant to say
that
> the whole neck end should be cleaned up, but the capsule left in position.
> It wasn't util you pointed it out that I saw the ambiguity in my language.
> Grr. I hate sloppy language.
>
> > The metal (or metallized plastic) capsule is a better vapor barrier
material than wax.
>
> As long as it has no holes, and I've seen capsules with holes. For me, the
> use of wax is simply to reinforce the work of the capsule and reduce even
> further the loss of moisture.
>
> >any pinholes at the top of the capsule. Also, the embedded capsule would
> >make removal of the wax easier - although that's still a messy process.
>
> True. Though again, with a bit of practice, it can be done reasonably
easily
> - if the capsule was left in position.
>
> >That's true - but they may still leak under the wax. I've seen that
before.
>
> I _think_ you'll find that a leaker in these circumstances is down to a
> fairly badly failed cork, and/or badly cleaned up bottle neck. Wax is a
> pretty goodf seal on celan glass - which is why the wax should entirely
> cover the capsule - and further.
>
> >Me neither. Trying to seal leaks from the side _opposite_ the pressure
is
> >an exercise in futility, as anyone schooled in engineering knows.
>
> Chuckle.... Yes, there's some truth in that too. As I tried to suggest to
> Tom, I doubt if 50% - or even less - humidity is going to have any
> noticeable effect on any except VERY long keepers.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Joe Ae" > wrote in message
. ..
> sorry to jump in this discussion but doesn't the bottle need to breathe to
> age properly?

Not unless you're aging vinegar!

Tom S

"Joe Ae" > wrote:

> sorry to jump in this discussion but doesn't the bottle need to
> breathe to age properly?

Taht's an extremely wide-spread urban legend, misconception,
prejudice - call it whatever you want.

M.

I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the bottle is the
objective then why use corks and risk the problems such as leaking, TCA?

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Ae" > wrote:
>
> > sorry to jump in this discussion but doesn't the bottle need to
> > breathe to age properly?
>
> Taht's an extremely wide-spread urban legend, misconception,
> prejudice - call it whatever you want.
>
> M.

"Joe Ae" > wrote in
:

> I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the bottle is
> the objective then why use corks and risk the problems such as
> leaking, TCA?
>
> "Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Joe Ae" > wrote:
>>
>> > sorry to jump in this discussion but doesn't the bottle need to
>> > breathe to age properly?
>>
>> Taht's an extremely wide-spread urban legend, misconception,
>> prejudice - call it whatever you want.
>>
>> M.
>
>

Now you have entered one of the grand debates! To stelvin or not to
Stelvin. (a screw top by any other name would seal as tight)

"Joe Ae" > wrote in message
. ..
> I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the bottle is the
> objective then why use corks and risk the problems such as leaking, TCA?

That's the million dollar question!

It seems to all boil down to tradition. Hundreds of years ago, cork was a
"high tech" closure for bottles of anything - mainly because nothing better
was available; not because of its intrinsic superiority. Nowadays, cork is
used mostly for sealing wine bottles and making flooring. Most other
producers of liquid goods have migrated to _better_ closures for their
wares, yet the wine industry stubbornly clings to what is well known to be a
problematical material - at _best_.

It's a chicken or egg problem: Wineries are convinced that their customers
won't accept a change to a better material/method, and the customers insist
on cork because they think it's superior - mostly because it has been used
by the wineries for centuries. It's going to take a major education program
to change that perception on both sides of the equation. The fact that
Gallo gave screw capped wines a bad reputation 50 years ago only exacerbates
the problem.

All that, plus wine drinkers like to hear that "pop!" when the bottle is
opened...

Tom S

On 2/24/04 9:27 PM, in article
, "Tom S"
> wrote:

>
> "Joe Ae" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the bottle is the
>> objective then why use corks and risk the problems such as leaking, TCA?
>
> That's the million dollar question!
>
> It seems to all boil down to tradition. Hundreds of years ago, cork was a
> "high tech" closure for bottles of anything - mainly because nothing better
> was available; not because of its intrinsic superiority. Nowadays, cork is
> used mostly for sealing wine bottles and making flooring. Most other
> producers of liquid goods have migrated to _better_ closures for their
> wares, yet the wine industry stubbornly clings to what is well known to be a
> problematical material - at _best_.
>
> It's a chicken or egg problem: Wineries are convinced that their customers
> won't accept a change to a better material/method, and the customers insist
> on cork because they think it's superior - mostly because it has been used
> by the wineries for centuries. It's going to take a major education program
> to change that perception on both sides of the equation. The fact that
> Gallo gave screw capped wines a bad reputation 50 years ago only exacerbates
> the problem.
>
> All that, plus wine drinkers like to hear that "pop!" when the bottle is
> opened...

Many Australian producers are starting to use non-cork closures. Outside of
the US where it was tried - fine wine markets seem to be accepting of it,
but for the middle-range wines, it seems a harder sell.

These comments are utterly unofficial (perhaps even forged!) but I forward
for your personal interest. -- MH


Monday, May 13, 2002

Yesterday at Ridge Vineyards, Paul Draper (enthusiastic and gracious as
usual) made informal remarks about cork alternatives that I found
intriguing, and I pass them on for others interested.

He said that there were data from France, and also limited experimental data
from Ridge, supporting a conclusion that the small but nonzero air exchange
occurring through conventional corks is important in the flavor development
of long-term wines like his Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet, as opposed, he said,
to wines vinified, as many are now, to acquire most of their final flavor
before they are bottled (he referred to deliberate aeration as well as steps
in the forming of the wine to make them more accessible young). For those
numerous latter wines, an airtight closure would make less of a difference.
At Ridge there has been some experimentation with plastic corks, which he
said maintained an airtight seal and led to less of the desirable flavor
evolution. He is planning to run experiments with screw tops as well but
"that requires a special machine we don't have yet." He also cited
evidence elsewhere from overseas that the screw-topped bottles, if stored
upright, are not as airtight as the plastic corks and may therefore be
closer to real cork in effect.

I thought this interesting in view of the unqualified support for airtight
closures that I've heard from a couple of other winemakers in the Santa Cruz
Mountains. In the course of frequent regular organized tastings with
conventional corks in recent years I've noticed remarkably many defective
"corked" bottles, certainly one in 20 and sometimes it seems more like one
in 10, which sparks curiosity about reliable alternatives.


"Bromo" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/24/04 9:27 PM, in article
> , "Tom S"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Joe Ae" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the bottle is
the
> >> objective then why use corks and risk the problems such as leaking,
TCA?
> >
> > That's the million dollar question!

Salut/Hi Max Hauser,

Thanks for posting this.

le/on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:09:02 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>He said that there were data from France, and also limited experimental data
>from Ridge, supporting a conclusion that the small but nonzero air exchange
>occurring through conventional corks is important in the flavor development
>of long-term wines like his Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet, as opposed, he said,
>to wines vinified, as many are now, to acquire most of their final flavor
>before they are bottled (he referred to deliberate aeration as well as steps
>in the forming of the wine to make them more accessible young).

How interesting. I was unaware of such research.

I have to say that this more or less confirms what I've been saying here
fairly consistently.

For me the $64k (I'm a traditionalist) question is this.

"If demand for cork bottle closures plummets, will the manufacturers be able
to guarantee that the few remaining corks sold will be TCA free, to all
intents and purposes?" If they can, then I can see a long term future for
cork closures. If they can't, then I suspect we're seeing the end of an era.
I DO so hope that we aren't throwing out the baby of graceful long term
aging with the bathwater of corked wines.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare wrote:

>>He said that there were data from France, and also limited experimental data
>>
>>
>>from Ridge, supporting a conclusion that the small but nonzero air exchange
>
>
>>occurring through conventional corks is important in the flavor development
>>of long-term wines like his Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet, as opposed, he said,
>>to wines vinified, as many are now, to acquire most of their final flavor
>>before they are bottled (he referred to deliberate aeration as well as steps
>>in the forming of the wine to make them more accessible young).
>>
>>
>
>How interesting. I was unaware of such research.
>
>I have to say that this more or less confirms what I've been saying here
>fairly consistently.
>
>For me the $64k (I'm a traditionalist) question is this.
>
>"If demand for cork bottle closures plummets, will the manufacturers be able
>to guarantee that the few remaining corks sold will be TCA free, to all
>intents and purposes?" If they can, then I can see a long term future for
>cork closures. If they can't, then I suspect we're seeing the end of an era.
>I DO so hope that we aren't throwing out the baby of graceful long term
>aging with the bathwater of corked wines.
>
>
>

And now comes news of a new glass stopper being developed in Germany
that will have a
little more appeal than the screw cap.

http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,2348,00.html

Mark Lipton > wrote:

> FWIW, I believe that there has been research done at UC Davis
> that concluded that the aging of wine involves both aerobic and
> anaerobic processes, implying that some amount of oxygen is
> essential for proper aging.

Sorry, no, please stop these urban legends!

M.

"Joe Ae" > wrote:

> I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the
> bottle is the objective then why use corks and risk the problems
> such as leaking, TCA?

That's exactly the question. Consumers like cork, says the industry.

M.

Michael Pronay wrote:

> Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I believe that there has been research done at UC Davis
> > that concluded that the aging of wine involves both aerobic and
> > anaerobic processes, implying that some amount of oxygen is
> > essential for proper aging.
>
> Sorry, no, please stop these urban legends!

Your source, Michael? What I'm referring to are the chemical reactions
involved in the aging, not some recycled tale of breathing. I *know*
that I've seen it. If I can find a source of it on the web, I will post
it.

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton wrote:

> If I can find a source of it on the web, I will post it.

Here's something (not what I remember, though):
http://waterhouse.ucdavis.edu/ven219...g_of_wines.htm

At issue, Michael, is the formation of sediment. That part of sediment
that is not tartrate crystals has been shown to be polymerized phenolics.
The problem here is that the polymerization of phenolics is an oxidative
process. I can do it in the lab, and I guarantee you that it doesn't work
without some sort of oxidant. Since we know that sediment forms even
before that cork is removed, we need to find the source of oxidation and
oxygen is the obvious (perhaps even correct!) culprit. I do realize that
Peynaud has argued strongly against this view, but I haven't seen the data
that led him to this conclusion.

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton > wrote:

>> > FWIW, I believe that there has been research done at UC Davis
>> > that concluded that the aging of wine involves both aerobic
>> > and anaerobic processes, implying that some amount of oxygen
>> > is essential for proper aging.

>> Sorry, no, please stop these urban legends!

> Your source, Michael?

<http://www.screwcap.co.nz/grids/index_green.asp?id=245&area=5> :


-------------- Begin of Citation --------------

J Ribéreau-Gayon et al (1976), "Traité d'Oneologie - Sciences et
Techniques du Vin" Vol. 3

"... les quantités d'oxygène qui pénètrent normalement dans les
bouteilles sont infirmes sinon nulles. L'oxygène n'est pas
l'agent du vieillissement normal en bouteille."

Translated:

"... the quantities of oxygen that normally penetrate into the
bottles are negligible if not zero. Oxygen is not the agent of
normal bottle maturation."

E. Peynaud (1981), "Knowing and Making Wine"

"...it is the opposite of oxidation, a process of reduction or
asphyxia, by which wine develops in the bottle."

P Ribéreau-Gayon et al (2000), "Handbook of Enology - Vol.2 The
Chemistry of Wine Stabilization and Treatments"

"When a wine ages in the bottle, the oxidation - reduction
potential decreases regularly until it reaches a minimum value,
depending on how well the bottle is sealed. Reactions that take
place in bottled wine do not require oxygen."

"During bottle aging, wines develop in a reducing environment,
tending towards greater organoleptic quality than they initially
possessed."

-------------- End of Citation --------------


> What I'm referring to are the chemical reactions involved in the
> aging, not some recycled tale of breathing. I *know* that I've
> seen it. If I can find a source of it on the web, I will post
> it.

Thank you.

M.

Consumers ... blah blah we are told by the industries are the cause of many
of our maladies.
I find that as consumers we are not given the choices. In some period it
must have been more economical to use corks. I like those white plastic
corks.

Joe


"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Ae" > wrote:
>
> > I am feeling a little smaller at this point. If sealing the
> > bottle is the objective then why use corks and risk the problems
> > such as leaking, TCA?
>
> That's exactly the question. Consumers like cork, says the industry.
>
> M.

"Mark Lipton" in message ...
>
> Very interesting, Max. It also reinforces my view that Paul Draper is
one of
> the most interesting people in the California wine business.

I should mention that those notes are nearly two years old and might have
appeared here in a more timely fashion, along with other information, except
for the extraordinary sequence of events, which I've only partly articulated
here (and still imperfectly assimilated) that knocked this newsgroup
successfully and persistently off my radar for some years (and possibly also
the radar of other earlier contributors as well).

> ... knocked this newsgroup
> successfully and persistently off my radar for some years

Only recently when I looked at rec.food.drink I saw the too-familiar minor
non-wine traffic and dropped a note to "Antoinette," who loves food
(1-Feb-04) and I included even a reference or two to Austria. And this was
BEFORE I knew about A.F.W. and that I would run into M. Pronay here. (I met
Mr. Pronay briefly in 1996; that was three years after I had found myself
unexpectedly, and also briefly, on TV in his country as a California visitor
during the recovery from the preposterous "glycols" scandal of the middle
1980s that should be taught and immortalized as a cautionary tale about
popular journalism on technical topics, just as, closer to home for me, and
in a different part of the wine industry, the AxR-1 debacle is becoming
immortalized. By the way, Paul Draper had campaigned against AxR-1 years
ago while at Ridge; some of his comments were printed in the newsletter
there after the scandal broke, and I asked if they could be posted on
Ridge's Web site, I don't know however if they have been.)

Michael Pronay wrote:

> Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
> > At issue, Michael, is the formation of sediment. That part of
> > sediment that is not tartrate crystals has been shown to be
> > polymerized phenolics. The problem here is that the
> > polymerization of phenolics is an oxidative process. [...]
>
> You are probably right, but formation of sediments most probably
> happens with the oxigen dissolved in wine without any need of
> further input through the cork.

But, if that were true, we'd expect all the sediment to form almost
immediately upon bottling. The sulfites in wine guarantee that there
will be no dissolved oxygen in the wine for long. In fact, it seems to
me that the oxidation of the phenolics can only take place after the
consumption of the sulfites (well, perhaps only after the sulfites are
fully "bound" in the wine), which to me implies that some amount of
oxygen must be introduced into the bottle during the course of bottle
aging.

Thanks for your sources. I do admit feeling queasy about going mano a
mano with such luminaries as Peynaud, but as a chemist I don't see any
way of reconciling my views with his on this matter. One thing that
I've long wondered about is whether the source of those statements is
the measurement of dissolved oxygen in the wine; if so, it's entirely
possible that the levels of dissolved oxygen were below the threshold of
their measurements because of the rapid consumption of oxygen in the
oxidation of the tannins. Just an idle thought, I admit...

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton > wrote:

> But, if that were true, we'd expect all the sediment to form
> almost immediately upon bottling.

Your chemical sense would expect that - not me ;-)

To be honest, I don't understand enough in chemistry to follow
you. What I do understand are opinions like "At best, cork *is* as
gas-tight as a screw- or a crown cap" - and Deposit would imho
form in screw-capped reds exactly the same way.

We have the example of air-tight crown-caps in the champagne
industry where some wines regularly age 10 and more years under
crown-cap (Krug Vintage), and reference bottles in the wineries
after 20 and 30 years show no irregularity in ageing.

If there is any difference, may I cite Peter Gago from Penfolds
who is experimenting with upscale reds under screw-caps 9 and 10
years (there's even Grange under screw-cap for test purposes):
"Ageing process under screwrcaps happens in a slightly slower pace
as under cork. It's like having wine from a cool cellar compared
to a normal one".

M.

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Pronay wrote:
>
> > Mark Lipton > wrote:
> >
> > > At issue, Michael, is the formation of sediment. That part of
> > > sediment that is not tartrate crystals has been shown to be
> > > polymerized phenolics. The problem here is that the
> > > polymerization of phenolics is an oxidative process. [...]
> >
> > You are probably right, but formation of sediments most probably
> > happens with the oxigen dissolved in wine without any need of
> > further input through the cork.
>
> But, if that were true, we'd expect all the sediment to form almost
> immediately upon bottling. The sulfites in wine guarantee that there
> will be no dissolved oxygen in the wine for long. In fact, it seems to
> me that the oxidation of the phenolics can only take place after the
> consumption of the sulfites (well, perhaps only after the sulfites are
> fully "bound" in the wine), which to me implies that some amount of
> oxygen must be introduced into the bottle during the course of bottle
> aging.

All of that assumes that the presence of oxygen is necessary for
polymerization of phenolics, which may not be the case. Redox reactions may
occur without the presence of any oxygen at all; Oxidation or reduction are
all a matter of gain or loss of electrons (depending on which direction you
look at it).

There are a couple of other factors (besides the cork) that may well
influence the rate of reactions within the aging process. (1) The high
proportion of water in wine tends to disfavor organic reactions. (2) What
about the possibility that the glass surface, with its trace impurities,
acts as either a catalyst or at least a necessary substrate for the
polymerization of phenolics? That would tend to explain the more rapid
aging of wine in small format bottles (more surface area of glass per unit
volume).

Tom S

Tom S wrote:

>
> All of that assumes that the presence of oxygen is necessary for
> polymerization of phenolics, which may not be the case. Redox reactions may
> occur without the presence of any oxygen at all; Oxidation or reduction are
> all a matter of gain or loss of electrons (depending on which direction you
> look at it).

True, but can you suggest another oxidant powerful enough to oxidize a phenol
that is likely to be present in wine? I can't.

>
>
> There are a couple of other factors (besides the cork) that may well
> influence the rate of reactions within the aging process. (1) The high
> proportion of water in wine tends to disfavor organic reactions.

Not really true, Tom. Enzymes routinely catalyze organic reactions in what is
essentially water. True, some organic reactions are incompatible with water,
but polymerization of phenols ain't one of them...

> (2) What
> about the possibility that the glass surface, with its trace impurities,
> acts as either a catalyst or at least a necessary substrate for the
> polymerization of phenolics? That would tend to explain the more rapid
> aging of wine in small format bottles (more surface area of glass per unit
> volume).

But catalysis doesn't get us off the hook, because you still need an oxidizing
agent. Water and glass are incapable of acting as oxidants in this case, so
we are left with very few players. Let's also keep in mind that wine at the
time of bottling is in a reductive state, so oxidants will be few and far
between.

Mark Lipton

Michael Pronay > wrote in message >...
> Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
> >> > FWIW, I believe that there has been research done at UC Davis
> >> > that concluded that the aging of wine involves both aerobic
> >> > and anaerobic processes, implying that some amount of oxygen
> >> > is essential for proper aging.
>
> >> Sorry, no, please stop these urban legends!
>
> > Your source, Michael?
>
> <http://www.screwcap.co.nz/grids/index_green.asp?id=245&area=5> :
>
>
> -------------- Begin of Citation --------------
>
> J Ribéreau-Gayon et al (1976), "Traité d'Oneologie - Sciences et
> Techniques du Vin" Vol. 3
>
> "... les quantités d'oxygène qui pénètrent normalement dans les
> bouteilles sont infirmes sinon nulles. L'oxygène n'est pas
> l'agent du vieillissement normal en bouteille."
>
> Translated:
>
> "... the quantities of oxygen that normally penetrate into the
> bottles are negligible if not zero. Oxygen is not the agent of
> normal bottle maturation."
>
> E. Peynaud (1981), "Knowing and Making Wine"
>
> "...it is the opposite of oxidation, a process of reduction or
> asphyxia, by which wine develops in the bottle."
>
> P Ribéreau-Gayon et al (2000), "Handbook of Enology - Vol.2 The
> Chemistry of Wine Stabilization and Treatments"
>
> "When a wine ages in the bottle, the oxidation - reduction
> potential decreases regularly until it reaches a minimum value,
> depending on how well the bottle is sealed. Reactions that take
> place in bottled wine do not require oxygen."
>
> "During bottle aging, wines develop in a reducing environment,
> tending towards greater organoleptic quality than they initially
> possessed."
>
> -------------- End of Citation --------------
>
Jumping in here, I don't doubt that reduction may be the *primary*
mechanism for bottle development but it seems to me that claims that
it is the *only* mechanism are speculative. These citations you have
provided are from well-regarded texts but unless backed by
scientifically valid data, they still constitute nothing more than the
opinions of their authors. Do they back their conclusions with data
that you did not provide? Unlike Mark L., I'm not a chemist and so I
can't write knowledgeably about chemical reactions in wine that might
require oxygen. But it seems to me that the ullage you inevitably see
in older wines are ample evidence that air *does* get into the bottle
either through or around the cork.

It seems to me wrong to consign legitimate questions about the role of
oxidation in the ageing of wine to "urban legend" without any data to
support that assertion. Given the fact that air *does* get in the
bottle, it's hard for me to believe that it does not affect the
properties of the wine inside. Bottom line, nobody really knows how
wines age, do they? Or at least I haven't seen any conclusive data on
the subjet. It's not enough to cite a couple of *opinions*, IMHO.
Show me some data!

It's possible that if oxygen is excluded entirely - and wine ageing
therefore is completely reductive - that the result will superior to
the somewhat random combination of reductive and oxidative effects we
get now due to variation in cork permeability. Or not - I don't see
how there is any way to know. The one thing it seems to me we can be
sure of: wine maturation under an impermeable stopper will be
*different* than what it is under cork.

- Mark W.

(Mark Willstatter) wrote:

> It seems to me wrong to consign legitimate questions about the
> role of oxidation in the ageing of wine to "urban legend"
> without any data to support that assertion. Given the fact that
> air *does* get in the bottle, it's hard for me to believe that
> it does not affect the properties of the wine inside. Bottom
> line, nobody really knows how wines age, do they? Or at least I
> haven't seen any conclusive data on the subjet. It's not enough
> to cite a couple of *opinions*, IMHO. Show me some data!
>
> It's possible that if oxygen is excluded entirely - and wine
> ageing therefore is completely reductive - that the result will
> superior to the somewhat random combination of reductive and
> oxidative effects we get now due to variation in cork
> permeability. Or not - I don't see how there is any way to
> know. The one thing it seems to me we can be sure of: wine
> maturation under an impermeable stopper will be *different* than
> what it is under cork.

There simply is no scientific evidence nor data, neither in the
one nor in the other direction.

What we do have, however, is what rightly is called "anecdotical
evidence": Champagne that has matured perfectly under crown caps,
and reds (and whites) from down under that aged extremely
gracefully.

Australia's Tyson Stelzer perfectly summed up the discussion in
his recent book "Screwed for Good. The Case for Red Wine Under
Screw Caps." A central chapter ("Buried Treasures? Old Reds Under
Screw Cap") can be found he

<http://www.cellaringwine.com/Chapter%206.pdf>

M.

Mark Lipton > wrote in message >...
>
> But catalysis doesn't get us off the hook, because you still need an oxidizing
> agent. Water and glass are incapable of acting as oxidants in this case, so
> we are left with very few players. Let's also keep in mind that wine at the
> time of bottling is in a reductive state, so oxidants will be few and far
> between.
>
> Mark Lipton

Mark, what do you mean when you say that "wine at the time of bottling
is in a reductive state". Although the science of bottle ageing is
poorly understood, from what I've read, possible sources of oxygen in
the wine include small amounts dissolved in the wine during racking
(including, for example, consolidating wine from barrels into one tank
for bottling), during the bottling process (although even home
winemakers are taught to minimize this), from within the cork itself
as wine saturates it over time and the (variable) permeability of
cork. Protecting wine from oxidation caused by oxygen dissolved in
the wine during bottling is one of the main reasons (along with it
being their last chance) winemakers typically bump up SO2 levels
before bottling.

As I said in my other post, I certainly accept that the primary bottle
ageing mechanism is reductive. But like you (I think), I think it's
far from proven that the cork plays no role at all. I think some of
those who are upset enough about tainted wine to immediately put
everything under screwcap are perhaps just a little to eager to
dismiss the effects of cork permeability. Maybe none of corks
contributions are positive, I don't know - I just haven't been
convinced. And I would be happy to *be* convinced - if screwcaps are
indeed the all-purpose answer, then life would be simpler!

- Mark W.

>FWIW, I believe that there has been research done at UC Davis that concluded
that the aging of wine involves both aerobic and anaerobic processes, implying
that some amount of oxygen is essential for proper aging.

Mark,

Not being a chemist, I admit to being quite confused by this whole discussion.
Are you saying there is very little oxygen in the small air space in the neck
of the bottle, after bottling? Or are you saying that the sulfur quickly binds
with this oxygen, or any dissolved with the liquid (so that any aerobic
reactions must be accounted for by leaking corks)?

Thanks for translating this for the lay reader.

Tom Schellberg

Xyzsch wrote:

> >FWIW, I believe that there has been research done at UC Davis that concluded
> that the aging of wine involves both aerobic and anaerobic processes, implying
> that some amount of oxygen is essential for proper aging.
>
> Mark,
>
> Not being a chemist, I admit to being quite confused by this whole discussion.
> Are you saying there is very little oxygen in the small air space in the neck
> of the bottle, after bottling? Or are you saying that the sulfur quickly binds
> with this oxygen, or any dissolved with the liquid (so that any aerobic
> reactions must be accounted for by leaking corks)?

Tom,
You've got the gist of it. The sulfites added at bottling time will rapidly
consume any oxygen trapped within the bottle, so any oxidative processes taking
place in the year(s) subsequent to bottling strongly argue for the influx of new
oxygen -- through or around the cork, as the case may be.

Mark Lipton

p.s. Feel free to expound at legth about the economics of wine in revenge for
this thread! ;-)

Mark Willstatter wrote:

> Mark, what do you mean when you say that "wine at the time of bottling
> is in a reductive state". Although the science of bottle ageing is
> poorly understood, from what I've read, possible sources of oxygen in
> the wine include small amounts dissolved in the wine during racking
> (including, for example, consolidating wine from barrels into one tank
> for bottling), during the bottling process (although even home
> winemakers are taught to minimize this), from within the cork itself
> as wine saturates it over time and the (variable) permeability of
> cork. Protecting wine from oxidation caused by oxygen dissolved in
> the wine during bottling is one of the main reasons (along with it
> being their last chance) winemakers typically bump up SO2 levels
> before bottling.

It is this last statement that I was referring to. The added SO2 means that all the
oxygen present at the time of bottling will be consumed soon afterward. From that moment
on, the wine is in what I called a reductive state -- the tannins in the wine can serve as
reducing agents -- unless oxygen finds its way into the sealed bottle.

>
>
> As I said in my other post, I certainly accept that the primary bottle
> ageing mechanism is reductive. But like you (I think), I think it's
> far from proven that the cork plays no role at all. I think some of
> those who are upset enough about tainted wine to immediately put
> everything under screwcap are perhaps just a little to eager to
> dismiss the effects of cork permeability. Maybe none of corks
> contributions are positive, I don't know - I just haven't been
> convinced. And I would be happy to *be* convinced - if screwcaps are
> indeed the all-purpose answer, then life would be simpler!

There are so many factors at play here, Mark, that it makes my head hurt. Is the cork a
hermetic seal? (I doubt it) What are the processes that account for bottle aging?
(complex issue) Is a screwcap a hermetic seal? (probably moreso than a cork, but
unlikely to be perfect, either) etc., etc.

Some of my view on this matter comes from my experience in lab: I've observed oxygen
diffusion through 5 mm of plasticized polyethylene against a pressure gradient. It's been
noted that sealed glass ampules show the (very) gradual diffusion of oxygen into them over
the span of years. In any contest involving the diffusion of oxygen, my money is on the
oxygen. It floats like a butterfly and stings like a hornet! ;-)

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton > wrote:

> The sulfites added at bottling time will rapidly consume any
> oxygen trapped within the bottle, so any oxidative processes
> taking place in the year(s) subsequent to bottling strongly
> argue for the influx of new oxygen -- through or around the
> cork, as the case may be.

So what would be the theory of wine ageing under crown or screw
cap? (Don't tell me it doesn't age - in fact wine ages even more
gracefully than under cork.)

M.

Mark Lipton > wrote:

> It's been noted that sealed glass ampules show the (very)
> gradual diffusion of oxygen into them over the span of years.

If that is true - and I have not the slightest reason to doubt -,
then abolish this peace of bark in the neck as fast as possible,
please!

M.

On 29 Feb 2004 10:26:20 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
>> The sulfites added at bottling time will rapidly consume any
>> oxygen trapped within the bottle, so any oxidative processes
>> taking place in the year(s) subsequent to bottling strongly
>> argue for the influx of new oxygen -- through or around the
>> cork, as the case may be.
>
>So what would be the theory of wine ageing under crown or screw
>cap? (Don't tell me it doesn't age - in fact wine ages even more
>gracefully than under cork.)

To answer your (presumably rhetorical) question: it's a reductive
process, isn't it?

But here's another (non-rhetorical) question.... what is the
mechanism for the reduction of the volume of wine (increased ullage)
over the years?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> To answer your (presumably rhetorical) question: it's a
> reductive process, isn't it?

Yes, thank you.

> But here's another (non-rhetorical) question.... what is the
> mechanism for the reduction of the volume of wine (increased
> ullage) over the years?

Seepage. But I guess you knew that ... ;-)

M.

On 29 Feb 2004 11:40:34 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>> To answer your (presumably rhetorical) question: it's a
>> reductive process, isn't it?
>
>Yes, thank you.
>
>> But here's another (non-rhetorical) question.... what is the
>> mechanism for the reduction of the volume of wine (increased
>> ullage) over the years?
>
>Seepage. But I guess you knew that ... ;-)

Honestly, no. Not with certainlty.

I can't be sure, but I think I have noticed low levels of red wine,
without obvious signs of seepage around the top of the cork. Wondered
if it was related to some chemical process.

But if it is wine getting out, why cannot air get in? Besides, if the
pressure is mainained in the gap, something would need to fill it. I
believe this is an arguiment that has been used for porosity in cork
contributing to the aging process.

Of course the pressure in the gap might simply reduce, or a gas may be
generated from within the wine? Has the research been done?

(I am not trying to argue from any particular standpoint here, just
trying to establish some facts.)

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On 2/29/04 5:28 AM, in article , "Michael
Pronay" > wrote:

> Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
>> It's been noted that sealed glass ampules show the (very)
>> gradual diffusion of oxygen into them over the span of years.
>
> If that is true - and I have not the slightest reason to doubt -,
> then abolish this peace of bark in the neck as fast as possible,
> please!

Given how much fine wine has risen in prices, the "penalty" for corked wine
is higher than it was before - so, while the preservative/aging process has
to be redone for the screw-cap or crown cap - it might actually offer a less
risky purchase.

I saw that Bonny Doon winery had the wines I saw at the wine shop with a
Stevlin style enclosure - hurrah in that I enjoy that winery.

On 2/29/04 5:26 AM, in article , "Michael
Pronay" > wrote:

> Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
>> The sulfites added at bottling time will rapidly consume any
>> oxygen trapped within the bottle, so any oxidative processes
>> taking place in the year(s) subsequent to bottling strongly
>> argue for the influx of new oxygen -- through or around the
>> cork, as the case may be.
>
> So what would be the theory of wine ageing under crown or screw
> cap? (Don't tell me it doesn't age - in fact wine ages even more
> gracefully than under cork.)

_Wine and Spirits_ magazine did a non-scientific analysis of screw-cap vs.
non-screw cap wines. I think their conclusion was that wines age
differently, and probably need to have sulfite levels and other techniques
examined.