Hello;
I know this has been discussed on and off, here and in various magazines,
over tasting tables etc. (First person to demand closure leaves the room).
One thing that has struck me: we have followed a producer since 1998, each
year buying and joyfully consuming c 24+ bottles of their not bad wine -
never once having a bad corked bottle. This means more than 120 bottles
running (we have a number sitting in our cellar) and none corked.
Coincidence? Or do the producer Francois Baur have a very good cork source?
Yesterday, we opened frist an entry-level Riesling from one of our other
favorites in Alsace, Dirler-Cadé, from whom we also so far never got a bad
bottle (cork-wise). Cork was marked with an inverted upper-case T, very
common producer in France, I think. Then, we went on to a Gewurztraminer
1999 from Baur, the cork here being marked AC, a brand I do not recognise.
I don´t remember anybody discussing the importance of the cork producer -
provided the error is in the cork. I remember reading somewhere that some
wineries were actually 'infected' with TCA, didn´t get that. However, if it
were so, the error would reside in the winery as such, rendering the terme
'corked' meaningless.

I would appreciate your comments. ANybody else with experience of producers
that never deliver corked bottles?


Cheers

Nils Gustaf
--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:38:03 GMT, "Nils Gustaf Lindgren"
> wrote:

>I don´t remember anybody discussing the importance of the cork producer -
>provided the error is in the cork. I remember reading somewhere that some
>wineries were actually 'infected' with TCA, didn´t get that. However, if it
>were so, the error would reside in the winery as such, rendering the terme
>'corked' meaningless.

Didn't really understand that last bit. But here's what I understand
of the situation...

Some wineries are/were indeed "infected" with TCA. ISTR it was due to
the use of some insecticide or fungicide. In that case, I agree the
term "corked" is inappropriate, but how is the consumer to know the
source of the TCA? I guess if you have 3 bad bottles in a row, as I
did once in a restaurant, you begin to suspect!

I understand that some suppliers are better than others, and there can
be good and bad batches of corks from the same supplier. Some
producers check batches before using them. I have never heard names
named, but the good producers must be aware of the good and bad
sources.

I don't think I have ever seen a detailed explanation of how a cork
gets TCA (something to do with fungus and bleach, I know), why some
corks get it and others don't, and how it can be prevented from
getting into a cork. Can someone help out here?

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

"Nils Gustaf Lindgren" in ...
> Hello;
> I know this has been discussed on and off, here and in various
> magazines, over tasting tables etc. (First person to demand closure
> leaves the room). One thing that has struck me: we have followed
> a producer since 1998, eachyear buying and joyfully consuming
> c 24+ bottles of their not bad wine - never once having a bad
> corked bottle. This means more than 120 bottlesrunning (we have a
> number sitting in our cellar) and none corked. Coincidence?

I think not! Steve Slatcher already cited the prospect of TCA-prone
wineries. Here's an anecdote. Last December I posted some offhand tasting
info on an HTML site (WCWN) mentioning one wine in a blind tasting having
TCA. Then a wine critic with whom I often taste replied and reminded me of
another TCAed bottle from the same vintage and producer in a previous
tasting. He added, referring to the producer, "I mentioned this to her when
I visited last month and she said that I was the third person that had told
her about cork problems with her 2001s and that she was going to switch cork
suppliers." Recently in a blind 2002 tasting one of two wines from that
same producer had an obvious defect spotted by everyone (though not all
agreed it was specifically TCA). This is a producer whose wines are very
reputable, and very good in my experience also, when not showing
contamination defects.

I have heard other examples like this, bad "runs" from one winery, sometimes
attributed to the "cork supplier." A very serious instance in Germany led
to recall of one lot of wine not long ago as I remember.

It is logical that if some wineries have bad luck in this way, others will
have good ...

Don't forget also the variation in individual sensitivity to TCA even among
consumers who know the smell of it. I haven't seen concrete information
about this, but I have seen accounts of TCA that some experienced noses
don't detect. One restaurateur, addressing TCA defensively, argued that
detection by very sensitive noses is a poor criterion for rejecing a bottle
that many diners will find acceptable. I think that's an important question
and could use more discussion.

-- Max

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Don't forget also the variation in individual sensitivity to TCA
even among
> consumers who know the smell of it. I haven't seen concrete
information
> about this, but I have seen accounts of TCA that some experienced
noses
> don't detect. One restaurateur, addressing TCA defensively, argued
that
> detection by very sensitive noses is a poor criterion for rejecing a
bottle
> that many diners will find acceptable. I think that's an important
question
> and could use more discussion.
>

It certainly argues that a decent restaurant should make sure that its
sommellier or wine waiter is sensitive to TCA.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

"Nils Gustaf Lindgren" > wrote:

> I remember reading somewhere that some wineries were actually
> 'infected' with TCA, didn´t get that. However, if it were so,
> the error would reside in the winery as such, rendering the
> terme 'corked' meaningless.

Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
later.

No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.

M.

M.

"Nils Gustaf Lindgren" > wrote:

> I remember reading somewhere that some wineries were actually
> 'infected' with TCA, didn´t get that. However, if it were so,
> the error would reside in the winery as such, rendering the
> terme 'corked' meaningless.

Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
later.

No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.

M.

M.

"Max Hauser" > wrote:

> One restaurateur, addressing TCA defensively, argued that
> detection by very sensitive noses is a poor criterion for
> rejecing a bottle that many diners will find acceptable. I
> think that's an important question and could use more
> discussion.

This opinion is totally unjustified, imnsho, for the simple
reason, that less-than obvious cork taints (without TCA smell)
show two well-documented phenomenons: "Fruit scalping" and "random
oxidation". There is enough research done by the AWRI (Australian
Wine Research Institute). Just because one cannot smell TCA does
*not* mean the wine isn't tainted.

M.

"Max Hauser" > wrote:

> One restaurateur, addressing TCA defensively, argued that
> detection by very sensitive noses is a poor criterion for
> rejecing a bottle that many diners will find acceptable. I
> think that's an important question and could use more
> discussion.

This opinion is totally unjustified, imnsho, for the simple
reason, that less-than obvious cork taints (without TCA smell)
show two well-documented phenomenons: "Fruit scalping" and "random
oxidation". There is enough research done by the AWRI (Australian
Wine Research Institute). Just because one cannot smell TCA does
*not* mean the wine isn't tainted.

M.

Michael Pronay wrote:

> This opinion is totally unjustified, imnsho, for the simple
> reason, that less-than obvious cork taints (without TCA smell)
> show two well-documented phenomenons: "Fruit scalping" and "random
> oxidation". There is enough research done by the AWRI (Australian
> Wine Research Institute). Just because one cannot smell TCA does
> *not* mean the wine isn't tainted.

In 2002 the Wine Spectator discovered that Beaulieu Vineyards had
TCA tainted wines from 1997 through 1999 affecting several hundred
thousand cases of red wine.

http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Da...5,1841,00.html

Bill > wrote:

> In 2002 the Wine Spectator discovered that Beaulieu Vineyards had
> TCA tainted wines from 1997 through 1999 affecting several hundred
> thousand cases of red wine.

In know. This is one of the 5 or 6 documented cases of a winery
affected by TCA I remember.

M.

Bill > wrote:

> In 2002 the Wine Spectator discovered that Beaulieu Vineyards had
> TCA tainted wines from 1997 through 1999 affecting several hundred
> thousand cases of red wine.

In know. This is one of the 5 or 6 documented cases of a winery
affected by TCA I remember.

M.

On 8 Aug 2004 20:18:24 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>"Max Hauser" > wrote:
>
>> One restaurateur, addressing TCA defensively, argued that
>> detection by very sensitive noses is a poor criterion for
>> rejecing a bottle that many diners will find acceptable. I
>> think that's an important question and could use more
>> discussion.
>
>This opinion is totally unjustified, imnsho, for the simple
>reason, that less-than obvious cork taints (without TCA smell)
>show two well-documented phenomenons: "Fruit scalping" and "random
>oxidation". There is enough research done by the AWRI (Australian
>Wine Research Institute). Just because one cannot smell TCA does
>*not* mean the wine isn't tainted.
>
I second Michael's comments. It has become second nature to me to give
a quick sniff to a newly opened bottle of wine. I don't consider the
absence of the distinct TCA smell as proof that the wine is _not_
corked. OTH, the clear presence of the smell is, to me anyway,
sufficient proof that that it _is_ corked and I don't bother to go any
further.

Sometimes I think I detect a whiff of TCA right after the bottle is
opened but then can't detect it a few seconds later. Pouring a little
wine into a glass, swirling it, and smelling it again may bring out a
clear TCA odor. Sometimes there is still uncertainty. When this
happens, I will, if possible, solicit the opinions of others, which
sometimes vary.

The next step is to open another bottle of the same wine (if I have
one) and compare the two. Often the fruit aroma of the second one is
clearly superior to the first one, which is proof to me that the first
bottle has some kind of fault. Probably corked, but possibly due to
something else. If I don't have a second bottle (or maybe decide not
to open it if I do) and go ahead and start to consume the first
bottle, I will often get part-way through it and decide that there is
just not anything there. If it's a wine that I'm familiar with and
know that _something_ should be there, I will conclude that the wine
is probably corked even though I never detected TCA. If it's a wine
that I've never had before, I will consider the possibility that it is
just a lousy wine and decide never to buy it (or anything from that
winery) again. This is the kind of consumer reaction that gives
wineries nightmares.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

On 8 Aug 2004 20:18:24 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>"Max Hauser" > wrote:
>
>> One restaurateur, addressing TCA defensively, argued that
>> detection by very sensitive noses is a poor criterion for
>> rejecing a bottle that many diners will find acceptable. I
>> think that's an important question and could use more
>> discussion.
>
>This opinion is totally unjustified, imnsho, for the simple
>reason, that less-than obvious cork taints (without TCA smell)
>show two well-documented phenomenons: "Fruit scalping" and "random
>oxidation". There is enough research done by the AWRI (Australian
>Wine Research Institute). Just because one cannot smell TCA does
>*not* mean the wine isn't tainted.
>
I second Michael's comments. It has become second nature to me to give
a quick sniff to a newly opened bottle of wine. I don't consider the
absence of the distinct TCA smell as proof that the wine is _not_
corked. OTH, the clear presence of the smell is, to me anyway,
sufficient proof that that it _is_ corked and I don't bother to go any
further.

Sometimes I think I detect a whiff of TCA right after the bottle is
opened but then can't detect it a few seconds later. Pouring a little
wine into a glass, swirling it, and smelling it again may bring out a
clear TCA odor. Sometimes there is still uncertainty. When this
happens, I will, if possible, solicit the opinions of others, which
sometimes vary.

The next step is to open another bottle of the same wine (if I have
one) and compare the two. Often the fruit aroma of the second one is
clearly superior to the first one, which is proof to me that the first
bottle has some kind of fault. Probably corked, but possibly due to
something else. If I don't have a second bottle (or maybe decide not
to open it if I do) and go ahead and start to consume the first
bottle, I will often get part-way through it and decide that there is
just not anything there. If it's a wine that I'm familiar with and
know that _something_ should be there, I will conclude that the wine
is probably corked even though I never detected TCA. If it's a wine
that I've never had before, I will consider the possibility that it is
just a lousy wine and decide never to buy it (or anything from that
winery) again. This is the kind of consumer reaction that gives
wineries nightmares.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

> Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
> bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
> contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
> than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
> century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
> among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
> later.
>
> No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
> imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.


Thank you for putting me right. Concerning your other comments in this
thread, I remember Ian Hoare saying that he is not very sensitive to TCA,
but, that, he detects, in TCA-tainted wines, a lack of fruit (I apologise to
Ian if I misremember his statement). Is this in any way in line with what
you stated previously about "fruit scalping"? And, is this caused by the
presence of TCA, or are both ordinarily caused by some third, more original
fault?

--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

> Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
> bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
> contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
> than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
> century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
> among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
> later.
>
> No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
> imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.


Thank you for putting me right. Concerning your other comments in this
thread, I remember Ian Hoare saying that he is not very sensitive to TCA,
but, that, he detects, in TCA-tainted wines, a lack of fruit (I apologise to
Ian if I misremember his statement). Is this in any way in line with what
you stated previously about "fruit scalping"? And, is this caused by the
presence of TCA, or are both ordinarily caused by some third, more original
fault?

--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

> Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
> bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
> contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
> than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
> century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
> among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
> later.
>
> No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
> imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.


Thank you for putting me right. Concerning your other comments in this
thread, I remember Ian Hoare saying that he is not very sensitive to TCA,
but, that, he detects, in TCA-tainted wines, a lack of fruit (I apologise to
Ian if I misremember his statement). Is this in any way in line with what
you stated previously about "fruit scalping"? And, is this caused by the
presence of TCA, or are both ordinarily caused by some third, more original
fault?

--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

On 8 Aug 2004 20:14:35 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
>bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
>contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
>than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
>century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
>among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
>later.

Cannot also barrels, or staves in barrels, be contaminated?

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

On 8 Aug 2004 20:14:35 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Nils, if a winery is affected, this does *not* explain why some
>bottles of a specific batch are tainted and others not. TCA
>contamination of a winery is extremely rare, I don't think more
>than 5 or 6 cases have been known worldwide in the past half
>century, although there have been two prominent Bordeaux estates
>among them: Ducru at the beginning of the 1990s and Canon a few years
>later.

Cannot also barrels, or staves in barrels, be contaminated?

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

Steve Slatcher wrote:

> I don't think I have ever seen a detailed explanation of how a cork
> gets TCA (something to do with fungus and bleach, I know), why some
> corks get it and others don't, and how it can be prevented from
> getting into a cork. Can someone help out here?

Steve,
From all that I've read and heard, there is still a lot of dispute
over the source(s) of TCA. Some people claim that it is the product of
fungal or bacterial infection; others claim that it results from the use
of chlorinated bleaches to sterilize corks or barrels. FWIW, I can draw
a plausible reaction mechanism that shows the coversion of lignins
(polyphenolics found in wood and cork) to TCA upon contact with a
chlorine source.

HTH
Mark Lipton

Steve Slatcher wrote:

> I don't think I have ever seen a detailed explanation of how a cork
> gets TCA (something to do with fungus and bleach, I know), why some
> corks get it and others don't, and how it can be prevented from
> getting into a cork. Can someone help out here?

Steve,
From all that I've read and heard, there is still a lot of dispute
over the source(s) of TCA. Some people claim that it is the product of
fungal or bacterial infection; others claim that it results from the use
of chlorinated bleaches to sterilize corks or barrels. FWIW, I can draw
a plausible reaction mechanism that shows the coversion of lignins
(polyphenolics found in wood and cork) to TCA upon contact with a
chlorine source.

HTH
Mark Lipton

Steve Slatcher wrote:

> I don't think I have ever seen a detailed explanation of how a cork
> gets TCA (something to do with fungus and bleach, I know), why some
> corks get it and others don't, and how it can be prevented from
> getting into a cork. Can someone help out here?

Steve,
From all that I've read and heard, there is still a lot of dispute
over the source(s) of TCA. Some people claim that it is the product of
fungal or bacterial infection; others claim that it results from the use
of chlorinated bleaches to sterilize corks or barrels. FWIW, I can draw
a plausible reaction mechanism that shows the coversion of lignins
(polyphenolics found in wood and cork) to TCA upon contact with a
chlorine source.

HTH
Mark Lipton

Salut/Hi Nils

le/on Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:02:19 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>> No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
>> imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.

This is a topic that pops up from time to time. If you think about it, an
infected winery _can't_ be responsible for maybe a random 5% of tainted
bottles, and the chances of a complete case of bottles being tainted by cork
borne TCA is infinitesimally low.

Do the calculations. There's about a 1/20 chance of a single bottle being
tainted. For a second bottle its a 1/20*1/20 or 1/400. For a third 1/8000,
for a fourth 1 in 160k and so on.

For NONE to be tainted, on the other hand, you might be surprised that it's
significantly lower than 50:50 .

>Thank you for putting me right. Concerning your other comments in this
>thread, I remember Ian Hoare saying that he is not very sensitive to TCA,
>but, that, he detects, in TCA-tainted wines, a lack of fruit (I apologise to
>Ian if I misremember his statement).

Actually, I've found that I'm somewhat more sensitive than I thought I was.
It's just that as an oeno-necrophile, I'd not opened many bottles corked
since the problem became much more serious! But indeed I did say that
sometimes I've hod wines which didn't seem to be "showing well", lacking in
fruit - or much else either, no noticeable wet dog/cardboard, just under par
compared with what I knew the wine to be capable of.

But you've not misrepresented me at all, Nils.

> Is this in any way in line with what you stated previously about "fruit scalping"? And, is this caused by the
>presence of TCA, or are both ordinarily caused by some third, more original
>fault?

I would say that's exactly what he means. And no, it's not a _common cause",
it's by all accounts typical of low levels of TCA contamination.


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

Salut/Hi Nils

le/on Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:02:19 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>> No, cork taint that happens at random (99.99 of all cork taints,
>> imnsho) can *never* be attributed to a contaminated winery.

This is a topic that pops up from time to time. If you think about it, an
infected winery _can't_ be responsible for maybe a random 5% of tainted
bottles, and the chances of a complete case of bottles being tainted by cork
borne TCA is infinitesimally low.

Do the calculations. There's about a 1/20 chance of a single bottle being
tainted. For a second bottle its a 1/20*1/20 or 1/400. For a third 1/8000,
for a fourth 1 in 160k and so on.

For NONE to be tainted, on the other hand, you might be surprised that it's
significantly lower than 50:50 .

>Thank you for putting me right. Concerning your other comments in this
>thread, I remember Ian Hoare saying that he is not very sensitive to TCA,
>but, that, he detects, in TCA-tainted wines, a lack of fruit (I apologise to
>Ian if I misremember his statement).

Actually, I've found that I'm somewhat more sensitive than I thought I was.
It's just that as an oeno-necrophile, I'd not opened many bottles corked
since the problem became much more serious! But indeed I did say that
sometimes I've hod wines which didn't seem to be "showing well", lacking in
fruit - or much else either, no noticeable wet dog/cardboard, just under par
compared with what I knew the wine to be capable of.

But you've not misrepresented me at all, Nils.

> Is this in any way in line with what you stated previously about "fruit scalping"? And, is this caused by the
>presence of TCA, or are both ordinarily caused by some third, more original
>fault?

I would say that's exactly what he means. And no, it's not a _common cause",
it's by all accounts typical of low levels of TCA contamination.


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

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> Cannot also barrels, or staves in barrels, be contaminated?

TCA spreads quite freely, so if staves are contaminated, the cask
will be immediately. Wood preservatives containing chlorine used
on the roof construction have been found guilty in contaminating a
whole winery. Another case here in Austria: contaminated wooden
palletes have contaminated (although only slightly) not only ony
vintage of a given winery, but also other batches of wines since
this winery operated bottlings for others.

I once even had deep-fried lamb chops that were completey corked.
The guilty was found rapidly: The slice of lemon (commonly served
with anything deepfried, from Wiener Schnitzel up and down, here
in Austria) had an extremely intense TCA smell. Quite probably it
was contaminated in its wooden delivery case which was
contaminated.

M.

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> Cannot also barrels, or staves in barrels, be contaminated?

TCA spreads quite freely, so if staves are contaminated, the cask
will be immediately. Wood preservatives containing chlorine used
on the roof construction have been found guilty in contaminating a
whole winery. Another case here in Austria: contaminated wooden
palletes have contaminated (although only slightly) not only ony
vintage of a given winery, but also other batches of wines since
this winery operated bottlings for others.

I once even had deep-fried lamb chops that were completey corked.
The guilty was found rapidly: The slice of lemon (commonly served
with anything deepfried, from Wiener Schnitzel up and down, here
in Austria) had an extremely intense TCA smell. Quite probably it
was contaminated in its wooden delivery case which was
contaminated.

M.

On 10 Aug 2004 15:33:52 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>> Cannot also barrels, or staves in barrels, be contaminated?
>
>TCA spreads quite freely, so if staves are contaminated, the cask
>will be immediately. Wood preservatives containing chlorine used
>on the roof construction have been found guilty in contaminating a
>whole winery. Another case here in Austria: contaminated wooden
>palletes have contaminated (although only slightly) not only ony
>vintage of a given winery, but also other batches of wines since
>this winery operated bottlings for others.
>
>I once even had deep-fried lamb chops that were completey corked.
>The guilty was found rapidly: The slice of lemon (commonly served
>with anything deepfried, from Wiener Schnitzel up and down, here
>in Austria) had an extremely intense TCA smell. Quite probably it
>was contaminated in its wooden delivery case which was
>contaminated.

I too, on 2 separate occasions, have experienced food that tasted
"corked".

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

On 10 Aug 2004 15:33:52 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>> Cannot also barrels, or staves in barrels, be contaminated?
>
>TCA spreads quite freely, so if staves are contaminated, the cask
>will be immediately. Wood preservatives containing chlorine used
>on the roof construction have been found guilty in contaminating a
>whole winery. Another case here in Austria: contaminated wooden
>palletes have contaminated (although only slightly) not only ony
>vintage of a given winery, but also other batches of wines since
>this winery operated bottlings for others.
>
>I once even had deep-fried lamb chops that were completey corked.
>The guilty was found rapidly: The slice of lemon (commonly served
>with anything deepfried, from Wiener Schnitzel up and down, here
>in Austria) had an extremely intense TCA smell. Quite probably it
>was contaminated in its wooden delivery case which was
>contaminated.

I too, on 2 separate occasions, have experienced food that tasted
"corked".

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail