"corked" - or "tainted" ?

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.

Reply to
Ric
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Michael Pronay

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.

While here, I do clearly say that we do not have encountered bottle variation, so bad wine can come from everywhere: 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.

Here we're 100% d'accord.

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

M.

Reply to
Michael Pronay

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.

Reply to
Ric

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!

Reply to
Joseph Coulter

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.