New Process eliminates Cort Taint-TCA

Leaving 10% of the cork taint is enough to make a bottle undrinkable, it might not be quite as blatant but the aroma-cancelling effect of TCA is evident even in cases of light cork taint.

First, my name is Pronay (Prónay if you care for Hungarian diacritics).

Second, they are not the first. Steam cleaning has been available for some years now.

Third, that's what I posted on the Parker Forum:

| Hmmm. Seems like an equivalent of ROSA and others using steam | cleaning technology. | | The problem is: They claim to take out not 100%, but 90% of TCA. | The others steam cleaners claim 70 to 75%. Whichever is right — | 70, 75 or 90% - simply it is not 100%. A heavily tainted cork | will still taint the wine.

If you want 100% TCA taint free corks (guaranteed!) then try to get informed about Oeneo's (formerly aka Sabaté) DIAM (and MYTIK) corks:

M.

Another factor is that corks are imperfect closures in other ways, too. Anyone who's ever pulled out a cork and thought "uh oh, that seemed too easy" and then had an oxidized wines knows what I mean.

Ah, the romance of cork.

Michael Pr>

I knew the spelling would get you :-)

I'll believe it... when I don't smell it. Cheers! Martin

Tradition dies a very difficult death.

Sometimes I'm just stunned at the passionate tenacity among wine "enthusiasts" for something that is so clearly flawed as corks.

Corks are more likely to be enemies of wine and enthusiasts than not. It's just that simple.

Dana

If that is all you have to say ... :-(

M.

So what part of the process impresses you the most -- the part where they bathe the cork in ethyl alcohol?

What part or retiring corks would you miss the most? Maybe when you pull it, sniff it, look at it intently, and than make Pontific proclamations?

Lets say that their is 6 parts per million and then it detects all but 10% of that.

that would mean .6% parts per million which is not detectable.

Dick, the sensitivity threshold varies from 4 to 50 parts per TRILLION.

Dana wrote on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:52:20 -0800:

DHM> DaleW wrote: ??>> Another factor is that corks are imperfect closures in ??>> other ways, too. Anyone who's ever pulled out a cork and ??>> thought "uh oh, that seemed too easy" and then had an ??>> oxidized wines knows what I mean.

DHM> Tradition dies a very difficult death.

DHM> Sometimes I'm just stunned at the passionate tenacity DHM> among wine "enthusiasts" for something that is so clearly DHM> flawed as corks.

DHM> Corks are more likely to be enemies of wine and DHM> enthusiasts than not. It's just that simple.

I certainly tend to agree. My experience with screw-top closures has been uniformly favorable but the wines have only been a few years old. Are there any reports about the longevity of Stelvin (is that it?) closures over, say, decades?

James Silverton.

Yes. There are still bottles from the early 1970s when Australia started with screwcaps.

M.

Normally TCA human detection treshold is given at 3ppt, but there are tasters that can go below that.

M.

Dick, your reasonment is completely flaved, sorry. This parts per zillion thingie refers to TCA in *wine* and has nothing whatsoever to do with TCA in *corks*.

M.

The part that impresses me is if the company is public, I buy stock, make money and buy more wine :-)

"Richard Neidich" wrote ...............

Wine in bottles with screw caps!!!!!!!!! ;-)))))

I mean, if $$$ is the prime motivation, we don't want to risk the possibility of your wine being corked, Dick.

We bottle you in a stelvin and see if you are crisp and fresh in a month or two.

That would be a good test. :-)

"Richard Neidich" skrev i melding news:Hvqwf.4959$% snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Screwing him, you mean? Anders