Your experience in proportion of corked wines

My experience is MUCH lower than 10%. I don' believe 10% for a minute but maybe I have a bad palate.

2-4% sounds about right to me.

Tom T.

[Robin Garr]

1) Do you see a difference in the number of corked bottles you open between imported and domestic wine?
2) Do you dispute the 3% and lower figures?

3) If 1 is true, why? Handling, storage, bad judgment?

I keep pretty detailed records since I log all the wines I drink and report on most of them.

A decade ago, I would have said 5 percent was just about right. In 2007, I think the percentage is MUCH lower.

First, the obvious: Maybe 10 to 20 percent of the wines I drink now come under Stelvin screwcap or synthetic "cork."

But even when we consider only bottles sealed with natural cork, I'd say 2 percent comes closer to the mark than 5 percent.

I attribute this to significant QC improvements in the responsible cork industry and responsible winery industry. There's still a lot of crap cork around, but more and more, the producers who make the kind of wines that most of us drink are conscious that there's a quality difference, and they're using better screened cork. While it's not possible to avoid TCA entirely in natural cork, it's certainly possible to reduce its incidence significantly through handling and inspection ... starting with demanding that the plantations keep stripped cork off the ground.

I'd guess 3-5% of naturally corked bottles. And certainly have not seen any appreciable difference between top classed growths and other wines. I've had corked Haut-Brion, Leo-Poyferre, Chevillon 1ers, Gaja single vineyard Barbaresco in last year.

4-5% for me with a true TCA flavour. My wife seems more sensitive to TCA than me.

However, there are also quite a number of bottles where the cork seems not to be doing its job properly, e.g. ullages, oxidisation, strange acidity. In older lots of wine (15-20+ years old), I find quite often that around half the bottles perform in varying degrees less well than the best.

And then there are bottles where the corks break up on extraction or alternatively break the screw-pull; but once the mess has been cleared up, the wine is often fine.

My experience for wines over five years old is running 9.4% for the past year -- I have been generally buying screw caps for younger wines, and have no real basis for judging current rates.

An experienced sommelier at Daniel in New York City said their experience was a "hard 8%". A sommelier at Veritas in New York estimated 7 to 8%. Both conversations were in December, 2006.

I don't see any difference in classed growths and other wines.

I'm pretty bad at picking it unless it's either riddled with TCA, or I've tasted the wine before and can spot the difference. Maybe ~ 1%, which I think says most about my sensitivity to it.

[Robin Garr]

Here's another data point: In the recent wine competition at Vinitaly, where any judge could raise his hand and demand a second sample of a questionable wine (presumably, in most cases, corked), the total reject rate for all reasons among 21 panels and 105 judges was 4.2 percent.

There was also one outlier (a Spanish judge) who rejected a remarkable number of wines that no one else on her panel seemed to consider reject-worthy. Without her contribution, I think the number of rejected bottles would have been closer to 3 percent.

"... the total reject rate for all reasons among 21 panels and 105 judges was 4.2 percent."

Any estimate, Robin, of what the proportion of natural cork vs. alternative closure would have been?

Thanks.

[Robin Garr]

"... the total reject rate for all reasons among 21 panels and 105 judges was 4.2 percent."

Any estimate, Robin, of what the proportion of natural cork vs. alternative closure would have been?

No, Bob, they didn't disclose that. I can say from observation of the jacketed bottles, though, and from the fact that, although international, the contest entrants were heavily European, that the percentage of alternative closures would have been very low by world standards. That's likely why it didn't even occur to Dr. Martelli's workers to keep track of it.

[David M. Bueker]

My current experience is about 5-7%. It used to be higher until I discovered an issue with glass storage that was causing a false aroma of corkiness. Once I took the glassware out of that cabinet everything settled down to the 5-7% and has stayed that way for the last 3 years or so.

Randy, in my experience, if a bottle is corked, the problem only gets worse with time and (presumably) air. I think I'm only moderate on the cork sensitivity scale in the first place but for me, a bottle in which I can barely detect corkiness when first opened gets worse within a couple of hours and typically becomes stinking corked by the next day. From what I've read, that's normal. I don't know what you're detecting in what you're calling "tainted" bottles but if the problem gets better over time, I suspect it's something other than cork taint.

On a totally non-scientific basis, I'd go with the 2-4% numbers. This is based on the fact that I open 2-3 bottles a week and seem to run into 3 to 4 bottles a years that are corked.

Glenn

I have never found anywhere near 10% of wines I open to be corked. I would say the average is around 2-3% and would probably lean to the lower number. It doesn't seem to make any difference whether it is a high end wine or a $7 wine. One thing I have noticed though, is that I find many times more European wines in which the cork is wine soaked than I find from anywhere else. I am not sure why but the wines from the USA and other "new world" countries have a coating on them that prevents this capillary action which permeates the cork with wine. The soft permeated cork often makes it more difficult to pull the cork, but does nothing to add to the rate of corkiness that I find.

I don't keep careful statistics, nor do I report on every wine that I taste (especially not the corked ones), but my impression is that my rate is between 5-10%. Please note that I am quite sensitive to TCA, but also that this is just the :"obviously" corked bottles. There's the related question of the subthreshold levels of TCA that lead to wines lacking in fruit, but without a clear basis for comparison it's often hard to identify those.

Mark Lipton

It's around 10% but I think that's high due to the fact I made the mistake of getting an assortment of wines from a store's budget rack. The result was a couple of subpar wines as well as a couple of spoiled bottles.

Poured one out just the other night, was an Argentinian Cab, I believe..

Randy,
My expereince is that 7-8% of the wines finished under cork are afflicted with TCA. Of course, with more and more wines being finished under screwcap these days the overall TCA rate is somewhat lower. These numbers include wines opened from my personal cellar as well as samples tasted when I was ITB. I can't tell you the number of times a rep came into the store in the late afternoon with an open bottle that probably had been previously tasted at a number of other stores, only to have to tell him/her the damn thing was corked.
I believe the variation in TCA rates among tasters, here and elsewhere, is ultimately a reflection of the TCA sensitivity among tasters.
I've never tracked taint rates between countries/appelations, but I don't think that has been much of a factor in my experience.
FWIW,
Bill

If my math is correct we are right at 2.4% corked bottles. It's interesting that of the twelve corked bottles we have opened ten of them have been Rieslings. That puts Riesling at about 16% corked!

Randy,
I once had a single malt scotch that was corked. The retailer thought I was crazy, but exchanged it anyway.
BP

Thanks, Robin.

You write: "Any judge could raise his hand and demand a second sample of a questionable wine (presumably, in most cases, corked), the total reject rate for all reasons among 21 panels and 105 judges was 4.2 percent."

A related question: was there any pre-screening done by the sommeliers? Or did they just open and pour, and rely on the judges to demand a second wine?

If there was pre-screening by people other than the judges, were those bottles included in the totals?

Thanks, Bob

[Robin Garr]

A related question: was there any pre-screening done by the sommeliers? Or did they just open and pour, and rely on the judges to demand a second wine?

If there was pre-screening by people other than the judges, were those bottles included in the totals?

Bob, I really don't know for certain, but based on the way that Union des Enologues Internationale competitions are organized, I would be very surprised if anyone but the judges made that kind of judgment call, so I'm strongly inclined to think that they just open-and-pour.

Ryan, bottles from the close out rack or budget rack should not be more prone to corkiness than the $100 bottle in the cool room. So, if you are having a 10% rate of bad wine, then you might be right. I myself have dumped many bottles of crap wine that I took a flyer on based on price, but I dumped them based on I don't drink crap wine even though I bought it. I am sure that you know the difference, but in case any guest reader might not, I thought I would post.

" ... judges made that kind of judgment call, so I'm strongly inclined to think that they just open-and-pour."

Thanks, Robin. I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm really intrigued at the difference in the spoiled ratios between the judges and the two sommeliers.

Did any judges not challenge any (or very few) wines?

If so, would throwing out those numbers significantly change the percentages you mention?

Was there an inhibition to challenging a wine? I would think there must have been -- from the way the tasting worked as I understand your very helpful description -- glasses from the challenged bottle would have to be retrieved and re-distributed. That would significantly slow down the process, and everyone certainly was working very hard.

In addition, I've talked to a number of judges who believe they should knock down the ratings of wines that show some taint -- is that a factor is this judging?

As a general impression, Europeans seem to be less sensitive to TCA taint -- it's very instructive to read how rarely people complain about corked wine on Jancis's Purple Pages and how low the percentages of corked bottles that are reported. Is it possible Europeans are used to the taint from drinking wine from a much earlier age? Or, are folks in the US just overly sensitive?

I was struck by the fact you computed the two percentages throwing out the female judge's numbers. My experience has been that women generally are much keener wine tasters (and of course I have several biases at work in making this observation). Is it possible she was just more sensitive to TCA than other judges?

Again, I'm not challenging anything you write, Robin -- I'm just very interested in why the rates of tainted wines vary so much, especially the rates at two very wine friendly restaurants and at the major wine judging event you reported on.

Thanks, Bob

[Robin Garr]

Bob, I don't have firm answers for all these questions, but I'll try to distinguish between responses in which I know the answer and responses in which I'm making informed assumptions.

Thanks, Robin. I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm really intrigued at the difference in the spoiled ratios between the judges and the two sommeliers.

Bob, you've cited sources at two highly respected culinary temples, but nevertheless, my knee-jerk response is that they're just plain wrong. The current taint rate for quality wines is nowhere near that high, and if they say it is, they're either exaggerating or giving you an estimate that includes all flaws, not just cork taint. I don't feel any doubt at all about making this flat statement.

Did any judges not challenge any (or very few) wines?

Most of us didn't. As I noted, the incidence of flawed wines was small, and one judge in particular called far more than her share. Generally, if a wine was obviously corked, several members of a panel would call it at once. (Remember, the 105 judges were divided into 21 panels of five judges each.)

If so, would throwing out those numbers significantly change the percentages you mention?

I think Ana's calls alone might have constituted 1 percent, or at least it seemed like that. "Comissione Numero Dieci demande un'altro bottiglia" got to be a running joke. I'm not sure I understand your question, though. The total number of rejected wines in the competition was 4.2 percent. Everyone assumed that cork taint was the most common reason, but this information was not given out.

Was there an inhibition to challenging a wine? I would think there must have been -- from the way the tasting worked as I understand your very helpful description -- glasses from the challenged bottle would have to be retrieved and re-distributed. That would significantly slow down the process, and everyone certainly was working very hard.

No, not at all. Every judge's table had extra glasses. Upon a demand, a sommelier would hurry out and pour another glass for the five judges in the panel. It only took a few seconds, and the judges would then have two glasses - the original and the replacement - to compare.

In addition, I've talked to a number of judges who believe they should knock down the ratings of wines that show some taint -- is that a factor is this judging?

It wasn't supposed to be. Judges were expected to reject flawed bottles, then rate presumably unflawed items on the Union des Oenologues 100-point scale, a very Franco-Italian system that involved filling in about 20 lines on a computer-readable scoresheet.

As a general impression, Europeans seem to be less sensitive to TCA taint -- it's very instructive to read how rarely people complain about corked wine on Jancis's Purple Pages and how low the percentages of corked bottles that are reported. Is it possible Europeans are used to the taint from drinking wine from a much earlier age? Or, are folks in the US just overly sensitive?

I'm not sure I see this, Bob. Again, a 4.2 percent reject rate is consistent with my own experience of corked wines on a day-to-day basis over recent years.

I was struck by the fact you computed the two percentages throwing out the female judge's numbers. My experience has been that women generally are much keener wine tasters (and of course I have several biases at work in making this observation). Is it possible she was just more sensitive to TCA than other judges?

You're jumping too far too fast to a conclusion, Bob. I said ONE judge called a very large number of rejects, and no one else - including other judges on her panel - did so. This caused some raised eyebrows. The fact that she was female, or the fact that she was Spanish, is probably irrelevant.

Again, I'm not challenging anything you write, Robin -- I'm just very interested in why the rates of tainted wines vary so much, especially the rates at two very wine friendly restaurants and at the major wine judging event you reported on.

Again, not to put too fine a point on it, the numbers you got at Daniel and Veritas are so out of whack that I assume the sommeliers either misunderstood your question or are wrong.

If my math is correct we are right at 2.4% corked bottles. It's interesting that of the twelve corked bottles we have opened ten of them have been Rieslings. That puts Riesling at about 16% corked!

Orrrrrrr...it could mean that the delicate transparency of Riesling reveals TCA at a much lower level than it takes to show clearly in other wines, Sam.