Interesting Question

Here is a question I've been wanting to ask for some time.

There's been controversy over different types of closures. Supposedly the screwcap causes reduction because it doesn't allow the wine to "micro-breathe" like cork. Often cork is heralded as the best closure exactly because it allows this minute breathing.

Well, I just bought a wine that has a "fancy" melted-wax type rubber coating on top of the cork. Surely no air can pass through that!
Come to think of it, I have several magnums that actually have real red melted-wax stuff also covering the entire end of the bottle. Surely no air can pass through that!

Why would great producers who know what they're doing pour melted wax on their magnums and thus impede this supposedly important process?

I love cork by the way.

But what is all this nonsense about microbrathing? Hell, most wines have a very tight plastic capsule over the cork that surely also impedes oxygen from passing through.

So what is the deal?

I'm not a scientist but I believe the wax is porous. And its main (perceived) attraction is cosmetic.

I'm not a scientist but I believe the wax is porous. And its main (perceived) attraction is cosmetic.

I'm not a scientist either (hey, I'm not even a political scientist), but that was my understanding from previous discussions. Wax acts as a bit of a moisture barrier, but doesn't keep air out.

Indeed the wax is porous and the capsule, no matter how well fitted, allows air in and under. The original purpose of both wax and capsules (originally of lead) was not to preserve the wine but to stop the mice in the cellars from nibbling away at the cork and thus ruining the wine when they succeeded in puncturing the cork and allowing the wine to flow out rather freely.

Best
Rogov

Can I presume, then, that the very hard and dry wax capsules particularly in Lopez de Heredia Gran Reserva wines are also porous?

...The original purpose ... of capsules (originally of lead) was not to preserve the wine but to stop the mice in the cellars from nibbling away at the cork...

Funny. I've had more capsules nibbled by mice than any corks I've had (some bottles have no barrier like certain Austrian producers). They seem to be partial to to sweeter wines, like German spatleses and Vouvray moelleux

I had always assumed capsules were designed to deter counterfeit/fraud.

Indeed those Lopez de Heredia wax capsules may be porous to air, but not to my corkscrew!

I believe that capsules (lead) were originally there to protect both the wine and cork from rodents but today they are largely decoration although the counterfeit argument probably is true in some cases.

Agostino, you'll find that this discussion board tends to be in favor of alternative closures (that is, not cork). Myself, I don't believe the high end of most of the estimates that I see about % of wine that is cork tainted but my palate may be terrible and/or I may have a high tolerance for TCA.

Screwcaps do not cause reduction. If a reduced wine were to be bottled under an airtight screwcap, then it would stay reduced, but manufacturers make screwcaps with liners that allow oxygen ingress at any rate desired by the client. There is no longer any reason for a real cork except the so-called romance of pulling it.

Agostino, you'll find that this discussion board tends to be in favor of alternative closures (that is, not cork). Myself, I don't believe the high end of most of the estimates that I see about % of wine that is cork tainted but my palate may be terrible and/or I may have a high tolerance for TCA.

Tom, this is getting off-topic here, but you are correct that this is the cork-hater's board: everyone wants the latest and greatest sealant here. I just read (from either the current 'Wine & Spirits' magazine or online) this past weekend that studies suggest cork taint is within the realm of what most cork producers say it is: around 3% or so. The study went on to say that flawed bottles made up something like 10% of the study, but that they were from other flaws, and not TCA contamination. I found this interesting and is partly my contention that what most people call a 'corked bottle' is from some other, unrelated flaw. This doesn't excuse or let cork producers off the hook for their product, but may shed the light on a more open and honest discussion of the problem.

Supposedly the screwcap causes reduction because it doesn't allow the wine to "micro-breathe" like cork. Often cork is heralded as the best closure exactly because it allows this minute breathing.

Ago--
I met Paolo De Marchi, the proprietor of Isole e Olena, at a tasting last month. Our conversation touched on closures. He offered the view--one I've read before--that the cork, unless it's failing, doesn't allow the ingress of air from the bottle's exterior. Rather, oxygen in the cells of the cork combines with the air in the ullage to oxygenate the wine. (BTW, I'm pretty sure he's a screwcap fan, although he bottles some if not most of his wines under cork.) I know this is a highly debatable topic, but I think that view is germane to your original question. I don't think you were asking for another closure-without-closure thread.

I found this interesting and is partly my contention that what most people call a 'corked bottle' is from some other, unrelated flaw. This doesn't excuse or let cork producers off the hook for their product, but may shed the light on a more open and honest discussion of the problem.

Mark,

Thanks. That is the most fair and honest post on cork tainted wine that I've ever read on this board.

Of course there are other reasons (besides cork taint) that a wine is bad! Most people don't want to admint that or aren't able to detect the difference.

I hate to assign numbers because I don't keep accurate records but I'm of the opinion that 1-4% of bottle are cork tainted and perhaps another 1-4% are spoiled for some other reason (heat or light, unclean conditions at the winery - e.g., Coturri 20 years ago).

You'll see ranges quoted here and other place saying that 5-10% are cork tainted and I just don't believe that at all.

around 3% or so. The study went on to say that flawed bottles made up something like 10% of the study, but that they were from other flaws, and not TCA contamination. I found this interesting and is partly my contention that what most people call a 'corked bottle' is from some other, unrelated flaw. This doesn't excuse or let cork producers off the hook for their product, but may shed the light on a more open and honest discussion of the problem.

Most of those in favor of screwcaps rather than corks are aware of these statistics, and do not deny or refute them, Mark. Speaking for many of them, I've never once denied the assertion that many people are too free to posit 'cork taint' to any spoiled wine. Never known others to deny it either. There can always be an element of uncertainty, yes, and sometimes you just aren't sure where the fault lies.

I do resent the taint you cast, however, when you suggest that there has not been "a more open and honest discussion of the problem" from those who favor screwcaps over cork closures. Many of the people on this board fall into the extremely experienced and highly perceptive category (well, where wine is concerned, anyway ). For you to suggest that we are not honest in our arguments is pretty shabby.

If your rate of cork taint is not as high as others, congratulations. Either you're very lucky or fairly insensitive to TCA at lower levels (not meant as a slur, just a statement of your sensitivity to a chemical compound). But denying a problem exists, or downplaying it simply because you don't experience it or consider it problematic? That's another matter altogether.

I would repeat the plaintive plea of those of us who love wine more than we love inefficient corks that damage wine: if we know that there is a method that is far, far superior to the one currently in use, why can't we ask that producers use that method? Why must we rely on a method, system, or substance that has been proven to be not as good at doing what it is supposed to do, when there is something better available? And by asking that, how do we become the ones close-minded and dishonest?

Tom, you expect us to accept whatever personal statistics you throw out there (although they are, curiously, "estimates", I'll point out)?

Yet you think it is okay to describe other people's assertions as wrong, or inflated, or dishonest?

I am perfectly willing to accept your figures. For you. Doesn't mean they necessarily apply to everyone however.

Also doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept what I still consider a flawed closure when there is something better available. Not like it's hurting you either: I don't require the total eradication of cork closures; I simply would prefer more efficient closures on the wine I buy. Why is that an issue for you?

Seconded.

Tom, you expect us to accept whatever personal statistics you throw out there (although they are, curiously, "estimates", I'll point out)?

Hoke,

With all due respect, calm down and go back and read my post. I did not use the word "dishonest". I did use the word "honest" in my second post but the use of that word doesn't imply that others are dishonest.

I also said that I don't keep accurate records (TNs on every wine) so, no, you should not accept my percentages.

My point was just that I see percentages all over the place that don't match (not even close to) my experience. This may be because of a poor palate on my part or high tolerance to TCA (as I stated). It may also be becasue the %'s often quoted include wines that are bad for other reasons (other than cork). Why is that controversial?

Of course I have no issue with you wanting a more efficient closure method but in my case its not something I worry about. I'm OK with cork.

Why does every discussion on this topic have to get so heated?!?!? Mark made an observation that exactly matches my experience. Why is it that anti-cork mafia gets so offended by these observations? I don't get that.

Indeed those Lopez de Heredia wax capsules may be porous to air, but not to my corkscrew!

Plus, at the end of the day, I’d be mumbling to myself that the LdH bottle I had just successfully opened better be worth the mess created with having all those pieces of hardened wax scattered all over.

Of course there are other reasons (besides cork taint) that a wine is bad! Most people don't want to admint that or aren't able to detect the difference.

Funny, in the circles I travel in, most people don't even know that cork taint exists or what TCA smells like. Far more often in my experience, a wine that someone says is bad turns out to reek of TCA when I smell it. Rare in my experience is the person who proclaims a wine corked when it isn't (as far as I can determine). I find that most people can't recognize a wine that's cooked or that's got a serious Brett infection, either.

You'll see ranges quoted here and other place saying that 5-10% are cork tainted and I just don't believe that at all.

I recall a post from the Austrian wine critic Michael Pronay a few years ago about a tasting in Bordeaux, where all the "off" bottles of Bordeaux were subjected to GC analysis for TCA. IIRC, their statistics ran close to 15% of all the bottles being TCA tainted. If your personal experience with corked bottles is lower than the cork industry estimate of 5%, I'd suspect that it's more likely that your personal TCA threshold is on the higher side rather than everyone else being deluded or liars.

Mark Lipton

Mark,

Thanks for the info. That 15% number really surpises me. Of course since it was only Bordeaux (no other wines) it is possible that Bordeaux has higher %'s than other regions. For example (I'm just making this up!!) what if 3 major cork producers with "issues" only sell their corks to Bordeaux chateau?

FWIW, I think Brett is the easiest thing to detect.

I recall a post from the Austrian wine critic Michael Pronay a few years ago about a tasting in Bordeaux, where all the "off" bottles of Bordeaux were subjected to GC analysis for TCA. IIRC, their statistics ran close to 15% of all the bottles being TCA tainted.

The above implies that of the off bottles, 15% were TCA tainted. It does not state either that 15% of all of the wines tasted were "off'" or that all of those were TCA tainted.

If 1000 bottles were tasted and let's say a 100 were found to be off (and that would be a huge percentage) that would translate to 15 bottles being impacted upon by TCA. That in turn means that 1.5% ofthe bottles opened were TCA tainted.

Best
Rogov

Daniel,

Thanks. I clearly read that too quickly. Of course, you are correct.

Tom, you expect us to accept whatever personal statistics you throw out there (although they are, curiously, "estimates", I'll point out)?

Hoke,

With all due respect, calm down and go back and read my post. I did not use the word "dishonest". I did use the word "honest" in my second post but the use of that word doesn't imply that others are dishonest.

I also said that I don't keep accurate records (TNs on every wine) so, no, you should not accept my percentages.

My point was just that I see percentages all over the place that don't match (not even close to) my experience. This may be because of a poor palate on my part or high tolerance to TCA (as I stated). It may also be becasue the %'s often quoted include wines that are bad for other reasons (other than cork). Why is that controversial?

Of course I have no issue with you wanting a more efficient closure method but in my case its not something I worry about. I'm OK with cork.

Why does every discussion on this topic have to get so heated?!?!? Mark made an observation that exactly matches my experience. Why is it that anti-cork mafia gets so offended by these observations? I don't get that.

Tom, I'm perfectly calm. Why do you think I'm upset? And I suggest you go back and read my post.

I also suggest you go back and read your own post. Mark, suggested in his statement that people who favored cork over screwcaps were not "open and honest" in their discussions. You then immediately replied with "Thanks. That is the most fair and honest post on cork tainted wine that I've ever read on this board." Curious, don't you think, that two such strong uses of the word "honest" occurred so quickly, hmm?

Why is what you said controversial? Because you make it controversial. If you'll go back and re-read my post, you'll see that I agreed with the statement that there were different reasons for off wines, and that people misidentified other spoilage or taint as cork taint.

Why do you put figures out there if you don't think they are correct? You're doing no more than what you're accusing other people of doing---and then implying by your comments that what the other people are doing is wrong. Unless, of course, you did not specifically write "I just don't believe that at all." (I went back and re-read you post just to make sure that was correct, by the way.)

And excuse me, but I do get tired of statements and name-calling (like, say, "the anti-cork mafia") in lieu of good, solid argument. Maybe if you didn't resort to name calling, and if Mark didn't suggest that he thought anyone who was against cork closure was close-minded and dishonest (and you leaped to wholeheartedly agree with him, huzzah, huzzah, threads wouldn't get so heated.

The Occhpinti Nero D'Avola I had tonight had a rubber "imitation dripped wax" seal. No one has yet addressed that. Wax may be porous but I doubt rubber is. Is this going to damage the wine in the long term? (Not that I plan on buying this wine and ageing it, I'm just curious.)

I'm all for cork by the way. As the saying goes, "It's better to look good than to feel good."

I believe that capsules (lead) were originally there to protect both the wine and cork from rodents but today they are largely decoration although the counterfeit argument probably is true in some cases.

Agostino, you'll find that this discussion board tends to be in favor of alternative closures (that is, not cork). Myself, I don't believe the high end of most of the estimates that I see about % of wine that is cork tainted but my palate may be terrible and/or I may have a high tolerance for TCA.

Hi Tom. I must say that I too believe as you say in your 2nd para,2nd sentence. I know people who are more sensitive to TCA than I, but I can't believe that the infection rate is anywhere near 5% - 10% of wines. I do freely admit that over the years I have probably poured as many as 50 - 100 bottles down the drain. These were all inexpensive wines. Generally speaking if I paid $20 for it, and it was corked, then it went back. but over say a decade, I have taken back less than 50 bottles. Maybe I just buy too much cheap wine?