by Hoke » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:39 pm
Served this wine to a group of people this week.
It was, quite frankly, disgusting.
Paid $28 at retail...in part because of the reputation of the winery. Yet when I poured it almost all of the 15 people that tasted it---as a prime example of a quality California sparkler---were disappointed. A couple were downright offended by the wine.
General descriptions ranged from "This must be cork tainted!" to "This isn't very good sparkling."
Since I know a sparkling winemaker, and had a second bottle that never got tasted, I took the bottle to him. Even before I said anything (other than an unspecified "Will you take a look at this?) he said, "I bet you had a bad bottle, eh?"
I confirmed that's what happened, and he said he figured out what it might be before we cracked open the bottle.
Turns out, according to my sparkling winemaker acquaintance, that the Schramsberg BDN is a good (or should I say bad?) example of why most sparkling wine isn't put into clear glass bottles. He said that unless the wine is consumed almost immediately, if it is exposed to ultraviolet light---say, in a retail store---for any length of time, the light alters the wine. It's what is known in the trade as "lightstruck". And that's why most champagnes/sparkling wines are not sold in clear bottles.
If you do suffer the lightstruck phenomena, you might think it's cork taint, since it comes across as a similar thing...there's the wet cardboard/chlorine-ish smell, but there's still evident fruit as well. And in extreme examples, there is a definite, pronounced, ugly fungus/mushroom smell, like old withered mushrooms.
So, a word to the wise: watch out for those clear bottles of sparkling. If they've been on the shelves for a while, you might have a lightstruck wine. And that is NOT a good thing.