WTN: A rare experience with a corked wine

Newton Red Label Chardonnay 2005 partly from Napa, partly from Sonoma (IIRC 60% / 40%); a massive 15,5% abv.

Today I experienced something that has only happened to me once before: I preferred the corked wine to the correct one.

That seems like such an outrageous thing to say that I should emphasize one point: I am not very sensitive to cork taint and I didn't get overt corked aromas from the flawed bottle (I was told by others around the table that it was corked).

But the differences were strange. As expected, the flawed bottle wasn't as outrageously over-the-top in the fruit department as was the correct bottle (and for me that was a big positive). It also had clearer citrus aromas and therefore seemed more in character with what I expect and hope to see with this grape than the "good" bottle which was all about massive toffee and buttered popcorn aromas.

Strangely, the cork seemed not only to diminish the sensation of fruit, but also of oak and butter - all aromatic components seemed turned down a notch (and since none of these aromatic components really appeal to me, perhaps it is now more understandable why I preferred the flawed bottle - especially as I didn't sense overt corky, musty aromas?). But I thought cork wasn't supposed to affect other aromas than the fruit? Was I wrong?

The palate of the flawed wine was leaner, more precise, with the structure more obvious. It wasn't as sickly sweet. Oddly enough, even with the loss of fruit, the super high alcohol wasn't accentuated - in both bottles, it was amazingly well concealed.

Well, whether very mildly corked or not, I wouldn't go buying this - it's not really a style I enjoy. But it was a strange experience finding the corked one more palatable. For those who like big, obvious, new world Chardonnay, this was IMO a well made example of the style - and I understand this style does have its fans!

Strangely, the cork seemed not only to diminish the sensation of fruit, but also of oak and butter - all aromatic components seemed turned down a notch (and since none of these aromatic components really appeal to me, perhaps it is now more understandable why I preferred the flawed bottle - especially as I didn't sense overt corky, musty aromas?). But I thought cork wasn't supposed to affect other aromas than the fruit? Was I wrong?

Cork taint seems to overwhelm/strip all aromas, not just fruit - as I've come across a few older bottles that would be more about developed flavours than fruit, but were dominated by the TCA mustiness.

It probably occurs a lot more than you think. A “flawed” wine is “faulty” only when the “flaw” makes it “unpleasant” to drink.

Salute

Otto, I would like to ask if you "checked" this wine over a period of time during the event? It is my experience that even a very mildly corked wine will only get worse with airing. It seems to me that while a wine may start still showing some fruit aromas, but a time as short as 30 minutes after opening and pouring, the wine is simply stinky, like (and you have heard it many times) moldy cardboard. Like a damp underground unfinished cellar where cardboard boxes have been stored. If this is not the case, then I might just doubt that the wine was corked in the first place.

Today I experienced something that has only happened to me once before: I preferred the corked wine to the correct one.

So now I'm curious about the previous time.

Bob, the even lasted about an hour and a half. During that period I didn't notice it getting worse - but that isn't a very long time anyway. Some of the tasters are very sensitive to cork so I think they can be trusted when they said it's corked.

Chaim, it was long ago so I can't remember what it was. But it was some super-sized red (maybe a Barossa) where the "good" bottle was just too much for me.