The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

"Light Struck" Wines: More prevalent now?

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Hoke

Rank

Achieving Wine Immortality

Posts

11420

Joined

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am

Location

Portland, OR

"Light Struck" Wines: More prevalent now?

by Hoke » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:02 pm

Now that more and more wines are being offered/marketed in clear glass bottles, I wonder how many people are getting wines that are "light struck", that is affected by sunlight exposure?

And I wonder how many people are getting light struck wines without realizing what the problem is...or if there IS a problem?

For those wondering what the heck I'm talking about, wines exposed to light can deteriorate rather quickly and show a rather stale, flat, funky character. Delicate wines, such as the lighter-bodied whites and sparkling wines in clear bottles, are particularly prone to this phenomenon. I think perhaps some light struck wines might be mistaken as cork-tainted---and although I'm no fan of cork closures, I don't want them getting blamed for something they don't cause.

So.....any light struck wines come across your palate recently?
no avatar
User

Mark Lipton

Rank

Oenochemist

Posts

4338

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:18 pm

Location

Indiana

Re: "Light Struck" Wines: More prevalent now?

by Mark Lipton » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:26 pm

Hoke wrote:So.....any light struck wines come across your palate recently?


Not that I've noticed (don't see too many clear bottles, either). A related anecdote: long ago when I was in grad school, I was taking a cross-country flight back to SF. I normally do everything possible to discourage my neighboring passengers from engaging me in conversation, but on this occasion I somehow got roped into one with the man sitting next to me. It turned out that he was a salesman for a large chemical supply house and was thrilled that I was a chemist. In short order, he'd asked me to guess who his best customer was for the chemical sodium borohydride. When I protested ignorance, he told me that it was the Miller Brewing Company (!!) As he reminded me, Miller was sold in clear bottles. Beer in clear bottles rapidly turns "skunky" when it is light struck, so Miller treated their beer with sodium borohydride to chemically react with the offending molecules to prevent that reaction from occurring. When I mentioned that that would produce boric acid, which we in NYC used to kill cockroaches, he just shrugged his shoulders. I've never drunk a Miller beer since. :lol:

Mark Lipton
no avatar
User

Hoke

Rank

Achieving Wine Immortality

Posts

11420

Joined

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am

Location

Portland, OR

Re: "Light Struck" Wines: More prevalent now?

by Hoke » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:15 pm

So that's the piquant je ne sais quois of Miller. makes a lot more sense now. :wink:

I asked the question orginally, Mark, because not too long ago I had a light struck bottle of Schramsberg. Skunkyfunky stuff; really horrible. And that stuff doesn't come cheap either!

With most sparklers you don't know how old they are and how long they may have been sitting on that retailer's shelf, soaking up the rays.

I'd be worried about the phenom....but I guess neither Schramsberg nor Miller are.
no avatar
User

Howie Hart

Rank

The Hart of Buffalo

Posts

6389

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:13 pm

Location

Niagara Falls, NY

Re: "Light Struck" Wines: More prevalent now?

by Howie Hart » Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:34 pm

I've always considered the light source. Even in a store that doesn't have windows, light from fluorescent fixtures can be harmful, whereas incandescent poses no problem. Fluorescent light can fade photographs.
Chico - Hey! This Bottle is empty!
Groucho - That's because it's dry Champagne.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, Apple Bot, ByteSpider, ClaudeBot and 7 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign