Thinking back to my emails with them these were dumped. As in down the drain.
Otherwise we would have seen a bulk producer with 95+ scores by now. The Cailloux scored 100 on the affected release.
Mike,
That’s most likely what was done - or at least what was ‘insinuated’. The fact is that the wines would need to be filtered and that would ‘alter’ them. And as others have pointed out, they most likely would have been blended with other stuff, not bottled on their own.
Cheers
They do. They’re called screwcaps and Vinolok glass stoppers. As long as the B.S. insistence on using cork based on myth, false science and romanticism continues, the chances of this happening will continue. Cork wood itself is a natural substance but there is absolutely nothing natural about a modern wine cork.
I know some wineries have gone to synthetic corks. Not sure if any of those have issues. I’ve definitely seen screw caps but mostly in NZ and Oz.
Isn’t this kind of the cost of doing business when you buy cork. I feel for them but consumers spend money on corked wine every year. 99% of the time the consumer eats the cost. I don’t know of an official “policy” on returning corked wine other than merchant/winery good will. Which is easy on a bottle by bottle basis. Everybody knows cork carries some risk. Who takes it? I did not read the link but read in WS about this…I thought the insurance company was suing. Does not insurance exist to take risk
If the cork maker knows anything about running a business, they should have errors and omissions coverage.
Yes, the article includes the headings of the case, which indicates it is the insurance company that is suing.
You are right about corked bottles, but my experience has been that I always get a refund – assuming that I remember where I bought the bottle! I have had a few Cayuse wines that have been corked. I buy them direct, and have always received a refund when I contact them.
Does that apply to an intangible product such as a cork?
You mean tangible. I make a product and we have it.