Corked is corked. Those sensitive to TCA detect it right away. Just as in a red. But I was unsuspecting.
Maybe harder to detect. But, for most people anyway, it tends to be drunk for celebrations when less attention is paid to the wine quality. And unless detailed records are kept, it is easy to get a false impression of the proportion of bottles affected.
Over 20 years or so I have had a few corked Champagnes, but drink a lot less of it than other wine, so I think the rate is about the same.
The very first line of your initial post Merrill was my reaction to coming across my first corked bottle of spirits, working in wine retail; an Armagnac as it happened. Goodness knows why but I had never registered the possibility of corked spirits until a customer came back, puzzled about a bottle that was not at all the Armagnac that he remembered from a couple of previous bottles. One sniff was enough to spot the marked TCA so I replaced it and the importer credited the bottle. I’ve never had another corked bottle of spirits since.
I’ve encountered a few corked sparkling wines in my short wine drinking career, funnily enough they have all been Champagne…Most of the time it was pretty faint and not everyone tasting was sure it was corked. I can’t think of any reason that sparkling wines would experience less TCA taint than still wines though.
I’ve had plenty of corked Champagne, but I agree that “corked” Champagne is much less common than in still wines. I have no idea whether the reason (as proposed above) is that the TCA is harder to detect, or whether the TCA levels might actually be “held back” in some way by the carbonation, or whether there’s something about the corks used in Champagne that just have a lower incidence of cork rate. Based on my own personal experience, I would have to estimate that the rate of detectible TCA-taint in Champagne is something like 1/5 to 1/10 the rate of TCA taint in still red and white wines.
Wonder how many champagnes the wine spectator tastes on an annual basis? Since they always report their number of corked wines, I wonder if they would mind sharing the rate on champagne and sparkling wines as well?
Only thing worse than corked sparkling is corked Vodka in terms of the pungency of aroma.
They’re typically glued from several pieces, no? I wonder if that isn’t the reason TCA is less common.
Think about the fact that they never seep, even though the wine is under pressure. They’re a quite different kind of cork.
I believe that the TCA threshold for sparkling wines is actually lower than it is in still wines, at least according to the gurus at ETS Labs in Napa. Which sort of makes sense, the CO2 volatilizes the TCA.
Either most of the people posting in this thread are extremely lucky or I’m extremely unlucky. My experience is that the rate of corked Champagne is less than that of still whites or rates, but not that much less. I open several hundred bottles of Champagne a year and I would say around 2% or 3% are corked.
I have not opened several hundred, but I would bet I have opened at least a hundred this year (by end of year). Maybe I’ll get another one, but this was my very first. So, I guess I fall into your “extremely lucky” group. May it continue.
It is also possible that the fact that the wine is stored under pressure could work against whatever process makes the wine corked. Just speculation, but it is true that the incidence of corked bubbles is a fraction of that for still wines (in this house anyway)
I recall having conversations with a few Chef de Caves in Champagne sometime in the mid-2000s about the corked bottle rate in Champagne and I was told that they had done studies and/or had data showing that it was less than in still wines. This is a broad generalization of all Champagne vs. all still wines (not sure which wines were included in the experiment). I don’t recall the exact numbers, but I think Champagne was in the 3-4% range while still wines were 6-8% (I’m going off of memory). When I asked why, the reason I was given was that Champagne corks tended to go through a more rigorous quality inspection process due to the fact that they were made from multiple pieces of cork and because the average price of a Champagne was higher than the average price of a still wine. It was stated that lots of still wine producers also went through more rigorous quality control, but they were comparing themselves to the overall market and not only a selection of producers or certain wines. My feeling is that if you were to compare Champagnes and still wines that went through similar quality control methods for the corks, I would expect the ‘corked’ rate to be similar.
It is also important to note that a lot of people tend to call any damaged Champagne corked and I seem to recall some type of study or experiment where the number of declared corked Champagnes was closer to 6%, but, after actually checking for TCA, the rate was closer to 3% with other flaws (mechanical cork failure, improper storage, light damage, etc…) being called ‘corked’ when they weren’t.
Today, I think you also need to include the fact that there is quite a bit of Champagne that is closed with a Mytik or Mytik-like closure and that also helps bring down the overall percentage of corked incidents.
My personal experience of corked Champagne is very similar to Ray’s. I am right around 2%, but I also have a higher threshold for TCA. From friends who are much more sensitive to it, they seem to be closer to 4%.
Last year I opened a heavily corked (old wet cardboard smell) 2002 Taittinger Comtes at a BYOB friendly restaurant. Fortunately I had a white burg backup. Took it home and next day steam cooked a bag of Costco clams with it. I could not detect the ‘corked’ smell in the finished clams, thus it made a nice broth with EVOO, herbs and a bit of butter. Seems the TCA is not heat stable and worth trying again with a precious bottle that would otherwise be dumped.
Bud
You can substitute still wines and the same continues to be true. Also remember that the general wine consumer does not know what TCA idand therefore the real % is probably higher . . .
If each Champagne cork was made from multiple different cork sources without any additional screening or treatment, it would increase the risk of TCA affecting a bottle. I wonder what kind of quality control checks are done to “sniff out” the ones with TCA.
All champagne corks are made up of cork granules and discs that get treated. Granules (which make up the bodies of the cork) get eradicated of tca and discs if have tca at a high level get “reduced” or if they have low levels get eradicated because you cannot eradicate high levels of tca in discs without having deformation of the disc.
I am 100% sure that sparkling wine corks have less incidence of tca affected taint than traditional wine corks for this reason.
Thank you for your input. Is this protocol just with your company or with all cork companies? And when did this protocol become standard operating procedure?
Cheers.
All companies since mid 2000’s
Thanks Dustin. Makes sense that Champagne would have a lower TCA contamination rate if the corks are made from material treated to reduce or eliminate it.