screwcaps=CHEAP

WINE TALK
41

I’m pretty sure they have done exhaustive controlled studies. See To Cork or Not to Cork, a book by the guy who wrote Judgement of Paris, George Taber.

42

Brian,

Interesting data points for sure, and obviously very pertinent for your brand. Were ‘comments’ made about the screwcap vs the cork? Curious to hear.

I remember reading that contrary to your results, Plumpjack would sell out of their reserve cab under screwcap before they would sell out of their cork finish version . . .

Cheers!

43

Here in the US, Plumpjack was one of the first to bottle their high end wines under screwcap, and have bottled their reserve cab under both ScrewCap and Cork since the 1997 vintage IIRC . . .

Cheers

44

Im kind of late on this thread, but to clarify the real reason for Richards demise under his Sanford label, I copied a previous comment on another thread re the Chapter 11:
Poppy, after I posted my remarks, I reviewed one of the links above which in part states: "The main conflict seems to center on the winery’s dedication to organic farming. “The problems became more apparent lately,” Sanford said of the clash over organics. “Some people don’t think it’s a very good investment.”

But Bill Terlato, president and CEO of his family’s wine group, said the issue was quality, not money. Richard Sanford had been managing the vineyards in recent years, Terlato said, and winemaker Bruno D’Alfonso had little control over the grapes. Things came to a head about six months ago when the partners tasted the 2003 Pinot Noir, Terlato said. “We were not happy with the quality of that wine. We decided to declassify all of it. You will not see a bottle of 2003 Sanford Pinot.”

On the topic of screw caps being an issue with Alma Rosas plight, I only recall Richard stating a reverence to doing things right and at the same time, environmentally correct. Ill ask him the next time I see him.

My only issue with screw caps came when I used a cork screw on a wine I had for the first time and punctured the cap not knowing there was no cork. I looked around to see if anyone noticed and have always been on the lookout ever since.

45

wonder when Phillip is going to change his original post to attribute his quote to the right person and to also edit that Sanford is not personally filing for chapter 11

46

The nature of gasseous transfer through a cork over 10-30 years has not been fully elucidated.

Phillip - that assumes that there is transfer through a cork, (wrong) and that all corks are pretty much the same (also wrong). As has been said many times, each cork is different - unlike the glass bottle, the paper label, and the capsule, if any, corks are not “manufactured” to spec. They’re simply punched out of bark.

And of course, as others have stated, there have been a lot of studies over the years. From my perhaps limited experience, the people who object to non-cork closures tend to be those who aren’t regular wine drinkers and those wine drinkers who think there’s something particularly special about cork as a closure. The latter are kind of religious about it so it’s not worth talking, but when I’ve poured for customer events, there’s more curiosity than anything.

Most surprising to me was the reaction to boxed wines. Some of those producers are really smart - claiming they’re “organic” and reducing their carbon footprint and all that, and they’re making an impact.

But I don’t want to derail the conversation. I don’t think that Sanford’s approach - screwcap and/or organic, etc., HAD to be the reason for the failure. If he would have done everything exactly the same but had used cork, it’s not likely there would have been any difference in the outcome. Not every business is going to succeed. I can’t understand how some wineries stay afloat, but they’ve figured out how to ensure there’s more money coming in than going out and that, far more than any gas exchange, is the key.

47

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0706023

48

What’s wrong about it? Aren’t all corks permeable?

49

I thought everything was George Bush’s fault :wink:

50

You can go back to the original AWRI study on closures from the late 90’s to mid 2000’s that discuss trans ox rates in corks vs other closures. Their findings? The amount of trans ox in tin-lined screw caps was very similar to the ‘best’ corks tested during the study. Of course, this does not take into account the oxygen that is stored within the corks at bottling, etc . . .

Hope that helps - or perhaps confuses more folks.

Also, I do not agree with the statement that those who do not like alternatives fall into two basic categories - those who are not regular drinkers and those who are ‘religious’ about corks. I do honestly believe that there is a segment of the ‘learned’ wine community that is waiting for studies to arise that show that wines can age ‘well’ under alternative closures for decades . . .

Of course, the funny thing this all is that so many folks post today about current vintages of Burgundy/Bordeaux/Rhone/Domestic wines that are less than 5 years in the bottle . . . so does it really matter?!?!? [soap.gif]

[stirthepothal.gif]

Cheers! [cheers.gif]

51

Thanks for the book rec. I will definitely check it out.

52

[rofl.gif] [cheers.gif]

53

Sorry Larry,

I can’t agree. I’ve been around wise old French winemakers and wine scientists long enough to know that fine wine is not a science. I am sure that there are differences between cork and non cork closures that we are not aware of. The Burgundian monks developed wine making knowledge over hundreds of years by trial and error and observing the behavior of animals in their vineyards and observing nature. I suspect there is some non scientific reason that corks were selected.

54

Science is observing nature. Systematically, rigorously. What you describe these monks doing is an early form of the scientific method.

Cork was selected for its mechanical properties and its abundant supply in nature. The latter is a non-scientific reason, I suppose, but business concerns always are important. The former most certainly is grounded in science viewed in hindsight. Given that bottle aging is a relatively new phenomena, I doubt that 19th and early 20th century negociants bottling from barrel had anything else in mind other than to seal the smaller bottles cheaply and effectively.

More recent studies have demonstrated that quality corks can actually vary quite widely in terms of the oxygen ingress permitted at the cork-glass interface. Over a few years, it’s not going to be a big difference. Over a decade, a perfect cork and a merely good cork will produce different bottle aged wines. Stelvins are much more consistent.

55

Philip,

I’m confused about what you’re not agreeing with. The AWRI study? You can certainly disagree with the results, but with this form of ‘reasoning’, the ‘debate’ is dead in its tracks.

Folks continue to say ‘show me the research’ and when the research is shown, they either discount it or find holes in it. Well, as Greg pointed out, cork was NOT chosen solely for any purpose other than it formed a great seal and was readily available and cheaper than the alternatives. No one looked at ‘trans ox rates’ and crap like that when bottling their wines ‘back in the day’. It was used because the previous generation had used it, and so on, and so on . . .

Why did the Aussies originally switch to screw caps? According to Tabor’s book and other findings, they were hit with TCA rates well above 20% - and we’re not talking scientific lab results - we’re taking actual wines that were quite detectable. Something had to happen . . . . and if not for them, we would not see ANY changes taking place in cork production in the past decade to try to reduce (no, you cannot eliminate TCA in ‘real’ corks) TCA incidences.

Again, you can disagree with the results of a study done by a leading independent wine research group but without something to back this up with, we really can’t 'discuss this much further. And Philip, I don’t know you and have enjoyed your posts in the past, but a statement like you made TO ME is akin to saying that since Tanzer or Parker or ‘fill in the blank with your favorite reviewer’ gives a wine a 95, it is a ‘great’ wine without you yourself trying it . . .

Cheers.

56

Phil has no use for facts as we’ve seen from his original post being completely wrong and attributing quotes to the wrong people but still won’t change his post. He’s in his own magical world where he knows all the facts and everyone else doesn’t matter

57

Larry,

The only thing I am not agreeing with is that
science will decide the closure issue. I think the only way to resolve the cork vs non cork issue will be an extensive comparative tasting after 20 years in bottle.

I need clarification regarding your comment:
'but a statement like you made TO ME is akin to saying that since Tanzer or Parker or ‘fill in the blank with your favorite reviewer’ gives a wine a 95, it is a ‘great’ wine without you yourself trying it . . ."

I meant no disrepect. I was alluding to my own formation in wine, which was based on living in France for 6 years about 35 years ago . Due to my activities there at that time, I had the privilege of frequent interractions with the top wine experts and chefs.
Philip

58

Philip,

Thanks for your response - and your clarification. It still does not sit well with me, though, for I truly and honestly believe that with most folks, there will continue to be a ‘moving line’ when it comes to alternative closures vs traditional cork. For instance, you say you’d love to do a comparison tasting of wines at 20 years of bottle age. What if, and this is certainly a possibility, that at that tasting, the screw cap wines come out ‘ahead’ (and whatever that means to each person) . . . my guess is that those who are still not ‘in favor’ of alternative closures will say something to the effect of ‘well, let’s try this at 30 years - THAT will be the true test!’.

The first thing wineries need to do is to keep an ‘open mind’ when it comes to closures like screw caps and glass corks - without that, you will NOT be able to do a comparative tasting. And that certainly is another point - how many wineries are willing to bottle wines under both closures? There are a few that do this year in and year out - I’ve mentioned Plumpjack in Napa, who has been doing this since the 97 vintage I believe. I’d love to hear about others.

And Philip, and I do not mean to be disrespectful, I have to believe your conversations with winemakers 3 decades ago will be quite different than they are today with things like premox issues, newer rootstocks, the true effects of ‘global warming’, the use of spinning cones, etc (and yes, these certainly ARE used throughout France), and other changes in our industry since then.

Let’s keep the discussion going - I’m truly all ears.

Cheers!

59

And to clarify my statement - I was commenting about your comment, which I thought was basically disagreeing with a scientific study. You can certainly disagree with the results (though it would be nice to have ‘back up’ to justify your thoughts), but by doing so, to me, you are simply ‘blindly’ moving ahead believing what you want to believe instead of trying to objectively argue against them,.

Convoluted? Sure - but that’s me!!! (-:

Cheers

60

Certainly not ‘scientific’ but here’s a look at an Aussie 2002 Shiraz bottled under both cork and screwcap and tasted recently:

http://blog.jjbuckley.com/2012/08/07/popping-the-cork-on-the-screwcap-debate/

Cheers