2015 Pira Barolo Serralunga uses a DIAM 30.
I didn’t even realize that was an option.
2013 Bouchard CC under DIAM 10
Bibiana is using Diam 5 on her Alma de Cattlaya wines.
is she also using them at Alma de Cattleya? ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Looks like Collio producer Branko is using them in a few wines, as I’ve had DIAM5 in both 2019 Pinot Grigio and Friulano.
I had an interesting experience with DIAM this week - I took part in an online tasting put on by DIAM to show off their different closures and the DIAM5 that was on a 2017 Hugel Pinot Gris was badly corked - at least the top of it that was not touching the wine. I know - you probably think the ‘screw cap guy’ was looking for it, but others noted it as well. When the technical director addressed the issue, he said that this does happen occasionally but since it was not touching the wine, they feel that it was probably due to something after manufacturing and would therefore not refund the purchase, which I thought was interesting. It’s true that the actual wine was not affected, but had I opened that bottle at a restaurant and they handed it to me, I would probably have sent that wine back due to the overwhelming whiff of TCA.
Cheers
How did the DIAM never touch the wine? Was the wine never stored on its side or upside down (or even jostled)? I have always stored wines with DIAM on their side just like I do with wines finished with regular corks. Do others store DIAM wines standing up. Never thought about that before.
I think he means it had the scent on the top of the cork, not the wine-facing end.
I have actually run into that with real corks, where the top stinks of TCA, but then the wine is fine.
Right, I used Diam for a couple of years (switched to Trefinos composite which I was told, and now convinced, is higher quality— the aggregates are larger, thus less binding agent, less crumbling occurrence…). My choice was primarily for the guaranteed OTR (for those not following this acronym, OTR= oxygen transfer rate) because as Jim states, there are guaranteed TCA feee natural corks available now.
By the way, related to a previous comment in this thread, I’m sure the corks will last longer than the 3, 5, 10, and 30 year indicator, but these are premature oxidation guarantee dates by Diam.
This is true for Diam Origine only— I did use these one year. They are much more expensive but sadly, I found that they crumble more easily. I would guess that 99% of Diams you will encounter are NOT Origine (there’s an added honeycomb like icon stamped next to “Diam X”).
The tasting I did had wines stored in Mytek (Roederer Brut Rose), DIAM5 (Hugel Pinot Gris), DIAM5 (Melville 2012 Chardonnay that showed some reduction), a 2017 Vietti Nebbiolo under DIAM10 that has been open 2 days and is just starting to open up, a Gary Farrell Pinot under the Origine10 and the 2018 Domaine de la Mordoree Le Reine Des Bois under a DIAM30 (the wine is hard as nails still after being open 2 days).
Cheers
David, does this mean that Diam somehow warrants against premox to the producer? Curious how this works in the real world for consumers? I may be misunderstanding, but since premox really wasn’t “solved”, I’m surprised that a “cork” producer would warrant against premox in all its permutations. Am I missing something, or not understanding correctly? And as an aside, thanks to you and all the producers who post here. Your comments are truly interesting and educational.
Larry, I don’t want to put you on the spot, but do you agree with the rep’s position that the TCA occurred due to something outside the manufacturing process? That’s a really surprising data point on DIAM closures.
I have opened hundreds of wines under DIAM, and never seen one even close to crumbling.
David…I believe he’s talking about Diam Origine, which are fairly uncommon (wrt crumbling due to origine’s different binding agents). Have you come across any/many bottles closed with Diam Origine (I haven’t, but I haven’t gotten out much lately 
)?
The interesting (imo) issue with trefinos vs diam is the higher or lower % of cork (Trefinos is higher, Diam is lower). Cork retains its elasticity better than any other material…and elasticity is what maintains the cork’s seal with the bottle, hence controlling O2 ingress as it ages.
Thanks— I enjoy sharing what I have learned. So yes, I believe Diam would honor any claim if the closures were found to have a higher oxygen transfer rate than is advertised. (Not exactly sure which independent lab we would turn to, but it should be doable— I have never heard of any winery having an issue with lose Diam closures…). But I should edit my post: when I met with the North American rep. at Oregon Wine Symposium three years ago he indicated that the numbers are OTR guides (not guarantees). I.e., he advised me to consider Diam 10 for wines that are considered cellar worthy for up to 10 years, and Diam 30 for 30 years (and so on). That’s how I remember the conversation : )
Rodrigo,
It’s really a tough situation. There were a number of us on the call that had the same experience with the closure as I did, and that was problematic. I ‘understand’ his position and can see where he’s coming from. And it’s a tough things since the wine itself did not seem to have been adversely affected by the top of the closure.
That said, if I was at a restaurant and this was opened tableside and I smelled the TCA smell as strong as I did, I would probably reject the wine, even if the wine seemed to be okay. And my guess is the restaurant (or wine shop) would return the wine for credit. I would be surprised if DIAM rejected that request, as he mentioned that they would.
Cheers.
Thanks Larry,
I’m sure DIAM wouldn’t reject the request and would readily return credit for the wine. It just seems like the more sensible business decision rather than arguing back and forth with your customer and potentially growing the situation into a bigger issue.
But my comments weren’t around whether DIAM would credit the faulty wine or not, but rather to try to understand how a DIAM cork could be contaminated with TCA and whether it could have been contaminated during the manufacturing process.
This is a rather unique situation. It’s probably close to impossible to conclusively determine where the TCA came from in this instance. This is the first instance I’ve heard about a DIAM closure being contaminated with TCA. So as a layman consumer, it’s a bit concerning and I’m left wondering what was the cause of the TCA; if there was indeed a chance that manufacturing could be a contributing factor in it and if so, is this data point for further cause for concerns when we look at DIAM as a closure alternative to natural cork.
There certainly are ways the DIAM could have been affected after manufacturing. If I remember correctly, these foils did have foil on them, but before adding the foil, if the bottles were in cardboard boxes that were affected by TCA, perhaps there could have been a transfer there. Or if there was something airborne. I am ‘reaching’ here because to me, it seems extremely random that this would happen - and from a producer standpoint, it’s worrisome. From a consumer standpoint, if I smelled the cork, I would return it without a doubt - it would lead me to believe the bottle was affected, even if it did not appear as such upon opening.
Cheers
I’ve also had bottles over the years where the cork had TCA on the top but the wine was sound.
But, it’s difficult to see how this could happen during the manufacturing process with an agglomerated cork processed like DIAM.
-Al