Zork closures

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:07 am

Anonymous wrote:Well thats fine torb as uve seen 2 can play at that game and infact i luv it.

guest penfolds never had the right cellar until about 94.they wont admit it but you are gullable.

Guest,

You are being completely hyprocital! In one post you ask me to condem people for making it personal and in another you get personal by calling people "gullable."

As I have said before, you are nothing more than a wind up merchant and to make matters worse, dont have the fortitude to even provide a handle, let alone a real name.

Jersey · Post by **Jersey** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:12 am

So...
My bottle Of Platinum Shiraz :lol:

that has a cork, may, may not, get cork taint (as it has a cork), while the guy who got the screw cap version, sorry, stelvin inclosure doesn't have to worry? Kind of a no brainer IMHO.
Fortunately I have only had one cork taint experience, I never bought that wine again, I never will. Everytime I see that particular wine I get that musty mouldy tree barky scent and think mmmm maybe screw caps are the best thing since... well since corks.
I've done my research, I have my conclusion, I love decorking a bottle of wine, I love drinking it more.
Glad too see so many agree, maybe the wine industry will change quicker when they see posts like this that shows a lot of support. We will really reap the benefits in 10-30 years. By the way out of interest. Is the Wolf Platinum the first Ultra Premium to offer stelvin? The only?
BTW I was actually a little disapointed when my Platinum turned up with a cork in it. In the U.S they are very oblivious to the whole cork thing. I was told by many retailors that their customers shy away from the stelvin enclosures as the have a pre concieved notion thwt the wines are inferrior - that is a fact. Probably why I got a cork in my W.B. (I'm in the U.S)
I would have to guess that anyone wishing to change over to Stelvins would have to consider this if in the export market and also they capital to install the new equipment, especially the corporate share holder driven guys who need to justify the pay back.
Cheers
Mick

Wizz · Post by **Wizz** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:15 am

Let it go people, let it go.

AB

KMP · Post by **KMP** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:31 am

Nah, he/she knows so much about Penfold's, cork and screwcaps that I'm sure there will be a comment about RWT going under screwcap from 2004. :wink:

Besides it gives Jersey Mick part of an answer to his question about whether any premium quality wines will be under screwcap.

Mike

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:49 am

I tried samples of the 2004 Penfolds Bin 60A and Block 42 yesterday....both under screwcap and I believe they are offering the choice between ROTE or Cork.....thats what it should be about.....choice.

A couple of good articles on screwcap trials on Bin 389 and thiol accumulation leading to SLO in wines under screwcap in the latest annual technical issue of ANZ Grapegrower & Winemaker if you are into that sort of thing.

Cheers

Dave

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:36 am

Hi Dave

I would be interested in some notes on those two wines, if you get a chance.

Regards Mark

DaveB · Post by **DaveB** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:45 am

Anonymous wrote:Hi Dave

I would be interested in some notes on those two wines, if you get a chance.

Regards Mark

Fairly brief thoughts posted Mark.....still unfinished wines...but both fantastic

Pelican · Post by **Pelican** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:26 pm

markg wrote:I have seen the Zork van zipping around Magill on occassion...

I also sighted the Zork vehicle on a bike ride the other day - it was a very flash looking 4WD ( SUV ). But I have not noticed that many wines yet with them on.

Also I had a weird dream recently where some famous winemakers were having all the TCA tainted corks they'd used shoved up their backsides......dreams can be weird indeed !

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:18 pm

I have a few questions.

Is there a difference between ROTE and Stelvin, or are they the same?

I've heard the evidence that screwcaps will store better than cork, or at least as well with no TCA worry, but do they travel as well? I have most of my wine shipped by air, meaning 5-6 differents carriers (consolidators, truckers, airline, etc.) handle it. No chance of it coming loose?

I'm no fan of cork because my palate is not good enough (too lazy to really work on it) to detect mildly corked wines, so I'm sure I end of drinking a lot of things that are no where as good as they should be. I only pour it donw the sink when it is totally unswallable, just 2 bot last year out of aobut 400.

Regarding cost, a CD attendant (of course it may have been just his opinion and not real knowledge) told me it can save quite a bit of money from quality corks for large operations, but the equipment is expensive so for tiny producers even the best corks inserted by hand are cheaper than screwcaps. For what it's worth.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:19 pm

One more question. Does it take a corkscrew to open a Zork or does it just twist out like a port or sherry stopper? Thanks.

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:01 am

Is there a difference between ROTE and Stelvin, or are they the same?

Stelvin is the major brand name for ROTE. (A bit like get me a Xerox of this document.) ROTE stands for Roll On Tamper Evident.

I've heard the evidence that screwcaps will store better than cork, or at least as well with no TCA worry, but do they travel as well? I have most of my wine shipped by air, meaning 5-6 differents carriers (consolidators, truckers, airline, etc.) handle it. No chance of it coming loose?

No worries about transport; they are very hardy.

I'm no fan of cork because my palate is not good enough (too lazy to really work on it) to detect mildly corked wines, so I'm sure I end of drinking a lot of things that are no where as good as they should be. I only pour it donw the sink when it is totally unswallable, just 2 bot last year out of aobut 400.

My numbers indicate that 7.1% of wine suffers from some cork related failure or other, most TCA but a fair wack of oxidised wine due to cork failure.

One more question. Does it take a corkscrew to open a Zork or does it just twist out like a port or sherry stopper?

No corkscrew required.

707 · Post by **707** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:41 am

Bob wrote:I'm no fan of cork because my palate is not good enough (too lazy to really work on it) to detect mildly corked wines, so I'm sure I end of drinking a lot of things that are no where as good as they should be. I only pour it donw the sink when it is totally unswallable, just 2 bot last year out of abut 400.

Oh Bob, you need to work just a little harder as almost certainly, unless you've been blindingly statistically lucky, you've drunk another 25-30 TCA affected bottles.

TCA has varying degrees from just making a wine appear flat and dull to full blown stink of wet cardboard/dog/hessian/smelly socks. It's the subtely affected ones that are hard to pick unless you know the wine and recognise this bottle is not as good as a previous one.

TCA gets worse with exposure to air so bottles that you might think are flat start to get a bit smelly after an hour or so. Decanters make TCA easier to pick due to the decanting process which involves alot of air.

707 · Post by **707** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:46 am

Bob wrote: Regarding cost, a CD attendant (of course it may have been just his opinion and not real knowledge) told me it can save quite a bit of money from quality corks for large operations, but the equipment is expensive so for tiny producers even the best corks inserted by hand are cheaper than screwcaps. For what it's worth.

Most producers, other than the larger ones, have their bottling done by specialist bottling companies so cost of equipment doesn't come into the equation.

I've found that you can close with cheap corks for less than ROTE but the very best corks might be marginally more. The actual closure cost is really a tiny amount in the scheme of things where good wine is concerned so cost is not a factor. Kepping pristine wine away from an organic product like tree bark is a factor!

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:29 pm

707 wrote:Oh Bob, you need to work just a little harder as almost certainly, unless you've been blindingly statistically lucky, you've drunk another 25-30 TCA affected bottles.

TCA has varying degrees from just making a wine appear flat and dull to full blown stink of wet cardboard/dog/hessian/smelly socks. It's the subtely affected ones that are hard to pick unless you know the wine and recognise this bottle is not as good as a previous one.

TCA gets worse with exposure to air so bottles that you might think are flat start to get a bit smelly after an hour or so. Decanters make TCA easier to pick due to the decanting process which involves alot of air.

Thanks for the comments Steve. I know the statistics, and certainly there have been numerous times when I believed a bottle to be somewhat affected, such as when a very highly praised $50 wine tastes no better than the $6 stuff I buy for cooking wine, or when one bottle tastes absolutely wonderful and then a second bottle of the same tastes totally mediocre just a month later. But then I hesitate to pour that $50 wine down the sink. I'm just too cheap to do that. This is partly because I'm relatively new to premium wines. Although I've been drinking wine regularly for 20 years now, it is only in the past 4 years that I have moved up from the mostly $6-10 range, with an occasional splurge up to $20, to the $20-35 range and splurges at $70.

Also, I don't have that much confidence in my own judgment, so I would't have the nerve to ask my retailer to credit me for 20-30 bottles a year just on my say-so; it certainly is not feasible to send the bad bottles back to Oz. And we're always just drinking with food. It is very common for us to be unimpressed with a wine at first sip only to start liking it much more as the flavors of the food affect our palate, and of course vice versa.

Sometimes if a bottle seems questionable I'll put it aside and open another, but then go back to the first bottle after the alcohol has really put a dent in my taste buds.

The 2 bottles I actually tossed could not possibly have been mistaken as anything fit for human consumption, and I was confident in asking for a credit.

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:40 pm

Anonymous wrote:
My enquiry was based on; in terms of production. I like cork, however it is not an excellent closure.

Cheers
Colin.

What else do you use it for then? If it's not an excellent closure, what is there to like about it?

Kieran

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:51 pm

Kieran wrote:What else do you use it for then? If it's not an excellent closure, what is there to like about it?

Kieran

It makes an excellent trivet on which to place hot pans on the table :oops:

As for the corks from wine bottles, I had a friend who teaches elementary school who asked me for all my corks to use in her class to make Christmas decorations together with pine cones

I started giving them to her in January and she told me to cease and desist arount April, as her supply of corks was exceeding her supply of pine cones :wink:

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:09 pm

Sorry Ric, I forgot to thank you for all those answers. Much appreciated.

vinum · Post by **vinum** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:09 pm

Kieran wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My enquiry was based on; in terms of production. I like cork, however it is not an excellent closure.

Cheers
Colin.

What else do you use it for then? If it's not an excellent closure, what is there to like about it?

Kieran

Kieran,

just because cork is not technically an excellent closure (with fear of causing greater contention - there is currently no closure which is excellent), does not prevent me from liking it nor using it on our wines. There are numerous factors associated with the use of cork, and for our situation the balance currently sits on the bark side of the fence - for many small producers, its not just as easy as saying I like ROTE, I'll use it.

There are many a rhetoric arguement for either closure. I feel that both have merits, I do not personally see a point in casting aspertions about either closure in preference for the other. Hopefully that answers your questions.

Cheers
Colin.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:21 pm

better quility cork is the best answer for the moment

Gary W · Post by **Gary W** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:35 pm

Anonymous wrote:better quility cork is the best answer for the moment

I agree. Better quality cork ensures a far better quality of cork taint. I only want the best for my bottles.

GW

707 · Post by **707** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:54 pm

I'm still laughing Gary, bloody funny comment

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:16 pm

Gary W wrote:
Anonymous wrote:better quility cork is the best answer for the moment

I agree. Better quality cork ensures a far better quality of cork taint. I only want the best for my bottles.

GW

Gary,

That qualifies you as a wine snob!

What about the rest of us poor unfortunate mortals that can only afford common or garden cork taint? :shock:

Why should you get the "A" grade taint and we get the rejected taint.

DaveB · Post by **DaveB** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:52 pm

Gary W wrote:
Anonymous wrote:better quility cork is the best answer for the moment

I agree. Better quality cork ensures a far better quality of cork taint. I only want the best for my bottles.

GW

Haha....you are a nutcase Walsh

Dave

scon · Post by **scon** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:26 pm

Anonymous wrote:No i just luv debating with people who are so one eyed.Sometimes i even agree with you people even when i seem on the other side i just do it so you all spill your side of the argument.You see i gain alot of knowledge when people sing like an opera singer.

Im sure Torb you will agree that getting personal is not appropriate!!!Cmon Torb show your maturity and Condem it.

I believe the term is called 'trolling'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Which makes you a Troll.

scon · Post by **scon** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:30 pm

Whoops...

Note to self... check second page to see if conversation has moved on before replying to post in first page.